Top 1 percent took record share of US income in 2012

[Rshermr]

Corporations, the boogeyman of the left...the brainwashed with these people is scary...they think everyone and every business in this country OWES them something...this is the sad state of the citizenry in this country today and if they don't get it they see no problem with getting it from the Taxpayers through daddy guberment

this will be our downfall

Wow. Another profound economic argument from another brain dead con. Your opinion is worthless. All are, especially from those with absolutely NO background. You see, opinions are like ass holes. You know, where you keep your head. Because everyone has one.

Funny how cons can be convinced that they understand something based on the bat shit crazy con web sites that they live in.
Here. They seem incapable of understanding the whole concept of impartiality.

Here. This may help you:

Stupid con studies:

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

you should get that touretts checked out...it's making you look dumb and pitiful...so you post a bunch of links, the only thing it shows is you are a PARROT and need others to do your thinking for you....try growing up and get out of the bubble you reside in and get into the REAL WORLD and stop being a sheep who can lead around by the nose...

Hmmm. How do you know so much about being led around by the nose????? Is that what that nose ring you wear is for???
Funny. Cons always hate science, and studies. Funny how that works. But hell, not sure why you are being so surly with me. I was just trying to help you. I mean, if you would read the information from those studies, it could be really helpful to you. And here you get all pissy with me.

Now, if you did read the studies, you would have some idea of why you are stupid. And that could only be helpful in your future endeavors.

 

[Stephanie]

Wow. Another profound economic argument from another brain dead con. Your opinion is worthless. All are, especially from those with absolutely NO background. You see, opinions are like ass holes. You know, where you keep your head. Because everyone has one.

Funny how cons can be convinced that they understand something based on the bat shit crazy con web sites that they live in.
Here. They seem incapable of understanding the whole concept of impartiality.

Here. This may help you:

Stupid con studies:

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

you should get that touretts checked out...it's making you look dumb and pitiful...so you post a bunch of links, the only thing it shows is you are a PARROT and need others to do your thinking for you....try growing up and get out of the bubble you reside in and get into the REAL WORLD and stop being a sheep who can lead around by the nose...

Hmmm. How do you know so much about being led around by the nose????? Is that what that nose ring you wear is for???
Funny. Cons always hate science, and studies. Funny how that works. But hell, not sure why you are being so surly with me. I was just trying to help you. I mean, if you would read the information from those studies, it could be really helpful to you. And here you get all pissy with me.

Now, if you did read the studies, you would have some idea of why you are stupid. And that could only be helpful in your future endeavors.

the parrot speaks, cons hate science...you do have all the talking points for sheep down pat
go on you want to look an idiot...no skin off my ass

see ya, sheep you're just a waste of time

 

[Brain357]

It seems like nobody can debate the statistics.

 

[theHawk]

I see the progressives are still obsessed with hating the wealthiest people, as if they stole your money.

They act like a lynch mob, getting together and trying to vote themselves their "fair share" of rich people's money.

 

[Stephanie]

I see the progressives are still obsessed with hating the wealthiest people, as if they stole your money.

They act like a lynch mob, getting together and trying to vote themselves their "fair share" of rich people's money.

you can debate it until you're blue in the face, IT ISN'T GOING TO magically change anything...no matter how much some of you whine, stomp your feet or WISH it would

go out and try and catch to them, work and make you OWN WEALTH or just be satisfied with what you HAVE in LIFE...YOU MADE your life what it is, rich or poor... no one else did and no one will come riding in and make you wealthy

NOBODY owes any of you ANYTHING

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

It's unbelievable to me that so many people think it's not getting worse and others think it doesn't matter. Where is common sense?

Total net worth for the bottom 80% has gone from 18.7% in 1983 to 11.1% in 2010. That is not good.

Okay, I have several questions and if I could get a lucid answer (instead of the party line), it would be enlightening.

1. We keep hearing that the gap between the rich and middle class is widening. Does that mean that the amount available to earn for one year, for the entire population is fixed? In other words (to keep it simple) there is exactly one dollar to earn next year. If the 'rich' earn .70 then there is only .30 for everyone else? I can only earn what is available for me within that time period.

2. Since these numbers of the 'income gap' are so disturbing to the left, I would like to hear how the number of people now working, which I believe is at only 52% of the population who can work, affects the 'gap.' For example, the number working has been steadily falling since Barry and his cronies have been in office. Those who do not work receive entitlements which will not and have never been designed to place them in the middle class. Doesn't this affect the numbers and inflate the gap?

That will be enough for now. I'd like to hear the answers to these questions and may have more later.

 

[Brain357]

More rants that completely ignore the facts and statistics. Unfortunately the rich have shipped off the jobs and given themselves raises. That makes it much harder for everyone else. So they are to blame for much of the problem. Making it harder for everyone else is a problem.

 

[Rshermr]

It's unbelievable to me that so many people think it's not getting worse and others think it doesn't matter. Where is common sense?

Total net worth for the bottom 80% has gone from 18.7% in 1983 to 11.1% in 2010. That is not good.

Okay, I have several questions and if I could get a lucid answer (instead of the party line), it would be enlightening.

1. We keep hearing that the gap between the rich and middle class is widening. Does that mean that the amount available to earn for one year, for the entire population is fixed? In other words (to keep it simple) there is exactly one dollar to earn next year. If the 'rich' earn .70 then there is only .30 for everyone else? I can only earn what is available for me within that time period.

2. Since these numbers of the 'income gap' are so disturbing to the left, I would like to hear how the number of people now working, which I believe is at only 52% of the population who can work, affects the 'gap.' For example, the number working has been steadily falling since Barry and his cronies have been in office. Those who do not work receive entitlements which will not and have never been designed to place them in the middle class. Doesn't this affect the numbers and inflate the gap?

That will be enough for now. I'd like to hear the answers to these questions and may have more later.

So, oldusasniper asks:

1. We keep hearing that the gap between the rich and middle class is widening. Does that mean that the amount available to earn for one year, for the entire population is fixed? In other words (to keep it simple) there is exactly one dollar to earn next year. If the 'rich' earn .70 then there is only .30 for everyone else? I can only earn what is available for me within that time period.

Uh, is that a serious question???? Of course not, the amount to be earned typically increases each year a fair amount. The percentages, me boy, have been going up slowly for the wealthy, and down for the middle class.

2. Since these numbers of the 'income gap' are so disturbing to the left, I would like to hear how the number of people now working, which I believe is at only 52% of the population who can work, affects the 'gap.' For example, the number working has been steadily falling since Barry and his cronies have been in office. Those who do not work receive entitlements which will not and have never been designed to place them in the middle class. Doesn't this affect the numbers and inflate the gap?

Now, me boy, you pretty much blew the idea of making your question sound honest. Calling a sitting president by a pet name of the opposition pretty well places you in the camp of the opposition. And asking really stupid questions also helps place you.
First, perhaps you would like to provide the backing (as in proof) of your statement. Otherwise, why bother to answer a stupid question. I think few are interested in feeding the stupidity of a dipshit. The dipshit, of course, being you.

That will be enough for now. I'd like to hear the answers to these questions and may have more later.

Perhaps this sentence is the funniest. You have no actual rational question, but it is enough?? If that is your question, you have simply proven your inability to ask real questions at all. And, you have proven that you are a con. And that as a con, you have proven all of the studies of cons to be true. Cons are indeed stupid.

 

[KissMy]

Subsidize the Rich. The Rich hire tax lawyers because they refuse to pay taxes. Taxes are only for the "Little People".

 

[oldfart]

Okay, I have several questions and if I could get a lucid answer (instead of the party line), it would be enlightening.

Fair enough; I'll give it a shot.

1. We keep hearing that the gap between the rich and middle class is widening. Does that mean that the amount available to earn for one year, for the entire population is fixed? In other words (to keep it simple) there is exactly one dollar to earn next year. If the 'rich' earn .70 then there is only .30 for everyone else? I can only earn what is available for me within that time period.

Statistics about inequality are snapshots in time. At any one time the total income or wealth (it's important to distinguish which one we are talking about) is a given amount. The next snapshot (most of these statistics are annual) may be a little different, and the changes in these snapshots over time are very important. But the common analogy of cutting up a pie is bad imagery; hopefully the pie is growing and that growth is not independent of how it is sliced up (investment in physical and human capital and in technology and social overhead capital have to come from somewhere).

A better analogy would be building a tiered cake. Each segment we are looking at bakes its own layer and then we put it together. We can estimate how big it should be, but if someone comes up short, so will the cake. You can't tell what's going on by looking at one piece.

Since you used the term "earn" I'd add another caution. People receive income, but not all of it is "earned". There is an implied value judgment when you use the term "earned" which is often hard to support, and quickly leads to a logical fallacy, for if everyone "earns" what they receive, then they deserve it!

2. Since these numbers of the 'income gap' are so disturbing to the left, I would like to hear how the number of people now working, which I believe is at only 52% of the population who can work, affects the 'gap.' For example, the number working has been steadily falling since Barry and his cronies have been in office. Those who do not work receive entitlements which will not and have never been designed to place them in the middle class. Doesn't this affect the numbers and inflate the gap?

The statistic you are looking for is the employment-population ratio reported monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as Table A-1. You can find it at www.bls.gov. If you are serious about discussing these kinds of issues, I recommend you check the sources regularly and avoid picking up rehashes from blogs. To get the last five years for this statistic you can go to:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age and generate the table.

It will show that the employment-population ratio varied between 62.2% and 63.0% for the years 2003--2008, and between 58.4% and 59.3% for the years 2009--2012, and stands at 58.6% as of August 2013. Obviously this is a big change. Population for this purpose is defined as all those 16 years of age or over who are not in institutions, which includes a good number of students, retirees, and disabled. I'm guessing, but the 52% figure is probably based on a broader definition of population.

I would expect that fewer people working would increase the gap among income groups, as the highest income groups (especially the top 0.01%) derive income from sources other than labor. Perhaps the lowest 20% would be more stable than the middle 60% since a large part of this group would include students and retirees. So the biggest effect of the downturn is likely to be on the middle class.

The number of employed has risen since Obama took office. In February 2009 employment stood at 140,105,000 and was falling. It bottomed out at 136,809,000 in January 2010 and has risen since to 144,509,000 in August 2013. Source is the same table referred to above.

That will be enough for now. I'd like to hear the answers to these questions and may have more later.

I certainly hope so. We have an oversupply of ideologues and a shortage of knowledgeable posters on economics!

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

OLDFART: So then, based upon your answer, if each 'bakes' its own tier of the cake, IS there a dependency between the tiers? It would appear that there is not. To say it more pointedly, is there a dependency between what the top earners make and the middle and lower earners? If so, why?

For example, if Company X builds a manufacturing plant and employs 1,000 workers who make $80,000 dollars, doesn't this bolster the middle class? What affect does this have on the top 1%?

Rshermr: I expect nothing less from party parrotts. I think rdean is calling you for an Obama rally. You may go now.

 

[Againsheila]

he pay gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened last year, making a record.

The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 percent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

One of them, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.

Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.

What else can be said, the powerful line their pockets while chastising and hurting workers.
Top 1 percent took record share of US income in 2012 - NBC News.com

Welcome to the 2nd great depression....

 

[oldfart]

OLDFART: So then, based upon your answer, if each 'bakes' its own tier of the cake, IS there a dependency between the tiers? It would appear that there is not. To say it more pointedly, is there a dependency between what the top earners make and the middle and lower earners? If so, why?

For example, if Company X builds a manufacturing plant and employs 1,000 workers who make $80,000 dollars, doesn't this bolster the middle class? What affect does this have on the top 1%?

I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I'll give it a shot. It takes several different factors of production to produce output. Each of these receives a compensation and there are people who get whatever is left after the factor markets have cleared. So the different factors and their compensation is obviously related. In your example Company X builds the plant for say $200 million. The plant produces nothing sitting idle, and no one earns anything by not working. Add the labor and physical plant together and they jointly produce an income stream they can divide. How they divide it is essentially bargaining theory.

The company does a basic calculation: gross income less gross expenses is operating profit. The expenses include labor. This income stream has an internal rate of return (IRR). If that rate is above what the company can get with another project (adjusted for risk, etc) then they will go ahead. Right now there isn't enough plant & equipment investment because there is a lot of excess capacity. The excess capacity reflects inadequate aggregate demand. There is no sense in producing 9 million cars a year if you can only sell 5 million cars a year.

I said that how the distributive shares are divided up is determined by bargaining theory. The outcome hinges on three factors: the rules of the game, the bargaining power of the players, and the skill of the players. The last drops out when you are dealing with big issues as everyone can afford good lawyers if enough money is at stake. The rules of the game are determined by government, which can be influenced by both parties. This tends to amplify variations in bargaining power.

So we are left ultimately with income shares determined by raw economic and political power. Is anyone surprised by this?

If you have enough economic power, you can rent politicians for the votes that matter to you (no one buys politicians anymore, you really don't care how they vote on issues other than your direct well-being). You can capture the government agencies that are supposed to regulate you. You get regulations written that virtually close the market to new entrants and thus avoid competition. Between this kind of protection and collusion among large firms, your industry will act like a monopoly. Given the size of your industry, you probably can also control the factor markets for labor, raw materials, and so forth. All of this gets you even more money and economic power, so you can keep this cycle up indefinitely, unless, of course, you get too greedy.

And that's the rub. Who determines how much is too greedy?

 

[Rshermr]

OLDFART: So then, based upon your answer, if each 'bakes' its own tier of the cake, IS there a dependency between the tiers? It would appear that there is not. To say it more pointedly, is there a dependency between what the top earners make and the middle and lower earners? If so, why?

For example, if Company X builds a manufacturing plant and employs 1,000 workers who make $80,000 dollars, doesn't this bolster the middle class? What affect does this have on the top 1%?

Rshermr: I expect nothing less from party parrotts. I think rdean is calling you for an Obama rally. You may go now.

Now, now, me boy. You should try to be less stupid, and just appreciate that someone is taking some of their time to try to impart knowledge to you. And you are getting it for free. No one cares about opinions, but yours are obvious.
What you are getting from oldfart is beyond anything you have a right to expect. Pay attention and you will actually learn. In terms of expectations, oldfart may feel there is a possibility that you are at all interested in fact. I do not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

he pay gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened last year, making a record.

but you didn't say if this was a good or bad thing and why? I assume it means the top 1% are competing successfully on the world stage which is a good thing-right?

Imagine if Gates and Jobs were making less and American industry was declining even faster? Do you want to put a defect in Apple products so the owners won't make so much money?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you have enough economic power, you can rent politicians for the votes that matter to you

you mean rent liberal politicians don't you, the ones with the power to do favors for industry. Obamacare is the classic example of crony liberalism.

 

[Brain357]

he pay gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened last year, making a record.

but you didn't say if this was a good or bad thing and why? I assume it means the top 1% are competing successfully on the world stage which is a good thing-right?

Imagine if Gates and Jobs were making less and American industry was declining even faster? Do you want to put a defect in Apple products so the owners won't make so much money?

Bad thing obviously. If by competing you mean shipping US jobs to other countries to make a few more bucks for themselves. That is not good for this country.

Jobs is dead.

 

[Brain357]

If you have enough economic power, you can rent politicians for the votes that matter to you

you mean rent liberal politicians don't you, the ones with the power to do favors for industry. Obamacare is the classic example of crony liberalism.

Clearly he ment any politicians. You can rent them all.