Skip to main content

The Charles Koch Foundation may want to check their numbers again

The Charles Koch Foundation doesn't appear to be very good with numbers, which is kind of odd considering Charles Koch is estimated to be worth $34 billion.

In a recent ad by Koch's conservative non-profit group, it asserts that if you make $34,000 or more, you're in the top 1% of earners (worldwide).

In the United States, where Mr. Koch resides last I heard, one must earn approximately $352,000 annually in order to be among the top 1%. $34,000, $352,000 - those numbers are so similar, I may have to re-watch the film Twins to make certain Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito are not identical.

In actuality, $34,000 is just 9.7% of what it takes to make it into the top 1% of earners in this country. Making matters even worse for the Charles Koch Foundation and their odd math is the fact that the top 1% of earners in this country earn an average of $1.12 million. The $34,000 mentioned in the ad is just 3.0% of $1.12 million.

How far off are the numbers presented in the ad? If we take a similar formula to the one concocted in the ad ($34,000 = 9.7% of $352,000), the following would be true:

- The United States would be comprised of 4.85 states.

- The U.S. would have seen only 4.268 presidents in office.

- A Major League baseball team's starting lineup (including pitcher or designated hitter) would present 0.87 of a player.

- Rush Limbaugh would have been married only 0.388 times.

- Charles Koch would be worth just $3.298 billion.

Yeah, the Charles Koch Foundation claims that you're in the top 1% if you make $34,000, yet if we take just 9.7% of Charles Koch's net worth of $34 billion ($3.298 billion), that would be the equivalent of 97,000 families whom make $34,000 a year (1,000,000 families if we take Koch's total net worth). Yeah, the Charles Koch Foundation may want to check their numbers again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/koch-brothers-commercial_n_3581017.html

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/economy/top-1-percent/index.html

http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...