"The share of income received by the top 1 percent... dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007..."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    So as it turns out... the richest didn't get richer... did the 99% become better off as a result?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html?_r=1

    Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007....

    [T]he drop alters a figure often emphasized by inequality critics, and it has gone largely unnoticed outside the blogosphere.

    By focusing on the top 1 percent, the Occupy Wall Street movement has made economic fairness a subject of street protest and political debate.

    “It’s very interesting that this has become such a big topic now when the numbers are back to where they were in the 1990s,” said Steven Kaplan, an economist at the University of Chicago’s business school. “People didn’t seem to be complaining about it then.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 5:02 AM GMT
    Try having a look in relative terms not absolute and you'll see why people are pissed. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 6:31 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidSo as it turns out... the richest didn't get richer... did the 99% become better off as a result?

    The whole structure of the left is based on a lie. That lie is the sum of all wealth remains fixed, and that improving the lives of the poorest requires taking additional wealth from the rich, i.e. a zero-sum game. That is a cover that justifies all their so-called social justice, which, in the final analysis, is nothing more than class envy.

    While there needs to be a safety net for those truly in need, many who make claims that the system is rigged and that those not already successful cannot succeed have never been willing to work hard. They feel entitled and won't take entry-level jobs. When I was in Junior High and High School, every snow day when school was closed was a work day for me, shoveling snow off driveways. Also worked in a restaurant scrubbing floors, scrubbing pots, and peeling potatoes, but the entitled prima donnas today are too good to do that. They are not being given a pass to the corner office and are very upset.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 6:52 AM GMT

    Poor rich people... Bill and I will make a donation to one this Christmas.

    We hear you can sponsor one for as little as 20,000 a month.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 4:29 PM GMT
    another take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2011 6:45 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 14, 2011 11:00 PM GMT
    The average income of the top 1% is trending down. The 2009 figure of $957,000 is probably $250,000 higher then we will see in the 2010 average.

    I don't know a single “one-percenter” who has not cleared debt in the last three years. It is rare for anyone I know to intentionally conduct significant business in the U.S. at the moment.

    I would think within the next four years the only one-percenters who are showing much income will be the “Wall Streeters.” Their numbers continue to fall right along with their incomes. America itself is going to experience the "California Tax Syndrome" where revenues generated by the highly taxed Upper One is diminishing..

    Ya'll poor folk have fun.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    I especially like the 2nd graph which shows how the 99% of the people are doing relative to the 1%. Note the uptick in 2010 (it's cut off but click on the link).
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/wg11.png
    wg11.png
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Pct_Growth_Annual_Wages13.png
    Pct_Growth_Annual_Wages13.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    And the ups and downs in the top 1% income share are mainly due to stock market fluctuations:
    http://www.epi.org/files/2011//12-14-11-blog-post-fig2.png
    12-14-11-blog-post-fig2.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    That's absurd! By definition, there will always be a "top 0.1%".
    In a sane economy, they would control only a thousand or so times as much wealth as someone at the median.

    We would all be better off if they paid tax rates from the 1960s.

    Figure_2.bmp
    The top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 15, 2011 2:10 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    That's absurd! By definition, there will always be a "top 0.1%".
    In a sane economy, they would control only a thousand or so times as much wealth as someone at the median.

    We would all be better off if they paid tax rates from the 1960s.

    Figure_2.bmp
    The top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%


    Riddler was obviously referring to those incomes that now sit in the top 0.1%. The ball game that liberals are playing is one in which those in the top 0.1% may very well decide to generate no taxiale income.

    That is also what I was referring to. Like it or not, people do react strongly to the "beat the hell out of the 1% mantra."

    There are very few in the 1% on RJ. I'm in the top 0.1%. Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change. You were born a liberal, always will be a liberal, and think you have all of the answers. So be it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 4:50 AM GMT

    " Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change."

    ...which is why we consider advice and perspective from you suspect.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    That's absurd! By definition, there will always be a "top 0.1%".
    In a sane economy, they would control only a thousand or so times as much wealth as someone at the median.

    We would all be better off if they paid tax rates from the 1960s.

    Figure_2.bmp
    The top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%


    Riddler was obviously referring to those incomes that now sit in the top 0.1%. The ball game that liberals are playing is one in which those in the top 0.1% may very well decide to generate no taxiale income.

    That is also what I was referring to. Like it or not, people do react strongly to the "beat the hell out of the 1% mantra."

    There are very few in the 1% on RJ. I'm in the top 0.1%. Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change. You were born a liberal, always will be a liberal, and think you have all of the answers. So be it.


    Gingrich is a liberal? His tax plan would have you paying zero income tax.

    Riddler clearly asked if we would be better of if the top 0.1% didn't exist. Is he asking if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be led to the gallows? What does he mean by "not exist"? I was clarifying that the wealthiest should be taxed more, not eliminated. The reference I cited indicates 65% as the top marginal tax rate for optimal economic growth. I would like to see the calculation repeated with a few more variables, but I doubt there is a way to show with any credibility that the US economy will grow more with lower taxes than we currently enjoy.

    Perhaps you think you would have to sell a few homes to avoid starvation if your tax rate was hiked back up to Eisenhower rates, when America was building highways instead of letting them crumble.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 5:41 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    " Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change."

    ...which is why we consider advice and perspective from you suspect.



    Uck. Must people quote this douche bag?

    Typical Republican who was born on Third Base and thinks he hit a triple. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 7:15 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    conservativejock said
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    That's absurd! By definition, there will always be a "top 0.1%".
    In a sane economy, they would control only a thousand or so times as much wealth as someone at the median.

    We would all be better off if they paid tax rates from the 1960s.

    Figure_2.bmp
    The top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%


    Riddler was obviously referring to those incomes that now sit in the top 0.1%. The ball game that liberals are playing is one in which those in the top 0.1% may very well decide to generate no taxiale income.

    That is also what I was referring to. Like it or not, people do react strongly to the "beat the hell out of the 1% mantra."

    There are very few in the 1% on RJ. I'm in the top 0.1%. Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change. You were born a liberal, always will be a liberal, and think you have all of the answers. So be it.


    Gingrich is a liberal? His tax plan would have you paying zero income tax.

    Riddler clearly asked if we would be better of if the top 0.1% didn't exist. Is he asking if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be led to the gallows? What does he mean by "not exist"? I was clarifying that the wealthiest should be taxed more, not eliminated. The reference I cited indicates 65% as the top marginal tax rate for optimal economic growth. I would like to see the calculation repeated with a few more variables, but I doubt there is a way to show with any credibility that the US economy will grow more with lower taxes than we currently enjoy.

    Perhaps you think you would have to sell a few homes to avoid starvation if your tax rate was hiked back up to Eisenhower rates, when America was building highways instead of letting them crumble.


    I was more referring to the fact that we would all be worse off if the things that were created by the 0.1% or even 1% - much of whom created their own wealth (versus inheriting it), I know some liberals like to confuse the argument by claiming this wouldn't be possible without the workers, but the reality is that these entrepreneurs and innovators took the risk and were the catalyst for the massive wealth that was created - without whom the wealth wouldn't even exist. But how would the 99% benefit from that?

    Christian claims we should look at relative instead of absolute wealth but that's ridiculous. He would use jealousy and envy as a basis for expropriating the wealth that others create. How is that just? How is that fair?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 10:08 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    I was more referring to the fact that we would all be worse off if the things that were created by the 0.1% or even 1% - much of whom created their own wealth (versus inheriting it), I know some liberals like to confuse the argument by claiming this wouldn't be possible without the workers, but the reality is that these entrepreneurs and innovators took the risk and were the catalyst for the massive wealth that was created - without whom the wealth wouldn't even exist. But how would the 99% benefit from that?


    How much do the 99% benefit from the contributions of the top 1% ?
    wealth-growth-e1291652700919.jpg
    Not much. Back when the top marginal tax rate was a lot higher, the economy grew more, and not just the top either - the middle class grew too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 6:32 PM GMT
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    I was more referring to the fact that we would all be worse off if the things that were created by the 0.1% or even 1% - much of whom created their own wealth (versus inheriting it), I know some liberals like to confuse the argument by claiming this wouldn't be possible without the workers, but the reality is that these entrepreneurs and innovators took the risk and were the catalyst for the massive wealth that was created - without whom the wealth wouldn't even exist. But how would the 99% benefit from that?


    How much do the 99% benefit from the contributions of the top 1% ?
    wealth-growth-e1291652700919.jpg
    Not much. Back when the top marginal tax rate was a lot higher, the economy grew more, and not just the top either - the middle class grew too.


    You assume that these benefits would even exist if it weren't for the top 1%. As for the top marginal tax rate, it's interesting that you choose to believe that lie given that during that period the effective tax rate for the top was far lower given the numerous deductions and the ability to access them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    I was more referring to the fact that we would all be worse off if the things that were created by the 0.1% or even 1% - much of whom created their own wealth (versus inheriting it), I know some liberals like to confuse the argument by claiming this wouldn't be possible without the workers, but the reality is that these entrepreneurs and innovators took the risk and were the catalyst for the massive wealth that was created - without whom the wealth wouldn't even exist. But how would the 99% benefit from that?


    How much do the 99% benefit from the contributions of the top 1% ?
    wealth-growth-e1291652700919.jpg
    Not much. Back when the top marginal tax rate was a lot higher, the economy grew more, and not just the top either - the middle class grew too.


    You assume that these benefits would even exist if it weren't for the top 1%. As for the top marginal tax rate, it's interesting that you choose to believe that lie given that during that period the effective tax rate for the top was far lower given the numerous deductions and the ability to access them.


    Please the fiction of "job creators" has been thoroughly debunked by - surprisingly - a bunch of rich capitalists and small business owners.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    intentsman said
    riddler78 said
    I was more referring to the fact that we would all be worse off if the things that were created by the 0.1% or even 1% - much of whom created their own wealth (versus inheriting it), I know some liberals like to confuse the argument by claiming this wouldn't be possible without the workers, but the reality is that these entrepreneurs and innovators took the risk and were the catalyst for the massive wealth that was created - without whom the wealth wouldn't even exist. But how would the 99% benefit from that?


    How much do the 99% benefit from the contributions of the top 1% ?
    wealth-growth-e1291652700919.jpg
    Not much. Back when the top marginal tax rate was a lot higher, the economy grew more, and not just the top either - the middle class grew too.


    You assume that these benefits would even exist if it weren't for the top 1%. As for the top marginal tax rate, it's interesting that you choose to believe that lie given that during that period the effective tax rate for the top was far lower given the numerous deductions and the ability to access them.


    Please the fiction of "job creators" has been thoroughly debunked by - surprisingly - a bunch of rich capitalists and small business owners.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12


    Lol - debunked? did you actually bother reading the article? His argument focuses on the idea that it's the demand that drives the innovation - which is limited considering that the wealth never gets created if the demand isn't met. The demand exists in other economies as well but isn't nearly as efficiently met. Too bad you don't understand what it means to be debunked as you might be a little more introspective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 8:00 PM GMT
    riddler78 said

    Lol - debunked? did you actually bother reading the article? His argument focuses on the idea that it's the demand that drives the innovation - which is limited considering that the wealth never gets created if the demand isn't met. The demand exists in other economies as well but isn't nearly as efficiently met. Too bad you don't understand what it means to be debunked as you might be a little more introspective.


    You're just delusional. If you didn't live in a socialist country with affluent parents I worry what would become of you. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    The liberals want the rich to go down, but what they dont think about is where's the money going to come from?

    The tax takers (lower income) are dependent on the tax givers.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2011 10:39 PM GMT
    I wish the 1% would share more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2011 4:51 AM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    riddler78 said
    tailgater_3 saidanother take on this issue:

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.


    http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


    Do you believe you would be better off if that top 0.1% didn't exist?


    The liberals want the rich to go down, but what they dont think about is where's the money going to come from?

    The tax takers (lower income) are dependent on the tax givers.






    Put a sock (puppet) in it already.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2011 7:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    meninlove said
    " Reality is I need not earn one single dollar for the remainder of my lifetime and not one single thing in my lifestyle will change."

    ...which is why we consider advice and perspective from you suspect.



    Uck. Must people quote this douche bag?



    Christian,

    Please refrain from the nasty name calling.

    Thank you.


    See note on other thread, regarding my interest in your opinions.