America touts itself as an egalitarian society. But the way we reward people suggests that while everyone has an equal chance to get rich, only about five people can make more than a billion in a year. The way these five people get there reveals what our society most values -- the ability to help people with huge amounts of money get much richer as quickly and consistently as possible.

Wednesday's New York Times listed those five most valuable players. Here are our society's biggest winners, where they work, how much they made in 2007, and how they won:

• John Paulson (Paulson & Co.) -- 2007 earnings: $3.7 billion. Beginning in 2005, Paulson made huge bets on the decline in value of securities backed by subprime mortgages
• George Soros (Soros Fund Management) -- 2007 earnings: $2.9 billion. Soros' $17 billion flagship Quantum Endowment fund racked up a 31.7% return in 2007, its best annual showing since the high-tech implosion at the start of this decade. Soros' $2.9 billion payday comes almost entirely from his personal stake in the fund (which he no longer manages). I don't know how he made that 31.7% return.
• James Simons (Renaissance Technology) -- 2007 earnings: $2.8 billion. Simons, a mathematician and former Defense Department code breaker, uses complex computer models to trade.

The New York Times reports that in 2007, the median family made less -- $60,500 -- than it did in 2000 -- $61,000. Meanwhile, that family's costs have spiked -- oil is up 342%; wheat, milk, and egg prices have doubled or tripled. And the dollar has lost 65% of its purchasing power. But no worries -- hedge funds are making out well. DealBook reports that John Paulson, who famously profited from selling subprime short last year, made $3 billion in 2007. I don't know how much he made in 2000, but I'd bet that he's better off now than he was then.

Newsweek reports that people like Paulson are part of a new Superclass that's prospered in the last seven years. The Superclass is a group of a few thousand government and business people who control most of the world. How many and how much? Newsweek notes: "The top 50 control almost $50 trillion in assets. The heads of the world's biggest corporations are also members; the top 2,000 support perhaps 500 million people, generate almost $30 trillion in sales and have well over $100 trillion in assets."

Thanks to tax cuts passed in 2001, Paulson probably paid a lower tax rate on his $3 billion than the median American paid on his or her $60,500. Specifically, Paulson could have paid 15%, the long-term capital gains rate, on his income from shorting subprime. The median family paid a 25% rate on its income. That capital gains rate was 20% in 1997 so Paulson may have paid $150 million less in taxes thanks to that 15% rate. But the most interesting part is how Paulson profited.

Today's New York Times is buzzing with outrage over rising CEO pay. It trots out the usual suspects -- I'll call them pay ragers -- to rail against public company CEOs who get paid more and more each year regardless of company performance. But despite years of outrage, these self-styled pay ragers backed, in part, by union pension funds are not getting the results they seek. And due to their lack of political clout, their outrage is likely to persist.

The problem seems to be that CEO compensation is going up because performance-based compensation is not a big enough part of the total. As a result, even though performance-based compensation goes down, total compensation rises because the bonuses given at the board's discretion are bigger than the ones linked to performance. In 2007, average compensation for CEOs who had held the job at least two years rose 5% to $11.2 million. To be sure, performance-based bonuses were down in 2007, but the value and prevalence of discretionary bonuses rose.

It seems that pay ragers want CEOs to make less money if their companies don't perform. The Times quotes a Calpers portfolio manager who said, "We're not against pay. But we are certainly against pay for failure, or for just showing up." But it's more than that. In an election year, shareholder activists are hoping to tap into a deep vein of populist sentiment to enact policies that will narrow the pay gap between CEOs and their workers.

While he should be commended for opening up his tax records, Democratic Presidential front-runner Barack Obama and wife Michelle should be embarrassed at the negligible amount of money donated to charity. According to a report in Bloomberg.com, " Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign."

To be fair to them they did up their giving a bit in '05-'06 after they cashed in on his book. Interesting to note that in that 2-year span they brought in $2.6 million. $2.6 million later and Michelle is still not proud to be an American. Humm???

For someone who believes that we need to change society and make things better, he sure sets a lousy example. After all, I thought he is all about giving back to the community. Well the community can't do very much with a couple of bucks.

Once again we find the hypocrisy of politicians. They know best how to make society better, and they have no problem taxing us to pay for it. But when it comes time for the politician to open up his own wallet, suddenly some excuse arises and they are unable to do so. Isn't that called a double standard?

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 3/25/08.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says those aspiring to be rich need to find the stocks that can win now, and in any environment.

Everything's great over the long term ... if you are really rich!

I am thinking that because of the pleasing words I always hear from really rich people on TV: really rich money managers and investors and analysts.

And it's true. When you are really rich things are great. When you are really rich you can go invest in those really good municipal bonds that yield more than treasuries, the ones that you have to buy in $500,000 increments typically, although maybe $100,000 will get you in. When you are really rich who the heck cares if you sit in cash for the next 18 months. Doesn't hurt you.

When you are really rich it is great to have cash and watch real estate go down to prices that are reasonable or be able to go to a bank and say "what do you have in foreclosure?"

"SEXY." The capital letters blared at me from the window of Victoria's Secret in Pioneer Place here in Portland. Next to the clean lovely windows of the Apple store, I felt I almost had to shield my eyes, to protect me from the glare. The mannequin dressed in a red bustier seemed more Elvira than Rebecca Romijn, the sweet face of Victoria's Secret when I was a loyal customer in my early 20s.

I'm not the only one turned off by the company's recent focus on sexy above all else. In rather shocking statements during this morning's Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD) analyst call, Victoria's Secret CEO Sharen Turney said the company has "gotten too much off our heritage" and was "too sexy," no longer the ideal "ultra-feminine."

With black lacquer and shocking pink decor, the "s" word thrown around like neon signs in a red-light district, and rather unsubtle displays, this isn't my mother's Victoria's Secret.

Shares of Sharper Image (NASDAQ: SHRP) are set to open down more than 60% following the company's announcement that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The press release was terse, adding that the company will "continue to conduct business as usual while it devotes renewed efforts to resolve its operational and liquidity problems and develops a reorganization plan."

Just last week the company announced that it had hired a "turnaround expert" as CEO, but apparently it was too late to salvage anything for the company's stockholders.

Back in October, shares of Sharper Image surged more than 45% in 1 day after 6 executives bought a total of $400 thousand worth of stock. The lesson for investors is clear: when insider buying is clearly done to try to send a message that the company's insiders are confident, don't buy the hope. Look for sustained, meaningful buying, not publicity stunts if you're going to invest based on what the insiders are doing.

In the bankruptcy filing, Sharper Image claimed $251.5 million in assets and $199 million in debt, with cash on hand of just $700,000.

With snickers and a wink and nod they gave that man first chair.
They set him in it like a king, "We hope you like it there."

A million two per quarter pay, perhaps a million eight.
"He's worth the price", they grinned and laughed. "We know he'll pull his weight."

In three short years he wrecked the place and drove it to the ground.
Those jobs were lost, no R&D, no market share was found.

Shareholders screamed, "Just can the rat! We've had all we can take!"
They failed to see the crony game and credentials that were fake.

So Congress said, "We'll check this out, and try to quell the noise."
All the while they smugly smirked, "We got yer back, my boys."

So when the shares did plummet fast, and plummet oh they did,
the board room finally acquiesced and let go of the kid.

His last bold move was to dig deep and grab a hundred million.
If he could have gotten 'way with it, he'd have taken half a billion.

The same old song, the same old dance,
the same pony and pup.

Excuse me please 'cause I must go drop coins in Wall Street's cup.

2008 G.E. Sattler

It seems like everybody loves to whine about how much CEOs earn, especially when they bank after screwing up big time. Some recent examples include E*Trade (NASDAQ: ETFC)'s Mitchell Caplan securing $11 million, Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC)'s Angelo Mozilo corralling $110 million, Citigroup (NYSE: C)'s Chuck Prince snagging $140 million and Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER)'s Stanley O'Neal pocketing a cool $161 million. Boo hoo, what about the poor shareholders?

Forget the shareholders, I say more power to these CEOs! That's right, quit your whining and accept it -- Wall Street is all about taking as much as you can, there's no compassion involved and anybody who thinks differently is in for a big surprise.

Maybe you should be congratulating these executives on their ability to get to the top and get paid for their efforts. So what if their stocks drop and all their plans go up in flames -- why shouldn't they be compensated for all their hard work and the sacrifices they've made over the years? Over the past two decades, you lazy buy-and-hold shareholders have been spoiled with excess returns, and now that you're losing, you're angry that not everyone is down in the pits with you.

NBC, a division of General Electric (NYSE: GE), is under fire from John Hockenberry, a former correspondent for the news magazine Dateline NBC. In his lengthy rant in MIT's Technology Review, Hockenberry talks about how the network declined to do some heavy-duty reporting on al Qaeda, and instead sent him off to do feel-good stories about firefighters, a pattern of ignoring real news that he claims was routine at NBC.

Hockenberry tells the story of a video montage from Baghdad, showing pictures of real people who had been affected by bombs and war. The story never made it to the air, and he wonders if it was because the footage may have promoted an idea (war is bad) that conflicted with the message NBC was sending at the time.

He details several disappointments with NBC. Hockenberry says he and others worked on finding ways to enhance journalism with the help of the internet. NBC did not really act on any of the ideas, instead focusing on programming that got high ratings, such as the To Catch a Predator shows in which pedophiles are caught trolling the internet for new victims and meeting up with them in secret.

The New York Times reports that getting wealthy all of a sudden can be a problem. But of all the problems one could face, I think it's a pretty high class one.

Here are three examples:

• Ken Jennings won $2.5 million ($1.5 million after taxes) -- after prevailing in 74 consecutive Jeopardy games. He moved into a bigger house in Seattle and now designs board games.
• Laurel Touby sold website MediaBistro for $26 million and found that her $11 million share was not enough to afford a private jet.
• Elwood Bartlett, a Maryland accountant, won $84 million in a lottery last summer -- $33 million after taxes. He gave away $200,000 to the Special Olympics but gets lots of requests for more charity.

One financial adviser recommends they splurge with 5% to 10% of the money. Jennings' Advice? "put your money somewhere not idiotic and leave it alone as much as possible."

What do you think these sudden wealth winners should do?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Look no further for the biggest Money Winner of the year ... why, it's Apple's (NASDAQ: AAPL) Steve Jobs of course, recently named the number-one most powerful businessperson by Fortune magazine. Take that, Mr. Gates!

In 2007, the man with the scruffy facial hair and the omnipresent black turtleneck celebrated the 30th year of Apple, which was incorporated in 1977, and his tenth year since returning to the firm after a hiatus of nearly ten years. It was a banner year for multiple reasons including, but not limited to:

• The changing of the corporate name from "Apple Computer" to "Apple Inc.," a better reflection on the company's broad-based business.
• The launch of Apple TV, which can play video content downloaded from a computer onto a television. AAPL is expected to be able to unload between 1 million and 1.5 million devices during its first year of release. The 40 GB version currently retails at $299; the 160 GB is $399.
• The wildly successful unveiling of the iPhone, which saw surging demand despite an initial price tag of nearly $600. Time magazine named the device the "Invention of the Year" and sales topped even the most aggressive estimates.
• The debut of Leopard, a new operating system for Mac.

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office has a pretty startling finding: From 2003 to 2005, the income growth of the top 1% of American income earners exceeded, by 37%, the total earnings of the bottom 20%.

It sounds bad -- it is, after all, about as compelling evidence as you'll find of increasing income inequality. The lowest-earning fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while the richest 1% saw their earnings increase by $524.8 billion.

One factor was the appreciation in the stock market over that period, with about half of the earnings growth of the top1% coming from investments and business ventures.

Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute told the New York Times that "A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all. It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone."

This is bad news for the Republicans, who are facing pretty long odds at maintaining control of the White House. While they can point to economic growth over the past few years, the reality is that working-class Americans saw an increase in their income that is barely significant -- Wealthy Americans cleaned up.

The actual importance of income inequality is a debate that has no end in sight: Does the fact that rich Americans saw their earnings increase a lot really have anything to do with the lowest 20% of income-earners? It doesn't matter because it still make for great election-year rhetoric.

In 2005, hip-hop star 50 Cent (née Curtis Jackson) appeared in a loosely autobiographical film, Get Rich or Die Tryin'. Two years prior, the Eminem protégé had released his debut album of the same name. The album was a critical and commercial success; the same can't be said for the movie. Either way, while nine bullets legendarily attempted to fell Jackson in his youth, it's safe to say 50 has achieved his goal of impressive wealth. In September, "Fiddy" appeared second on Forbes list of "Hip-Hop Cash Kings," banking $32 million in 2006 alone.

In May 2007, Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) purchased a little company called Glaceau, which makes Vitaminwater. The soft-drink giant's $4.2 billion cash and stock purchase translated into a payout of $400 million for 50 Cent, who held a sizable stake in the brand (his estimated profit after taxes was around $100 million). Other 50 Cent projects include the G-Unit record label, a clothing line, a sneaker line through the Reebok brand, ring tones, and video games -- to name only a few.

Rachael Ray went from scraping together the rent as a candy counter girl to a multi-millionaire with her own talk show, cooking show(s), magazine, and books that have sold more than 4 million copies. She's also spawned a lingo all her own. (EVOO for Extra Virgin Olive Oil has entered the popular vernacular). All this in a little under ten years.

How cool is that?

Love her or hate her, Rachael Ray, she of the perky smile and Girl-next-door demeanor, gets major points for translating her love of cooking into a multi-million media empire. People can't seem to get enough of her "regular gal" persona. But her bubbly personality masks some serious business savvy.

Using her mentor Oprah Winfrey as a blueprint, Ray has expanded out of the kitchen this year into many other avenues. Her one-hour daytime talk show, The Rachel Ray Show, is patterned after the perennially popular Oprah Winfrey Show, and was the only syndicated daytime talk show launched in 2007 to be renewed. Her Food Network shows continue to be among the most popular on the channel.

She also cooked up some lucrative endorsement deals with name brands such as Dunkin Donuts and Nabisco -- now owned by Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT). These media venues help feed her magazine (Every Day with Rachel Ray) and cookbook sales.

These are like the cherry on top of the $16 million Ray took home this year, according to Forbes magazine. By some estimates, Ray's net worth is touching $100 million, but that's hard to verify. One thing's for sure, this gal doesn't need to get out of the kitchen; she's proving that she can stand the heat.

Be sure to check out more Money Winners of 2007.