1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Not all that glitters is gold

Comparing Finances: Batman and Spider-Man

File under: somebody did this. H&R Block went straight for our nerd buttons by creating this infographic comparing the tax liability, income, and lifestyles of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker. Probably the most interesting part for us? Despite his vast wealth, it would take Bruce Wayne almost twenty years to earn as much money as the Batman movie franchise has.

But it would take Peter Parker nearly fifty millennia to do the same for Spider-Man.

(via H&R Block.)

TAGS: | |

  • Anonymous

    NICE!! This is too good!

  • Mike Perry

    My personal favorite fact: Bruce Wayne would owe NO taxes, while Peter owes a good $6K+. To be fair to Bruce, tho, he IS giving nearly twice what he keeps.

  • TKS

    This is the coolest thing I’ve seen in a long time.  TO THE FACEBOOK!

  • Philip Hanan

    I am really starting to hate Batman all of the sudden.

  • Brianna Sheldon

    He’s probably giving out way more than he’d be paying in taxes, and it’s going directly to the people he wants to help, so I think that definitely makes up for taxes.

  • Brianna Sheldon


  • Brian

    I’m not buying Wayne’s salary. According to this, he makes only 20% or so more than Alfred does for being his butler, and significantly less than Alfred makes overall. Even if the estate management stuff comes from the Wayne Foundation, the butlering would have to come right from Bruce, right? I also don’t believe Spider-Man wears anything with a brand name, regardless of how cheap it is.

  • Kevin Waterman

    Check the zeroes there. Wayne makes $102 million per year, not counting capital gains earnings. Alfred makes $230,000 combined from being a butler and an estate manager. He is making 0.2% of what Wayne earns. 

  • Mr. Minion

    I disagree. Charitable giving to some pet projects or to research against some illness that is fashionable at the moment is in no way enough to compensate the strain this kind of tax model puts on society.
    Taxes pay for schools, roads, a working medical infrastructure, cultural institutions, firefighters and law enforcement, defense, basic research and a million things more. These things benefit society far more than a group of billionaires that can make themselves feel good by giving a pittance of their earnings away at a charity dinner.

  • Brianna Sheldon

    In Batman’s case, though, it’s not just going to fashionable things (and plenty of million/billionaires don’t just donate to fashionable things), and he still is paying taxes in property taxes, school taxes (neither of which are removed by charitable giving on local levels), and sales taxes. 

  • TKS

     Also, $50,000 as a freelance photographer?  Dude, JJJ pays extremely well for a small newspaper editor.

  • Mr. Minion

    You’re right. Most billionaires don’t donate at all or just enough to max out the limit that you can deduce from your taxes. It has the double benefit of reducing your already low tax rates (most rich people get their money from investing the money they have, and the returns on those are much lower taxed than payroll) and getting the reputation of a “philanthrope” for being so “generous”.
    As for property and school taxes, those are local taxes that help to enforce a disparity in school funding. An affluent neighbourhood with a lower population density (bigger properties, gardens, etc.) will have much more money to spend per student than a middle class or even urban city school. The result is a growing disparity in school quality and a lower social mobility for a child.
    The fact is that a higher tax revenue helps for maintaining a level of education, public safety and life quality which ultimately benefit everyone, including the rich. You can’t make up for that by charitable donations which have a much smaller impact and don’t help on a systemic level.

  • Duck Linsenmayer

    a few facts: the effective tax rate on the median income in 2011 was 23%. The effective tax on billionaires was 7%. And second, the vast majority of ‘chairtable deductions’ never reach charity. for example, Mitt Romney gave $4 million to the mormon church. which then gave it right back to him, as part of his super pAC.

  • Duck Linsenmayer

    the big issue however is not charitable giving, although that is a very large issue. ( ALEC- a lobbyist group- is technichaly a charity) . Its that capital gains income is taxed at a much lower rate then regular income, and that many form sof income available to the .01% arent even taxable at all.