The Rich actually are getting Richer...

[Chizzang]

What seems like an obvious statement: but apparently not so obvious to all

Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%

Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%

Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%

Top 5% (a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/are-t ... /19356546/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9qih5z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

And when has an increasing wealth gap eve led to anything good?

Thank you Reaganomics.

[Chizzang]

And when has an increasing wealth gap eve led to anything good?

Thank you Reaganomics.

I don't really care - as all of this is out of my control
But I always find it funny when we're told over and over again how America over taxes the wealthy and the burden on the wealthy is too much...

[free7694]

Of course the rich are getting richer. If they're smart (which many of them are), they keep doing the things that got them rich in the first place.

[Hansel]

and the poor are getting lazier

[dbackjon]

No, the poor are not getting lazier. Reagonomics are turning the country third world.

[kalm]

and the poor are getting lazier

There have always been rich greedy bastards and there have always been poor lazy bastards. The trick is keeping both group's numbers as small as possible. The rich have never had it better than right now in regards to overall wealth and low taxes. Why are the boats of the working poor and the middle class not rising with that tide?

[BDKJMU]

What seems like an obvious statement: but apparently not so obvious to all

Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%

Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%

Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%

What happened to the other 2 fifths????

[kalm]

BTW, wages have been stagnant since the 70's while productivity has increased, and if I'm not mistaken, the number of people on welfare was reduced under Clinton.

[BDKJMU]

And 2000-2006 the % of federal income taxes paid by each of the bottom 4/5 dropped. Only the top 5th paid a higher %

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... come-Taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

2007 IRS data:
Top 1% of taxpayers: 22.8% of AGI, paid 40.4% of all Fed income taxes.
Top 5% of taxpayers: 37.44% of AGI, paid 60.63% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 10% of taxpayers: 48.05% of AGI, paid 71.22% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 25% of taxpayers: 68.7% of AGI, paid 86.6% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 50% of taxpayers: 87.74% of AGI, paid 97.11% of Fed Income taxes.
Bottom 50% of taxpayers: 12.26% of AGI, 2.89% of Fed Income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like the "rich" and middle class are paying more than their fair share, and the bottom half isn't...

[kalm]

And 2000-2006 the % of federal income taxes paid by each of the bottom 4/5 dropped. Only the top 5th paid a higher %

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... come-Taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in one of American economic's great ironies, 4 out of the richest top 10 make money as one of America's largest employers, selling goods to poor people, that are manufactured in China.

Rank Name Net Worth ($mil) Age Residence Source
1 William Gates III 50,000 53 Medina Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett 40,000 79 Omaha Berkshire Hathaway
3 Lawrence Ellison 27,000 65 Redwood City Oracle
4 Christy Walton & family 21,500 54 Jackson Wal-Mart
5 Jim C. Walton 19,600 61 Bentonville Wal-Mart
6 Alice Walton 19,300 60 Fort Worth Wal-Mart
7 S. Robson Walton 19,000 65 Bentonville Wal-Mart
8 Michael Bloomberg 17,500 67 New York Bloomberg
9 Charles Koch 16,000 73 Wichita manufacturing, energy
9 David Koch 16,000 69 New York manufacturing, energy
11 Sergey Brin 15,300 36 Palo Alto Google
11 Larry Page 15,300 36 San Francisco Google
13 Michael Dell 14,500 44 Austin Dell
14 Steven Ballmer 13,300 53 Seattle Microsoft
15 George Soros 13,000 79 Westchester hedge funds
16 Donald Bren 12,000 77 Newport Beach real estate
17 Paul Allen 11,500 56 Mercer Island Microsoft, investments
17 Abigail Johnson 11,500 47 Boston Fidelity
19 Forrest Edward Mars 11,000 78 McLean candy, pet food
19 Jacqueline Mars 11,000 70 Bedminster candy, pet food
19 John Mars 11,000 73 Arlington candy, pet food
22 Carl Icahn 10,500 73 New York leveraged buyouts
23 Ronald Perelman 10,000 66 New York leveraged buyouts
24 George B. Kaiser 9,500 67 Tulsa oil & gas, banking
24 Philip Knight 9,500 71 Beaverton Nike

And yet they pay a lower effective tax rate than many of their employees:

400 richest Americans’ incomes doubled under Bush.
Bloomberg reports that, according to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:

The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.

[AZGrizFan]

What seems like an obvious statement: but apparently not so obvious to all

Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%

Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%

Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%

Top 5% (a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/are-t ... /19356546/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9qih5z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's fucking hilarious.

My household is considered "wealthy". Someone should tell my checkbook. It never got the message.

[AZGrizFan]

2007 IRS data:
Top 1% of taxpayers: 22.8% of AGI, paid 40.4% of all Fed income taxes.
Top 5% of taxpayers: 37.44% of AGI, paid 60.63% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 10% of taxpayers: 48.05% of AGI, paid 71.22% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 25% of taxpayers: 68.7% of AGI, paid 86.6% of Fed Income taxes.
Top 50% of taxpayers: 87.74% of AGI, paid 97.11% of Fed Income taxes.
Bottom 50% of taxpayers: 12.26% of AGI, 2.89% of Fed Income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like the "rich" and middle class are paying more than their fair share, and the bottom half isn't...

You have GOT to stop using facts, BDK. It really is a thread killer.

[travelinman67]

And when has an increasing wealth gap eve led to anything good?

Thank you Reaganomics.

Number of Years from 1975 to 2001: 24
Number of years a Republican was in the White House: 12
Number of years a Democrat was in the White House: 12

Try again.

[AZGrizFan]

Apparently ya'll have never heard this statement:

You gotta have money to make money.

[travelinman67]

Apparently ya'll have never heard this statement:

You gotta have money to make money.

I will support the notion of govt. reviewed exhorbitant executive compensation to the degree that many of the so-called "overly compensated" executives manage corporations whose employee pay is so low that full-time employees qualify for welfare/medicaid/foodstamp/other govt. assistance.
In those instances, I understand that govt. has a vested interest (fiduciary responsibility) to interject some guidelines in compensation.
When I see CEO's pocketing $15m and up, BOD's drawing tens of millions, and dividends on a steady increase, while full-time, non-probationary employees are being paid near minimum wage and having to apply for medicaid and foodstamps to make ends meet, then this call for govt. intervention is just dessert.
A well managed business should be able to fund paying a living wage.

[AZGrizFan]

Apparently ya'll have never heard this statement:

You gotta have money to make money.

I will support the notion of govt. reviewed exhorbitant executive compensation to the degree that many of the so-called "overly compensated" executives manage corporations whose employee pay is so low that full-time employees qualify for welfare/medicaid/foodstamp/other govt. assistance.
In those instances, I understand that govt. has a vested interest (fiduciary responsibility) to interject some guidelines in compensation.
When I see CEO's pocketing $15m and up, BOD's drawing tens of millions, and dividends on a steady increase, while full-time, non-probationary employees are being paid near minimum wage and having to apply for medicaid and foodstamps to make ends meet, then this call for govt. intervention is just dessert.
A well managed business should be able to fund paying a living wage.

If that company is private, they are entitled to do whatever they want. If it's publicly held, the stockholders have the ability to vote out those who they feel are abusing their power. Just like in politics....what they BANK on, however, is apathy.

[Col Hogan]

What seems like an obvious statement: but apparently not so obvious to all

Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%

Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%

Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%

Top 5% (a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/are-t ... /19356546/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9qih5z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition to some of the other issues pointed out with these figures, they don't take into account where the people live...

For example, here in the DC area, a kid working at McDonalds as their first job can make $14k easy if they take hours...

A family of four with both parents working government jobs can make close to $280k a year...and lives in a modest house with a 90 minute commute to afford that...

People who want "class warfare" love these kind of figures...

[JohnStOnge]

And when has an increasing wealth gap eve led to anything good?

Thank you Reaganomics.

And on what basis do you think an increase in the "wealth gap" such as the one depicted by the posted income estimates is "bad?" Were any of the income groups described worse off on average? Unless you're talking about jealousy over someone else's success, why is it "bad" that the bottom quintile's average income increased by 10.7%? What was "taken" from them.

There is no great pie of wealth sent from heaven of which everyone "deserves" a share. Weath is a dynamic, generated quantity. If someone comes up with a product or service other people voluntarily purchase and they become wealthy they deserve their wealth. They haven't taken anything away from "the poor." Nobody else is necessarily worse off because they are better off.

This class envy stuff is ridiculous. If I make 10% more money this year than I did last year, am I worse off because somebody else makes 100% more than they did last year? Was anything "taken" from me? Would it make my life any better if that other person would have increased their income by only 20%?

[JohnStOnge]

The article linked at the top of this thread links another article at http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/super ... /19362705/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . That second article is a classic example of the false impression created by class envy demagoguery. Take this statement from the article:

""This just-disclosed data shows that government policy is concentrating incomes at the very top and steadily lowering their tax burden, thus shifting it on to Americans who in a lifetime don't make what these people make in a week,"

The truth is that, over time, the share of the overall tax burden assumed by "the rich" has been increasing while that assumed by "the poor" has been decreasing. Yes, some people make more in a week than others do in their lifetimes. But they also pay more in taxes in a week than others to in their lifetimes. A table of shares of overall Federal tax liabilities over time can be viewed at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=558" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Note that the top table is ALL Federal taxes; not just the income tax (important because some people falsely claim that the picture would look different if payroll taxes like the social security tax are considered).

In 1979, the bottom 20% paid 2.1% of the taxes. In 2006, they paid 0.8% of them. So their share of the burden in 2006 was less than half of what it was in 1979. On the other hand, the share of taxes carried by the top 20% increased from 56.4% in 1979 to 69.3% in 2006. To the extent that the burden has shifted, it has clearly shifted so as to have "the rich" carrying more of it.

[JohnStOnge]

I will support the notion of govt. reviewed exhorbitant executive compensation to the degree that many of the so-called "overly compensated" executives manage corporations whose employee pay is so low that full-time employees qualify for welfare/medicaid/foodstamp/other govt. assistance.
In those instances, I understand that govt. has a vested interest (fiduciary responsibility) to interject some guidelines in compensation.
When I see CEO's pocketing $15m and up, BOD's drawing tens of millions, and dividends on a steady increase, while full-time, non-probationary employees are being paid near minimum wage and having to apply for medicaid and foodstamps to make ends meet, then this call for govt. intervention is just dessert.
A well managed business should be able to fund paying a living wage.

AsGrizfan made the basic point but I'll add some. Whatever the CEO is making, he or she is making it because someone decided it is worth it to them to pay it. All of the other employees of the company made voluntary decisions to provide their labor in exchange for whatever compensation they are getting. Not a single one of them is being forced to work for the company. If they don't think the compensation is sufficient they can terminate their association with the company. If they think what they have to offer is worth more than they are getting, they can offer their services to some other entity.

The true worth of labor is established by what someone is willing to pay for it. Setting an artificial floor such as a "minimum wage" or a "living wage" is compelling some instances in which parties are forced to pay more for labor than it is worth.

[JohnStOnge]

Why are the boats of the working poor and the middle class not rising with that tide?

They HAVE been rising. Take a look at the numbers at the top of this thread, which are inflation adjusted comparisons, again. The smallest percent increase over the period is 10.7 percent. 10.7 percent is a fairly substantial And look at the middle quintile identified in the source article as the "middle class." The percent increase is 29.4%. Would you not think you are better off now than you were 30 or 35 years ago if you make 29.4% more in inflation adjusted dollars than you did then? Your boat has risen.

So WHAT if somebody else's boat has risen more. How does that make YOU worse off when you're making almost 30% more than you were?

Now, I suspect that over the past 9 years or so the overall trend over time may have been disrupted. I say that because I can recall that there were at least times during the period that median incomes declined. But over any multi decade period in relatively recent history I think that inflation adjusted incomes for each given group are going to be higher at the end than they were at the beginning.

[JohnStOnge]

But I always find it funny when we're told over and over again how America over taxes the wealthy and the burden on the wealthy is too much...

They ARE taxed too much; and there are two reasons for saying so. One is that it is just wrong for the country to be making a relatively small percentage of the population carry most of the burden while something close to half the country carries allmost nothing and actually takes more out of the system than it puts into it.

The other is that we have created a situation in which the majority of the people have, as they say, little or no "skin in the game." To most people, Federal money grows on trees. It's very easy to vote for politicians who keep adding and adding government programs; fostering a government that will "take care of everything," when you are not the one paying for it. I assure you, if the tax burden were distributed anywhere close to evenly, government would not be of the extent it is now because the People would not tolerate the cost.

[houndawg]

Apparently ya'll have never heard this statement:

You gotta have money to make money.

I will support the notion of govt. reviewed exhorbitant executive compensation to the degree that many of the so-called "overly compensated" executives manage corporations whose employee pay is so low that full-time employees qualify for welfare/medicaid/foodstamp/other govt. assistance.
In those instances, I understand that govt. has a vested interest (fiduciary responsibility) to interject some guidelines in compensation.
When I see CEO's pocketing $15m and up, BOD's drawing tens of millions, and dividends on a steady increase, while full-time, non-probationary employees are being paid near minimum wage and having to apply for medicaid and foodstamps to make ends meet, then this call for govt. intervention is just dessert.
A well managed business should be able to fund paying a living wage.

Exactly. And back when they did, America's standard of living was at it's highest.

The problem is that the rich, in general, don't have any class anymore. Back in the day the rich understood that leaving a few crumbs on the table was good for them as well as the lower classes. Those crumbs enabled the poor to believe that there was something in capitalism for them too.

Of course that was back before capitalism collapsed like Soviet collectivism.