Top 1% income grew at 275% 1979-2007

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Apr 8, 2011
6,025
1,298
48
San Antonio, TX
Hard to believe the left isn't all over this.

snippet:

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study this week that compared real after-tax household income between 1979 and 2007, which were both after recessions and had similar overall economic activity.

While the income of the richest 1 percent nearly tripled, increases were smaller down the economic ladder. After the 1 percent, income for the next highest 20 percent grew by 65 percent, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population but still lagging well behind the top percentile.


another snippet:

The "equalizing effect" of transfer payments and federal taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979, according to the CBO, sparking controversy in the debate over whether to increase taxes on the rich.

In 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. Meanwhile over that period, the overall average federal tax rate fell slightly, the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes, and income taxes became slightly more concentrated at the higher end of the income scale.

"The effect of the first two factors outweighed the effect of the third, reducing the extent to which taxes lessened the dispersion of household income," Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director, wrote on the CBO website.

Income More Than Doubles for Top 1 Percent From 1979 - ABC News


The question is what to do about it. Raising taxes on the rich is not going to be the answer, although the democrats would have you believe otherwise.

PS: Please see my thread about well-being of the middle and lower income classes in this forum.
 
Last edited:
The "equalizing effect" of transfer payments and federal taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979, according to the CBO, sparking controversy in the debate over whether to increase taxes on the rich.

but why is that important? It seems to me welfare transfer payments should provide someone with a subsistence standard of living at most. If instead, you try to "equalize" the poor with the rich the poor will get further and further above a subsistence standard of living as the ecomomy grows and so have less and less incentive to work. Do we really want that?
 
Last edited:
The "equalizing effect" of transfer payments and federal taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979, according to the CBO, sparking controversy in the debate over whether to increase taxes on the rich.

but why is that important? It seems to me welfare transfer payments should provide someone with a subsistence standard of living at most. If instead, you try to "equalize" the poor with the rich the poor will get further and further above a subsistence standard of living as the ecomony grows and so have less and less incentive to work.


Therein lies a part of the argument for or against redistribution of wealth. I started another thread about how the middle and lower income folks are actually not as disadvantaged as the income inequality gap might suggest. Take a look if you have the time and inclination.

I would agree with you that there is a disincentive to work if you make unemployment comfortable enough.
 
... income grew....

scream.JPG


OH NO --THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!!
 
The right wingnuts think it's because these people "work harder". Buying up Republican politicians, the best money can buy, and changing the rules has nothing to do with it.
 
RONNIE REAGAN'S PLAN IS WORKING WELL!

Updated CBO data reveal unprecedented increase in inequality | Economic Policy Institute

The problem is particularly stark in recent years. Before the current problems in housing and financial markets developed, the overall economy grew solidly over this recovery, with notably strong productivity growth. As the CBO data reveal, aggregate household income grew $1.1 trillion in the 2003-05 period (see appendix table). But these gains have failed to flow broadly throughout the income scale, and the extent of their concentration at the top of the income scale is historically unique. Just under two-thirds (63%) of the gain in household income from 2003 to 2005 went to just 5% of the nation’s wealthiest households.
 
The right wingnuts think it's because these people "work harder". Buying up Republican politicians, the best money can buy, and changing the rules has nothing to do with it.


So you think democrat politicians are without sin? You think they're any different from the repubs? Rs and Ds from coal states will unite to fight lower subsidies against coal, Rs and Ds from the farm states will fight for more tax breaks and advantages for big farms, and so on. Pols from either side of the aisle are guilty, let's not pretend one side is clean or less guilty than the other.
 
I would agree with you that there is a disincentive to work if you make unemployment comfortable enough.

especially if the unemployed are taught they deserve a fixed and growing % of the ever growing money that Jobs Gates and Buffet et al. make.
 
The "equalizing effect" of transfer payments and federal taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979, according to the CBO, sparking controversy in the debate over whether to increase taxes on the rich.

but why is that important? It seems to me welfare transfer payments should provide someone with a subsistence standard of living at most. If instead, you try to "equalize" the poor with the rich the poor will get further and further above a subsistence standard of living as the ecomony grows and so have less and less incentive to work.


Therein lies a part of the argument for or against redistribution of wealth. I started another thread about how the middle and lower income folks are actually not as disadvantaged as the income inequality gap might suggest. Take a look if you have the time and inclination.

I would agree with you that there is a disincentive to work if you make unemployment comfortable enough.

:lol:
 
Top 1% income grew at 275% 1979-2007

Listen WiseAcre -- it's a new age here. You have to start thinking like Russians in the 80's when they watched their news. ESPECIALLY the networks..

WHY on EARTH would CBO release a report NOW about how income levels changed between 1979 and

2007

Is CBO that far behind in their data? No -- CBO works for Congress. So to gin up support for OWS -- some leftist CongressCritter went to CBO and requested that they show the LARGEST gap in incomes possible...

How better to do that then CHERRY-PICKING the data to END just prior to the market and the economy tanking in 2008?? RIGHT SMACK DAB at the top of the BOOMING BUBBLE...

To survive --- we must think PRAVDA comrade. We must have our Double-Speak decoders handy at all times. AND -- we must drink LOTS of Wodka before consuming the State-Sponsored news sources...

:eek:
 
BTW::::

Why did this CBO pick 1979 as the STARTING DATE???

Because you want a MONSTROUS RATIO to rattle the class warriors. And 1979 would be a MINIMUM year for wealthy income coming out of the CARTER malaise...

Smell the propaganda...... :fu:

Somebody's stoking the class war fire...
 
BTW::::

Why did this CBO pick 1979 as the STARTING DATE???

Because you want a MONSTROUS RATIO to rattle the class warriors. And 1979 would be a MINIMUM year for wealthy income coming out of the CARTER malaise...

Smell the propaganda...... :fu:

Somebody's stoking the class war fire...

Yes.

1% of the wealth extractors.

The "Dragons of America".

That's who stoking it. And have been for 30 years.
 
I was wondering the same thing. why is the Government even releasing this data, AND WHY NOW.

and how funny it ONLY goes up to 2007..
 
Top 1% income grew at 275% 1979-2007

Listen WiseAcre -- it's a new age here. You have to start thinking like Russians in the 80's when they watched their news. ESPECIALLY the networks..

WHY on EARTH would CBO release a report NOW about how income levels changed between 1979 and

2007

Is CBO that far behind in their data? No -- CBO works for Congress. So to gin up support for OWS -- some leftist CongressCritter went to CBO and requested that they show the LARGEST gap in incomes possible...

How better to do that then CHERRY-PICKING the data to END just prior to the market and the economy tanking in 2008?? RIGHT SMACK DAB at the top of the BOOMING BUBBLE...

To survive --- we must think PRAVDA comrade. We must have our Double-Speak decoders handy at all times. AND -- we must drink LOTS of Wodka before consuming the State-Sponsored news sources...

:eek:


I do not know for sure if the CBO numbers are phony. If they are I'm sure we'll hear rebuttals from conservative websites in the next day or two. I do think since 2007 the income gap has narrowed some, as it always does in a recession cuz the same rich people that make gobs of money in good times are also the ones who lose gobs of money when the shit hits the fan.

The Dow Jones was around 800 or so back then, now it's up to nearly 12,000, probably was higher than that in 2007. So who made the most money from that historic rise in the stock market? The people who had the most invested - rich people.
 
Top 1% income grew at 275% 1979-2007

Listen WiseAcre -- it's a new age here. You have to start thinking like Russians in the 80's when they watched their news. ESPECIALLY the networks..

WHY on EARTH would CBO release a report NOW about how income levels changed between 1979 and

2007

Is CBO that far behind in their data? No -- CBO works for Congress. So to gin up support for OWS -- some leftist CongressCritter went to CBO and requested that they show the LARGEST gap in incomes possible...

How better to do that then CHERRY-PICKING the data to END just prior to the market and the economy tanking in 2008?? RIGHT SMACK DAB at the top of the BOOMING BUBBLE...

To survive --- we must think PRAVDA comrade. We must have our Double-Speak decoders handy at all times. AND -- we must drink LOTS of Wodka before consuming the State-Sponsored news sources...

:eek:


I do not know for sure if the CBO numbers are phony. If they are I'm sure we'll hear rebuttals from conservative websites in the next day or two. I do think since 2007 the income gap has narrowed some, as it always does in a recession cuz the same rich people that make gobs of money in good times are also the ones who lose gobs of money when the shit hits the fan.

The Dow Jones was around 800 or so back then, now it's up to nearly 12,000, probably was higher than that in 2007. So who made the most money from that historic rise in the stock market? The people who had the most invested - rich people.

They purposely picked THOSE DATES because they represent the Bottom of the 70's bad economy and the TOP of 00's Boom.. Not just from the DJones standpoint, but from other business factors like inflation, energy crisis, ect.

No other explanation for choosing those Years. It's a blatant giveaway to biased math analysis... From an agency that will produce anything their bosses ask them to...
 
According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.

The biggest single group of professionals in the top one percent is actually doctors, who make up 16 percent of that subset. ...media executives are some of the worst offenders when it comes to CEOs who reap multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes

Where Does the Top 1% Really Work? - National - The Atlantic Wire

Another interesting article on the subject.

THE TOP 1%: COME OUT, COME OUT, WHEREVER YOU ARE

Public Schools: Public colleges regularly pay their employees hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The best paid University of California employee is Jeff Tedford, with a salary of $3 million a year coaching football.

Online Infopreneurs: Bloggers making over $380,000 a year are a dime a dozen.

TV Journalism: Anchorwomen and men make well over $380,000 at all the major stations in all the major cities.

Professional Sports: Every starting NFL player makes well over $380,000. So do all the members of every NBA team and European soccer league.

Entertainment Media: When you come home from a long days work and switch on the tube, the stars of your favorite TV sitcoms are well into the top 1%.

Who Are The Top 1% Income Earners? | Financial Samurai

Eat them!!!! :lol:
 
BTW::::

Why did this CBO pick 1979 as the STARTING DATE???

Because you want a MONSTROUS RATIO to rattle the class warriors. And 1979 would be a MINIMUM year for wealthy income coming out of the CARTER malaise...

Smell the propaganda...... :fu:

Somebody's stoking the class war fire...

That is an odd year. I did a little research and it seems the avg. teacher pay tripled in that same time period.

I'm not that great at math, but I believe that's more than 275%. :eusa_eh: I'd be curious to see other professions as well.

There was no mention of this in the numerous news reports I've seen and heard this morning. Hmmm. :confused:
 
Hard to believe the left isn't all over this.

snippet:

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study this week that compared real after-tax household income between 1979 and 2007, which were both after recessions and had similar overall economic activity.

While the income of the richest 1 percent nearly tripled, increases were smaller down the economic ladder. After the 1 percent, income for the next highest 20 percent grew by 65 percent, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population but still lagging well behind the top percentile.


another snippet:

The "equalizing effect" of transfer payments and federal taxes on household income was smaller in 2007 than it had been in 1979, according to the CBO, sparking controversy in the debate over whether to increase taxes on the rich.

In 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. Meanwhile over that period, the overall average federal tax rate fell slightly, the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes, and income taxes became slightly more concentrated at the higher end of the income scale.

"The effect of the first two factors outweighed the effect of the third, reducing the extent to which taxes lessened the dispersion of household income," Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director, wrote on the CBO website.

Income More Than Doubles for Top 1 Percent From 1979 - ABC News


The question is what to do about it. Raising taxes on the rich is not going to be the answer, although the democrats would have you believe otherwise.

PS: Please see my thread about well-being of the middle and lower income classes in this forum.

The "left" IS all over that.

Why do you think they're protesting on WALL STREET?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top