Income Inequality Is Lower Now Than It Was Under Clinton

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

    Feb 01, 2012 6:11 AM GMT
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/tax-foundation-.html

    The most recent published studies on income inequality use 2006 or 2007 as their end point, without fully correcting for the business cycle. ... It is deeply misleading to talk about income inequality without properly taking into account the business cycle. Since the peak of the business cycle in 2007, personal incomes have collapsed to a degree not seen since the Great Depression. The most dramatic collapse has been in high incomes, as the most recent IRS data shows. For example, since 2007 the number of millionaires has dropped 40%, while income reported by millionaires has dropped in half. ...
    Figure 1 illustrates how the Great Recession has dramatically reduced measures of income inequality. It shows the share of income attributable to the top 1% of income earners from 1980 to 2009. The top 1% income share peaked in 2007 at 22.8% and declined precipitously to 16.9% by 2009. This is about where it was in 1996-1997. ...


    ff289_1.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 1:35 PM GMT
    And then it bounced back in 2010-2011... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 2:24 PM GMT
    Uh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 4:37 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 4:40 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Speaking of idols? Dare I mention Reagan and your constant idol-like worship and defending of him?

    Come on, now...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 4:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.


    Except it hasn't been proven false - in fact if you look at the recent studies by the Fed, there has been significant mobility. Further, mobility given the range of inequality is ever more remarkable in a country like the US because there is further up and down the ladder - and yet, despite how far you can fall, you still have a far better standard of living than most European countries.

    Your obsession with inequality over mobility and growth/job creation is sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.


    Except it hasn't been proven false - in fact if you look at the recent studies by the Fed, there has been significant mobility. Further, mobility given the range of inequality is ever more remarkable in a country like the US because there is further up and down the ladder - and yet, despite how far you can fall, you still have a far better standard of living than most European countries.

    Your obsession with inequality over mobility and growth/job creation is sad.


    Yes. It has. Your willful ignorance and ridiculous comparisons between standards of living in the US versus Europe are tiresome.

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

    Feb 01, 2012 7:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.


    Except it hasn't been proven false - in fact if you look at the recent studies by the Fed, there has been significant mobility. Further, mobility given the range of inequality is ever more remarkable in a country like the US because there is further up and down the ladder - and yet, despite how far you can fall, you still have a far better standard of living than most European countries.

    Your obsession with inequality over mobility and growth/job creation is sad.


    Yes. It has. Your willful ignorance and ridiculous comparisons between standards of living in the US versus Europe are tiresome.



    And sadly for you, apt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.


    Except it hasn't been proven false - in fact if you look at the recent studies by the Fed, there has been significant mobility. Further, mobility given the range of inequality is ever more remarkable in a country like the US because there is further up and down the ladder - and yet, despite how far you can fall, you still have a far better standard of living than most European countries.

    Your obsession with inequality over mobility and growth/job creation is sad.


    Yes. It has. Your willful ignorance and ridiculous comparisons between standards of living in the US versus Europe are tiresome.



    And sadly for you, apt.


    Nothing sad on my part. How misinformed a Canadian Ayn Rand devotee is on the subject of American policy doesn't really make me emotional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidUh riddler.. this is 2012... 2009 was three years ago.icon_wink.gif


    Ah so who can we blame that on? Also - do you have any proof that things are different given well, that data is only processed after the fact and sometimes 1-2 years or more if you want accurate data.


    Riddler - The policies (in particular the tax code) that has skewed the concentration of wealth date back to the Reagan administration. If you think Obama could have changed that when Tea Party Republicans were willing to destroy the economy rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire.


    It's both sad and amusing how you'll bend over backwards to your political idols - I mean, conveniently ignored are the days that the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House or the massive bailouts and stimulus that ended up benefiting most the rich and the connected. Nevermind as well the overall trends in technology that now allow for greater income mobility not less. Poor Christian - persistently on the wrong side of both history and the facts.



    Incorrect. The Democrats never had control of the Senate. I understand that you probably only have a passing knowledge of our system and that, combined with your ideological blindness, prevents you from understanding recent history wherein there were 58 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents - one of whom supported George Bush in the 2004 election.

    Your whining about technology and alleged mobility is proven false by every longitudinal study on the subject. Americans have less mobility than your hated Western European countries.

    The animus against the rich is not spurred by envy but rather the increasing awareness that the American dream of economic mobility through hard work and education has been eroded primarily for the benefit of large corporations and the ultra wealthy.


    Except it hasn't been proven false - in fact if you look at the recent studies by the Fed, there has been significant mobility. Further, mobility given the range of inequality is ever more remarkable in a country like the US because there is further up and down the ladder - and yet, despite how far you can fall, you still have a far better standard of living than most European countries.

    Your obsession with inequality over mobility and growth/job creation is sad.


    Yes. It has. Your willful ignorance and ridiculous comparisons between standards of living in the US versus Europe are tiresome.



    And sadly for you, apt.


    Nothing sad on my part. How misinformed a Canadian Ayn Rand devotee is on the subject of American policy doesn't really make me emotional.


    Except for the fact that they aren't ridiculous and actually quite true. Maybe you should travel more to get some more perspectives of the world instead of seeing the poor as victims - particularly in the US.