Janie: Sometimes I state things in an exagerated way to get a response or to draw attenion to something somebody said that I think is totally wrong or in conflict with other satements they have made. Like Exxon did it or Boss Hogg did it. Nobody here is dumb but I think they sometimes look for something to blame things on and they choose the wrong things.

Bobert: Per capita is the income of everybody down to age 15 divided every man woman and child down to newborns.

That means a family of four would get $132 K +- if everybody in the US got an equal share of the total income. That makes the task a little easier.

But I am really interested in what you come up with. I think it basically depends on what you consider a living wage.

Keep in mind that the dollar value of wealth is built on a lot of inflated things like artwork or real estate. Some joker pays 32 million for a picture of a soup can but his 32 million can turn into fire wood if there are suddenly no people left that can blow 32 mil on a soup can picture. Or somebody buys a house for 100 thousand and ten years later it is "worth" 300 thousand so their wealth is that much higher unless hard times hit and houses get hard to sell.

Even if you focus on income rather than wealth, things can loose value if people are unable to make payments on thier expensive things or have to cash out thier financial investments to get by.

So all of these income adjustments have to be done so as not to upset markets or it is like pulling the bottom card out of the house of cards. Drop someone's income drastically and it starts up a chain reaction, even for a corporation.

Like Hillary say we should "take" the income from Exxon and spend it here or there. 70% of Exxon's income comes from foreign operations. Why would they stay in the US while Hillary grabs their profits?

Would you live somewhere that taxes you a lot more than somewhere else or would you move?