Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what is the bottom line to all that? Are you saying the upper income brackets have not increased exponentially over the past three decades while the lower income brackets have diminished in proportion?You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.
1. If you dont see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the 90s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf
Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late 80s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!
a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in 97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.
2. Lets be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.
what is the bottom line to all that? Are you saying the upper income brackets have not increased exponentially over the past three decades while the lower income brackets have diminished in proportion?You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.
1. If you dont see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the 90s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf
Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late 80s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!
a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in 97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.
2. Lets be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.
In simpler terms, are you saying the rich haven't become substantially richer while more Americans have become proportionately poor, or poorer?
The GOP "does" not try to proptect the wealthy, would be correct.Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?
I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.
Shameless Cowards - the lot of you
-----
The GOP does not "protect" the wealthy. That is just spin used by the democratic party in an effort to use class warfare to gain support.
You see, the democratic party knows people are foolish enough to believe that the GOP protects the wealthy...and sadly, they are correct....people DO believe it.
No, the GOP do not try to protect the wealthy.
The GOP protects the rights and liberties of ALL Americans...including the wealthy.
what is the bottom line to all that? Are you saying the upper income brackets have not increased exponentially over the past three decades while the lower income brackets have diminished in proportion?You should be very careful with the data...and how it is ascertained.
It is misleading.
1. If you don’t see it, is it still there?? The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple:
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf
Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data. But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution. Remember, before the changes in the tax code, late ‘80’s, investment income of our middle-income earners was all counted on tax returns. Thus, once it was no longer counted, it appeared that the income of the middle was sharply decreased, while that of the rich appeared to receive the major portion of said distributution!
a. Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.
2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
BTW...the increases in wealth of every quartile increased at least as fast as the top.
In simpler terms, are you saying the rich haven't become substantially richer while more Americans have become proportionately poor, or poorer?
And if they, you, and everyone else all paid 17% on every dollar earned, regardless of source, and with no exceptions deductions or whatever... you would be OK with that??
Not really, because we've got a national debt problem.
Would be nice if the wealthy would pony up their fair share of at least 28 percent though.
what you nutshells keep glossing over is the fact that they the rich paid that 28% or more on the original money the 17 per cent is paid on the interest on the money they saved. Now you working stiffs go to work save 25% of what you earn and the interest you accrued will be taxed at 17% see how that works. in the end you've ended up paying 17% + 28% which = 45%. Now get busy
It's truly amazing, many of them cheer when unions are busted and the wages and benefits of working people are reduced and then they turn around and call class warfare when it is pointed out that the people who are reducing the wages and benefits of the working people are doing better financially now than they ever have before.
You forget, those jobs don't belong to the employees, they belong to the owners of the corporations that control the benefits and pay. They can pay whatever they want to and provide wnatever benefits they want to, or even none at all.
I forget nothing, without the workforce the corporation makes nothing, and the person that dedicates years of their life working for a company is more invested than some speculator that throws a few dollars into it by buying stock.
I believe in treating EVERY American with the same level of respect and not catagorizing them into classes.
Therefore when you "target" one group of people for the benifit of another I defend them.
I believe in treating EVERY American with the same level of respect and not catagorizing them into classes.
Therefore when you "target" one group of people for the benifit of another I defend them.
Marxists think in terms of classes
I'm not a Democrat, but I don't know any Democrats who favor Moscow economics over America'sDemocrats: Explain why you favor Moscow economics over America's?
I'm not a Democrat, but I don't know any Democrats who favor Moscow economics over America'sDemocrats: Explain why you favor Moscow economics over America's?
No thanks...I wouldn't frequent either of those ridiculous bastions of mind numbing propaganda. I have more respect for my gray matter.I'm not a Democrat, but I don't know any Democrats who favor Moscow economics over America'sDemocrats: Explain why you favor Moscow economics over America's?
Pay closer attention to current events.
You cannot tell the difference between the Communist Party webpage the the DNC
The simple answer is the wealthy and the conveniently positioned have access to insiders and can afford to bribe our almost totally corrupt legislative body to remove regulations, pass laws and to publish fraudulent ratings and information to facilitate the objectives of greed and financial exploitation.If the gap is growing, how is it the fault of the wealthy? Or how is it any more the fault of the wealthy than the fault of the poor?
I don't really think they are....I just think the few idiots that do....get all the press. Then the GOP and conservative media goes to work trying to convince people that they're all like that.Why are Democrats constantly on the move to separate people from their private property?
Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?
I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.
Shameless Cowards - the lot of you
-----
I agree....wealth, and or, powerPlease explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?
I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.
Shameless Cowards - the lot of you
-----
The Soviets were propagandized into worshipping the state.
Similarly, we've been brainwashed to worship wealth.
Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?
I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.
Shameless Cowards - the lot of you
-----
The Soviets were propagandized into worshipping the state.
Similarly, we've been brainwashed to worship wealth.
The thing about being brainwashed, that's similar to being insane...is that you don't know it if you're insane, or have been brainwashed.Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?
I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.
Shameless Cowards - the lot of you
-----
The Soviets were propagandized into worshipping the state.
Similarly, we've been brainwashed to worship wealth.
And you've been brainwashed to envy wealth. So what?
