The Limping Middle Class

[PoliticalChic]

Well written, you can tell by the neo-con responses; attacking the author and attacking the messenger with nothing about the subject which is spot-on.

I'd be pleased if you would entertain the following question:

How does it harm you if your neighbor earns ten times what you earn?

Just another neo-conism, change the subject.

Who said anything about harm and who cares if you're pleased?

So sad that you haven't the ability to assemble a response.

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

 

[Seawytch]

Anyone saying tax increases will hurt the economy is completely ignoring the 50s and the 90s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

 

[Zagg]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

Addressing class warfare pimps only lends their arguments of avarice and covetousness validity.

We've had going on 100 years of a central bank issuing a worthless currency, the income tax, nearly 70 years of New Deal socialism, more than 45 years of Great Society socialism, untold domestic handout and "investment" programs...Yet things keep getting worse.

And all the the class warfare pimps can tell us is that it's all the fault of the evil rich people.

Fuck Robert Reich.

Actually things have only been getting worse for the last 40 years. The two decades after WWII witnessed the greatest prosperity in modern times, if not world history. But when the elites discovered that they could make themselves even richer by investing in Asia rather than the US, things started to fall apart. Look for the decline to accelerate.

 

[kiwiman127]

How does reducing the deficit, without lowering my taxes help me, and how does it address then inequality stated in the original post?

Also, the increased revenue NEVER goes to reducing the deficit, someone just comes up with another program that gets funded, and the debt keeps rolling.

That is total bullshit.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

Clinton never balanced the budget.
In fact, the national debt was 41% higher after his term than before it.

4. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

Having been so easily and Marjory mislead in this corner of your worldview...

...what does this suggest about the rest of your closely held views?

The first day of the first fiscal year for Bill Clinton (October 1st 1993)-Total National Debt,406,339,573,433.47
The first day of of the first fiscal year for George W Bush (October 1st, 2001)-Total National Debt 5,806,151,389,190.21
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
(One can go to this link and figure out what the National Debt was on specific days.)

So, the National Debt increased by 1.4 trillion dollars or 32% under Clinton as each President's deficits are figured by fiscal years, not calender years..
But you are right, Clinton nver had a surplus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Raising taxes on the rich is not socialism.

And fuck you too, Frank. You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

If you taxed the dreaded rich at 100% you'd net about $980,000,000,000... one time 'cause they'd then stop producing.

Who's dumb as a box of rocks?

You are.

Which country has the least income inequality in the world?

Sweden.

Which Western country has the fastest growing economy?

Sweden.

Time for some remediation, Chris.

1. A nation has the choice of prosperity, or economic equality....but not both.

2. Equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all is severely counterproductive economically, and, therefore, makes for a very poor society. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth. And, if income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? The only rational strategy is to consume all income, and not save any thing, as this would be anti-social under a social justice regime. With no savings, there would be no investment. But, investment would make no sense anyway, as any returns would be expropriated.

3. But…if one were to make sure they have low income…they would be rewarded with a grant from the government! So- what would you do?

4. Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…

5. Even in schools…if all grades were the same, ‘averaged,’ the above-average students of Lake Woebegone would stop studying, since they are going to get the same grade as everyone else….and the average grade for the class would decline! Even the average student would stop studying, for the same reason… since there would be no point to it…until, logically, grades would fall to zero.
Covered fully in Peter Ferrara's book, "Bankruptcy Bomb."

 

[kiwiman127]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Do you understand of Real Dollars are? Apparently not.

Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollar
How to convert Nominal Dollars to Real Dollars

Using the method of Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollars, the person making $50,000 in 1967 should of been making $276,140 as the CPI in January, 1967 was 32.9 and the CPI was 181.7 in January, 2003.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Do you understand of Real Dollars are? Apparently not.

Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollar
How to convert Nominal Dollars to Real Dollars

Using the method of Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollars, the person making $50,000 in 1967 should of been making $276,140 as the CPI in January, 1967 was 32.9 and the CPI was 181.7 in January, 2003.

All of the dollar amounts in Reynolds quotes are in real dollars.

Now you say what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS ALIVE AND WELL
Since the 1970s, most families have experienced a rapid growth in their income and wealth; the average family -- for the first time ever -- has a net worth of more than $100,000, say Stephen Moore and Lincoln Anderson (Wall Street Journal).

Research shows that Americans are experiencing an astonishing pace of upward income mobility, say Moore and Lincoln:

In 1967, only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income; today, one in six do.
The percentage of families with an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9 to 27 percent.
The percentage of families with real incomes between $5,000 and $50,000 has been falling as more families move into higher income categories -- the figure has dropped by 19 percent since 1967.
This shows that upward mobility is the rule, not the exception, in America today, says Moore and Lincoln; therefore, the middle class is not shrinking, as previously thought, but is getting richer:

In 1967, the middle-class income range was between $28,000 and $39,500 a year, now that range is between $38,000 and $59,000 a year.
The upper-middle class is also richer; today, those falling within the 60th to 80th percentile in family income have an income range of between $55,000 and $88,000 a year, which is about $24,000 a year higher than 1967.
In 2004, the total net worth of Americans rose to $50 trillion and the median household income was estimated at $105,000; that's nearly double the median family-wealth level of 1983 and triple the level in 1962.
Furthermore, this rapid growth indicates that the American Dream, in which each generation achieves a higher living standard than their parents, is alive and well, says Moore and Lincoln.

Source: Stephen Moore and Lincoln Anderson, "Great American Dream Machine," Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2005.

For text (subscription required):

Great American Dream Machine - WSJ.com

 

[kiwiman127]

So, using the Real Dollar formula, the average wage earner made $272.74 a week in 1982, so in 2003 they should have been making $1,505.53 a week or $78,287 a year in 2003!
The Median Household income in 2003 was $43,318 up barely $8,000 from 1967 and that's in Nominal Dollars.

 

[kiwiman127]

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Do you understand of Real Dollars are? Apparently not.

Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollar
How to convert Nominal Dollars to Real Dollars

Using the method of Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollars, the person making $50,000 in 1967 should of been making $276,140 as the CPI in January, 1967 was 32.9 and the CPI was 181.7 in January, 2003.

All of the dollar amounts in Reynolds quotes are in real dollars.

Now you say what?

Why don't you use the Nominaql to Real Dollars formula, your numbers just don't jive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, using the Real Dollar formula, the average wage earner made $272.74 a week in 1982, so in 2003 they should have been making $1,505.53 a week or $78,287 a year in 2003!
The Median Household income in 2003 was $43,318 up barely $8,000 from 1967 and that's in Nominal Dollars.

"The upper-middle class is also richer; today, those falling within the 60th to 80th percentile in family income have an income range of between $55,000 and $88,000 a year, which is about $24,000 a year higher than 1967."
Ibid.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Wow, what a load!

The income of the top 1% is so much greater than, and has grown at such a faster rate than has everyone else's income that you have to use statistical tricks to manipulate the figures.

"I can prove anything by statistics - except the truth." ~ George Canning

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you understand of Real Dollars are? Apparently not.

Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollar
How to convert Nominal Dollars to Real Dollars

Using the method of Converting Nominal Dollars into Real Dollars, the person making $50,000 in 1967 should of been making $276,140 as the CPI in January, 1967 was 32.9 and the CPI was 181.7 in January, 2003.

All of the dollar amounts in Reynolds quotes are in real dollars.

Now you say what?

Why don't you use the Nominaql to Real Dollars formula, your numbers just don't jive.

These are not my numbers.

As noted, they are sourced from Ferrara, Moore, Anderson, and explained above via Reynolds.

You are free to check any of the above.

The dispute is very simple to outline. You are of the hand-wringer persuasion, claiming that folks are doing no better than two generations ago...or, what, doing worse. Kept down by those evil rich.

(Of course, you haven't noticed that there is no perpetual group known as the rich, due to the economic mobility in America.)

I say it is pure pap...the kind of populist propaganda that Obamunists thrive on.
Folks are not only wealthier, but have a higher standard of living than several generations back.
But, you are free to man the barricades at will.

If you need a bête noire, in reality you need look no further than an overreaching Progressive government which restricts entrepreneurship with higher taxes and red tape regulation...
...and has folks like you convinced that they are 'destroying the village to save the village.'

 

[ba1614]

Raising taxes on the rich is not socialism.

And fuck you too, Frank. You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

Your policies fail every time they're implemented.

Every single time.

We need to eliminate the individual income tax which was the first shot fired in the Progressive War on American Society

What is more important, that American children get an education, that our people get healthcare, that roads and bridges get fixed, that advanced materials research be done, that our military be supplied with the best equipment, that old people be taken care of, that our debt be paid down, that food and water be safe, that our environment be clean, OR THAT A BILLIONAIRE GETS A NEW YACHT???

Just how much revenue do you think you'll be able to get from the evil rich guy annually?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP is correct, I don't see anyone refuting the facts.
This trend will continue. Look, we have wages about where they were in constant 1982 Real Dollars and it's been an over 30 year trend. And at the same time, Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages. Now, the trend includes not only holding wages but also making great profits while minimizing their workforce. But they are hiring overseas where labor is cheaper.
Why would this tend not continue? What will happen to the Middle Class?

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Wow, what a load!

The income of the top 1% is so much greater than, and has grown at such a faster rate than has everyone else's income that you have to use statistical tricks to manipulate the figures.

"I can prove anything by statistics - except the truth." ~ George Canning

Why, Nic....so nice to see you back. Finished dinner at the dumpster early?

And, to see you so concerned about those filthy rich who are oppressing you...but, truly, do you actually want to give up living in that refrigerator box?
You look so comfy!

"...you have to use statistical tricks to manipulate the figures."
What a clever way to pretend that you actually understood my statistical tricks!!
Smart little rascal.


Now, let's see how really clever you are: was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?

 

[Nic_Driver]

False.
Stop being taken in by the propaganda.

The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


" Corporate America which dictates the marketable wage, is enjoying great profits, while holding down wages."

A good course in statistics would straighten you right out!

Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.


One more time"
"...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%."

Wow, what a load!

The income of the top 1% is so much greater than, and has grown at such a faster rate than has everyone else's income that you have to use statistical tricks to manipulate the figures.

"I can prove anything by statistics - except the truth." ~ George Canning

Why, Nic....so nice to see you back. Finished dinner at the dumpster early?

And, to see you so concerned about those filthy rich who are oppressing you...but, truly, do you actually want to give up living in that refrigerator box?
You look so comfy!

"...you have to use statistical tricks to manipulate the figures."
What a clever way to pretend that you actually understood my statistical tricks!!
Smart little rascal.


Now, let's see how really clever you are: was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?

Is that the best you've got? Deceit and insults?

Not even a good try, sorry lil' chika.

 

[Richard-H]

The fact is when one person is overpaid, other people are being cheated.

The wealthy are thieves. Their wealth is solely due to other people being underpaid.

The wealth gain their wealth by the economically advantaged taken advantage of the economically disadvantaged.

 

[Chris]

The question is, "Why should the super rich pay taxes at a LOWER rate than the rest of us?"

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

 

[thereisnospoon]

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

I have a question. I want an honest answer. I do not want some programmed response or talking point.
Ready?.....Ok.....What is the "share" of "national income"?