| Author | Message | ||
     dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 798 Registered: 3-2005 |
A report released today by the Federal Reserve shows that the top 1% of the US population has 33.4% of the population's total net worth. This is down from its peak of 34.6% in 1995. I thought that the rich were getting richer under Bush? Why was the peak under Clinton? Were the rich getting richer under him? http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4682 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nice. You take an 89-page report and cherry-pick a statistic. How about this instead from the conclusion (emphasis added):
| ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2769 Registered: 12-2001  |
SUPER RICH IN AMERICA....Back in 2003, here's how the Bush administration explained its proposed dividend tax cut: Everyone who invests in the stock market and receives dividend income—especially seniors—will benefit from elimination of the double taxation on dividends. About half of all dividend income goes to America’s seniors, who often rely on those checks for a steady source of retirement income. That's a heartwarming portrait, isn't it? All those seniors relying on Bush's dividend tax cut to help pay the rent and keep their pantries stocked with something better than Alpo. Fast forward to 2006 and you will be unsurprised to learn that an analysis by the New York Times demonstrates that the reality turned out to be a wee bit different: Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003....The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers. By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. Money in these accounts is not taxed until withdrawal, when the higher rates on wages apply. Sure, half of all dividend income goes to America's seniors — America's super-wealthy seniors, that is. By contrast, the kind of middle class senior that puts money into a retirement account doesn't benefit at all from dividend and capital gains tax cuts. www.washingtonmonthly.com | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 800 Registered: 3-2005 |
So the poor got poorer under Clinton? | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 104 Registered: 3-2004 |
Doug, Look at page 9 of the same report. Measured in thousands of 2004 dollars - net worth for the median | 75th %ile | 90th %ile 1995 - 70.8 | 197.8 | 469 2004 - 93.1 | 328.5 | 831.6 Looks like they got richer to me. Not that I'm trying to argue with your point here, just your use of statistics. And before you bother calculating % increases, remember that one can only spend real $, not percentages. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 327 Registered: 6-2001 |
And here's who's paying for the millionaires' tax cuts, via daily kos: Statistics on Homelessness and Families, 2005-2006 * Families with children make up approximately 40% of the homeless population. * More than 1.3 million children are homeless at some time each year. * The average age of a person who is homeless in the United States is nine years old. * Between 25% and 40% of the homeless population are employed. * Minimum wage earnings no longer lift families above the poverty line. * A minimum-wage worker would have to work 87 hours each week to afford a two- bedroom apartment at 30 percent of his or her income, which is the federal definition of affordable housing. * The gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing them is currently the largest on record, estimated at 4.4 million units. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 802 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ond - every demographic was up in dollars from 1995 - 2004. If you are saying everyone got richer I agree. No argument. I was just trying to focus the liberal fanantics here that the supposed super rich are not pulling away from the rest of us under Bush. Themp - you are rambleing. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1060 Registered: 10-2004  |
ina - thanks for posting that. those are real hardships that real people are undergoing. Its not people who are looking for a handout or welfare. It is people struggling to make ends meet every day. The oversimplification done here is amazing. THe real hardships that people have to go through are horrendous. I fear the pendulum cannot swing any further towards the wealthy without chaos erupting from somewhere. People who think that poor people choose that life for themselves are mistaken. Some people cannot overcome their beginnings and some cant overcome their lifes circumstances. The minimum wage is way past due to be raised to a point that people can afford to live outside of poverty. Super stores like Walmart should be ashamed of how they treat their employees. No healthcare, low wages, no benefits while at the same time raking in massive profits. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5499 Registered: 8-2003 |
That the homeless population "paid for tax cuts" given the continually increasing domestic spending by this Admin and Congress is....well, oversimplifying doesn't really get it done. "The oversimplification done here is amazing" I couldn't agree more. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 105 Registered: 3-2004 |
Doug, I'm just saying you are cherry picking statistics to make a point that is not supported by reality. The increase in net wealth from 1995 to 2004 for the 90th % was $362,600. That net increase alone exceeds the total net wealth at the 75th percentile. Your original hypothesis is not supported by the report you referenced. Clearly the top 10% are pulling away. Whether that is good or bad, right or wrong is debatable. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3209 Registered: 9-2001  |
Hoops et al, quit yer bitchin'. As the fat get fatter, they will be easier targets to shoot when the revolution comes.  | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 803 Registered: 3-2005 |
   | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 2363 Registered: 10-2001  |
Just an FYI - not really passing judgement here but consider the following two situations, actually two tax returns that I prepare. We probably can all agree that a person earning 70K per year is considered middle class and one who earns 386 is upper middle - some might say wealthy. Both of these returns are similar in that they contain married taxpayers with two children. Both own homes. One lives in PA the other CT. The bigger income return has about 4-5K in investment income the other has next to none. As a result of the Bush tax cuts taxpayer 1 (70K) paid 1,300 in federal taxes after accounting for the refundable child credits. Taxpayer 2 who earned roughly 5.5 times as much money paid - are you ready.....over 100 times in federal income taxes. There's progressive and then there is ridiculous. Granted this is an anomoly in the tax code but there are plenty of people out there who, like taxpayer 1, pay no federal tax at all and many with children who actually get refunds after paying no federal income taxes. Interesting. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 806 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hopefully Ina will now post some unrelated facts about the homeless and poor. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 107 Registered: 3-2004 |
From a purely financial perspective, all else aside, I'd rather be taxpayer 2. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 328 Registered: 6-2001 |
Over 1000 times in federal taxes!! Omigod! I'll tell that to the VERY NEXT homeless person I see! Show them what REAL suffering is about! | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 808 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ina when Clinton raised taxes did you rush out and tell the homeless the good news? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 2364 Registered: 10-2001 |
ina - you completely missed my point. Who said anything about suffering? Who do you think is actually contributing more for the homeless taxpayer 1 or 2? And FWIW, he isn't complaining. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 329 Registered: 6-2001 |
No, Doug, but having lived in 2 countries (Canada and Germany) where tax rates are MUCH higher, I do. not. complain about the taxes I pay here. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 109 Registered: 3-2004 |
Doug, Back to the original question, do you really think the rich aren't keeping pace with the rest of society? Even the abstract of the study from which you plucked that misleading factoid seems to indicate that the rich are indeed getting richer. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1630 Registered: 5-2001 |
sportsnut, Tell him to get a better accountant. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 331 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sports, I know you didn't mention suffering and your taxpayer shouldn't be complaining. My point is that that kind of stat is used to point out that the rich are overtaxed. I find it personally offensive and politically dangerous that in as wealthy a country as this there are growing numbers of desperately poor people. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 809 Registered: 3-2005 |
That makes no sense at all. Since you lived in high tax countries you don't complain about the lower taxes here? If you lived in China would you not complain about police brutality here? Hey its better than China.. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 810 Registered: 3-2005 |
Personnally offensive... who offended you personally the poor people or the rich? Do you know what personnally offensive means? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 811 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ond - I think a large part of America is getting more and more wealth. I do not think this has anything to do with Bush or Clinton but due to their ability to create wealth. I would not characterize this group as the "rich". I also think there is oppourtunity for anyone born here to join this group. I also think lots of people move the other way, down that is, especially from one generation to the next. There is no group of super rich that runs the country. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 2365 Registered: 10-2001 |
dave - there's only so much an accountant can do with a W-2 and besides I tell him every year and he keeps on coming back. ina - I agree that there are too many poor people in this country. But you can't tell me that its because we don't pay enough in taxes. You can't argue that the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share as many of the hospitals in AZ/TX and CA are forced to provide free medical care to people who illegally enter our country. You can't possibly say with a straight face that its the wealthy people's fault, can you? You can tell me that you think Bush's cuts were ill-timed. You can tell me that the government is wasting money on a war that appears to have no end in sight. You can tell me that people who lie and cheat on their taxes are not paying their fair share but please don't tell me that folks like taxpayer 2 are not "over taxed" because they are. They are taxed just right - our government spends way too much money on the wrong things. When you've come to me and told me that all (or even virtually all) government waste has been eliminated and there's still not enough money to go towards helping those that need it most then I'll concede that taxes should be raised. Just curious - I can infer from your post above that there are no homeless people in Germany and Canada and that no one lives below the poverty line (since their tax rates are so high). | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1014 Registered: 2-2002 |
NOBODY is paying the taxes that the wealthy used to pay because NOBODY is paying those taxes. -See new raised ceiling on debt. Got a budget problem? -Simply raise the debt!. It's the new republican fiscal conservatism! Anybody in Washington can play! If only we could do the same thing here in Maplewood. We could REALLY keep our taxes down by just borrowing to pay for everything. Pretty soon we would only need taxes to pay all the interest payments. Cool! That would work forever right? -Meanwhile, FINALLY some good news to those earning $10 million or more as just reported in Time Mag, -they will be paying $500,000 less in income taxes. -Those poor slobs have really been struggling under such a heavy burden of all those public entitlements! Maria! -Fetch me my caviar or I'll have you sent back! (Those people are RUINING this country! There's just so damn many of them. Afterall, I only need six or seven to take care of things.) More bubbly? Oh look, Exxon passed Walmart as the top Fortune 500 company in earnings. Now how did THAT happen? Poor Tom, He really got a raw deal. He was so brave trying to keep those democrats from, as he said, "stealing" the election down there if he ran. Should we have him over? -Hmmm no. Not really a good idea right now. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1066 Registered: 10-2004 |
dougw - really? Seems to me that all of our senators and the president are in the super rich group. senators net worth as of 2003 Note that the values above do not take into account the value of their families etc. Most of them are extremely wealthy. Bush net worth almost 500 Million Maybe you might want to reconsider. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 110 Registered: 3-2004 |
Well Doug, I'll agree with you to this extent. If we allocated the ridiculous national debt we've piled up to individuals along the same lines as our tax code, the rich probably are not getting any richer, nor probably is any group by a whole lot. Maybe everybody's personal net worth looks a little bigger now, but Uncle Sam's been borrowing a lot of money on our behalf to make that happen. As far as the super rich running the country, do you think you could get some time on Dick Cheney's calendar? How about if you sat on the Board of Directors for a muntinational energy company? The 1 % you originally referred to may not "run" things, but they have a heck of a lot more influence and access than me. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 812 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hoops - you think a net worth of a million and change is super rich? Also you said "all of our senators ... are in the super rich group" you know there are 100 senators, right? Your list had less than half that amount. Frankly I am suprised that every senator is not worth at least a mill. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 813 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ond - are these your real issues? - you can't get time with the VP? People on boards have more influence than you? You must be a baby boomer. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 814 Registered: 3-2005 |
Let me define what I mean by run the country. Many people on MOL have a big centralized view of the world. Big governement (people in DC making decisions) big corporations (people in board rooms making decisions). I don't view our country or the world like that. Most new jobs are created by small businesses. Most people work for small to medium businesses. A great deal of innovation and invention comes from small business. A great deal (most?) social service people are part time or volunteers. All art comes from small entities. The freedom and oppourtunity in this country allow all this to happen. I could ramble on but I won't. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 111 Registered: 3-2004 |
No Doug, these are not my "issues". You implied in your original post that the rich are no longer getting richer. You used faulty evidence to back that up from a source document that contradicts you directly. Later, you assert that the super rich do not run things. I made reference to Dick Cheney's energy task force as an example of how the super rich have disproportionate influence. I have no particular complaints about my station in life. I also have no delusions about the health of our economy or quality of our government. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9129 Registered: 4-1997  |
The rich who have bought gold and silver are getting richer. Everyone else's wealth is declining with the dollar. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 757 Registered: 5-2001  |
Being the richest country in the world gives us access to the most dangerous weapons, which we are now using to find WMD'S and fight "the war on terror." Freedom will prevail over the evil do-ers. Mission accomplished! ...and if you believe all that I have a bridge to sell you. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1015 Registered: 2-2002 |
The fact that there exists great freedom in this country or that most people spend their lives in relatively small arenas of scale has absolutely nothing to do with the dazzling and relentless display of corruption that exists at the top. Stealing is stealing. Bribing is bribing. Lying is lying. Some people profit by it in some measure, (some, even inadvertently) but almost everyone suffers from it. Some have paid only with their wallets, others with their health and lives. Some corruption we could live with, hell it is often human nature to try and "work the angles". But a society cannot remain healthy or even exist with humane order when we have corruption on the blatant, arrogant, endemic scale that we have witnessed grow in recent years. It is not the "liberal fanatics" who need to focus but many of the true conservatives are gaining theirs back. Fer Chris' sake Doug give it up. Even the little birdies in the trees and all of God's little children know by now that Bush sucks. -How's that for a statistic? Sell crazy some place else. We're all fed-up here. PS: Bush is also a "baby boomer", (I don't know WHAT your remark about that was supposed to mean.) | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9130 Registered: 4-1997 |
The rich not getting richer is also a bad sign for an economy and for all who live in it. It's a weird balance. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7033 Registered: 10-2001  |
 | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1090 Registered: 9-2004 |
Sportsnut, most economic studies I've looked at, use quintiles to describe who is what. IRCC The 5th quintile starts around 85K family income/annum. That is the top end of the middle class. Your example of 300k+ is solidly in the upper class. Its not even a close call. SO who here in MOL has family income per year over 85 k. You are not middle class. You are in the upper class. And then consider that the National Median Individual income/yr is about 35k. SO if any Individual @ MOL makes over 35k/yr, you are in the richest 50% of the country. Anybody care to find out what the Median Individual Income was during the 1990s? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5502 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave's right -- the only way recently I've seen the wealth gap close is during a recession. The wealthy will generally stay wealthy because they've been smart enough and played a chance or two well enough to acquire it. You can also inherit it, but let's leave Teddy, Jay and John out of this for a moment. Once they have it, they either manage it well or pay smart people to do it for them. Poverty also has no bounds, and you either have to make the wrong decisions and/or have some hard breaks dealt to you. Some move in and out of it. This will always be. That leaves you with taking it away from the wealthy and giving it either directly or through wonderful works of the government that turn the poor into the non-poor to lower the wealth gap (I'm leaving private charity out of this). Or do both, as we do today. The tough part is it seems that the same percentage of people remain "poor" and keeps the wealth gap going and growing as total wealth in the country increases. The only good thing over time is the state of being poor today includes a lot more relative wealth to the poor decades ago. |
