US Income Inequality: Top !% Take Home 24% of US Income

[Jeremy]

Yup, those were exactly the type of people I was refering to....

 

[thereisnospoon]

As the saying goes about the Golden Rule- "He who has the gold...makes the rules"

Has the wealth of the richest 1% increased from 9% to 24% because they have increased the standing of American industry in the world market? Have they lead a rising economic tide? Have they generated 3 times the wealth that was available in 1976?

Since 1976, the percentage of wealth controlled by the US in the world market has declined sharply. The American worker has seen his standard of living decline in this period, while the wealthiest 1% has almost tripled their wealth

The golden rule still applies......the richest 1% has gotten the rules changed so they pay less in taxes, have less stringent labor rules and is able to claim a larger slice of the pie

Now, for the last time..There is no pie...Wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no "because one has more ,therefore another MUST have less"...It doesn't work that way.
On planet liberal, when a person accumulates more wealth, he "took" a bigger piece or "more than his fair share"....
The wealthiest 10% of the population pays 40% of the federal tax burden.
The top 33% pay nearly 70%....Conversely the bottom 50% pay NO FEDERAL TAX...
So tell me oh whiz of math, how is it the wealthy pay less in taxes?
Would you rather see the top marginal rate go back to 70%? Why not make it 90%....
What is it you libs love so much about high taxes?...Suppose it was you who suddenly had to cough up over half of your income to the government and then watch politicians throw it down a rat hole?

Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.

The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax

The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax

I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.

the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Right wingers think those "rich people" earned every penny.

They don't take into account that those rich right wingers paid politicians to change laws and regulations so they could get that money. Just look at Wall Street to see that.

And very few of those rich people even go into the military to defend the country were they were able to get so wealthy. And Republicans defend that too.

It's like Republicans are mesmerized by these people. The rich are somehow "more and better than human".

Of course, what do you expect? The right wing base are lemmings. All they know is, "There's a "black" guy in the "WHITE" House", and that's enough. That's all they need to know.

Apparently you are clueless to the political leanings of most wealthy people?..
Gates? Lib... Soros? Lib. Kennedy's? Libs....Heinz? Lib....Take a look at voting patterns. Invariably, wealthy people vote democrat. What color are the northeastern states? Blue...Correct. and where is the highest concentration of wealth outside of California( Blue) ?.....In the northeast...outstanding...
You're just another green with envy member of the class envy club.

 

[rightwinger]

Now, for the last time..There is no pie...Wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no "because one has more ,therefore another MUST have less"...It doesn't work that way.
On planet liberal, when a person accumulates more wealth, he "took" a bigger piece or "more than his fair share"....
The wealthiest 10% of the population pays 40% of the federal tax burden.
The top 33% pay nearly 70%....Conversely the bottom 50% pay NO FEDERAL TAX...
So tell me oh whiz of math, how is it the wealthy pay less in taxes?
Would you rather see the top marginal rate go back to 70%? Why not make it 90%....
What is it you libs love so much about high taxes?...Suppose it was you who suddenly had to cough up over half of your income to the government and then watch politicians throw it down a rat hole?

Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.

The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax

The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax

I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.

the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?

The $250 k threshold came from the upper tax bracket. There was a time that those upper tax brackets were $1 million plus. The GOP wisely figures that if they lumped those making $250k with those making multiple millions, it would be harder to raise taxes on those making multi-millions a year

Looks like it worked. All we hear from the GOP is about the poor small business owners who make $250k....they never mention the guy making $25million

 

[The Rabbi]

You truly have a twisted relationship with facts. There is some generational wealth transfer and there always will be, but the VAST majority of wealth in this country is created in one generation.

What about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? and literally hundreds of thousands of others - roughly 10% of the people in the country have a net worth greater than $1 million.

What twisted relationship with facts?

The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.

 

[rightwinger]

You truly have a twisted relationship with facts. There is some generational wealth transfer and there always will be, but the VAST majority of wealth in this country is created in one generation.

What about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? and literally hundreds of thousands of others - roughly 10% of the people in the country have a net worth greater than $1 million.

What twisted relationship with facts?

The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.

Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty

 

[boedicca]

80% of millionaires are self made.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

The Equalizers would rather destroy the opportunity for that 80% to become millionaires than to tolerate the "roll of the gene pool dice" which results in a lucky few being born into wealth.

A $Million doesn't get one close to the top 1%.

Wrong. The Adjusted Gross Income split level for the top 1% in 2008 was $380K.

That's the problem with focusing on the top 1%. Lumping multi-billionaires in with someone making $400K per year is inane. All this focus does is encourage class warfare between the upper middle class and the middle and lower middle classes.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

 

[The Rabbi]

What twisted relationship with facts?

The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.

Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty

Hell with Quayle (he lost). What about a Reid dynasty? Or a Biden dynasty?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.

The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax

The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax

I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.

the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?

The $250 k threshold came from the upper tax bracket. There was a time that those upper tax brackets were $1 million plus. The GOP wisely figures that if they lumped those making $250k with those making multiple millions, it would be harder to raise taxes on those making multi-millions a year

Looks like it worked. All we hear from the GOP is about the poor small business owners who make $250k....they never mention the guy making $25million

Correct. The Left does not want focus on the small bus owner losing his shirt due to overhead and now a confiscatory tax on the way.
What the class envy folks do not want ot talk about is that the Govt is attacking GROSS income not net. So when a business balances it's books for the year and realizes a 30% net income on gross sales of $250k, the feds aren't going after the net. They are going after gross revenues.
Many businesses are downsizing in preparation of this latest government money grab. They want to stay under the magic $250k level to avoid the grubby paws of DC politicians.
This tax increase is a job killer for sure.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.

Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty

Hell with Quayle (he lost). What about a Reid dynasty? Or a Biden dynasty?

Amazingly, the fine people of Arizona elected Baby Quayle to represent them


But at least we got a Cuomo dynasty back in New York

 

[rightwinger]

the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?

The $250 k threshold came from the upper tax bracket. There was a time that those upper tax brackets were $1 million plus. The GOP wisely figures that if they lumped those making $250k with those making multiple millions, it would be harder to raise taxes on those making multi-millions a year

Looks like it worked. All we hear from the GOP is about the poor small business owners who make $250k....they never mention the guy making $25million

Correct. The Left does not want focus on the small bus owner losing his shirt due to overhead and now a confiscatory tax on the way.
What the class envy folks do not want ot talk about is that the Govt is attacking GROSS income not net. So when a business balances it's books for the year and realizes a 30% net income on gross sales of $250k, the feds aren't going after the net. They are going after gross revenues.
Many businesses are downsizing in preparation of this latest government money grab. They want to stay under the magic $250k level to avoid the grubby paws of DC politicians.
This tax increase is a job killer for sure.

Thanks

First I have ever seen of Gross Income being taxed

Would you have a link?

 

[Foxfyre]

There IS a growing disparity between the rich and poor right now because of economic chaos that is hurting the poor almost not at all and putting a small dent in the rich while clobbering the middlle class.

But individual personal wealth had risen to its highest point ever just before the housing bubble burst. I don't remember where I got this chart and didn't copy the link, but I think it comes from Forbes:

The updated data show that if European countries had been added as American states in 2008:

1. Italy ($30,756), Greece ($29,361) and Portugal ($30,756) would rank as the three poorest U.S. states, below even Mississippi in per capita GDP ($31,233); Portugal would be 26% poorer than Mississippi.

2. Spain ($31,955) would be America’s second poorest state, ranking between West Virginia ($33,978) and Mississippi ($31,233).

3. France ($34,045) and Belgium ($34,493) would rank #48 and #49 as U.S. states, just barely ahead of Arkansas ($34,437).

4. Germany ($35,613), U.K. ($35,445) and Finland ($35,426) would rank among the poorest 15% of American states, with per capita GDP below Alabama ($36,469).

5. Although Switzerland (not an EU country but included here), Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark rank among Europe's wealthiest countries, they would be below average as U.S. states measured by GDP per capita, ranging between 9.5% below the U.S. average for Switzerland to 22% below the U.S. average for Denmark.

6. Luxembourg is the only EU country that would rank above average and would in fact be the wealthiest American state, but behind the District of Columbia in per-capita GDP.

Less government socialism and more free enterprise and capitalism still seems to be the USA's best bet. And again, if you remove all those horrible rich people the Left loves to disparage, then we will most likely quickly be BELOW all those EU countries.

Do not despise the rich. Most earned their riches and they are the golden goose that provide a whole lot of the means for others to become rich as well as most of the funding for our greatest institutions.

Be proud and feel blessed that we live in a country with no class restrictions of any kind, either simulated or enforced, and every American who is willing to educate his/her self and prepare for success has a good shot to become rich.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty

Hell with Quayle (he lost). What about a Reid dynasty? Or a Biden dynasty?

Amazingly, the fine people of Arizona elected Baby Quayle to represent them


But at least we got a Cuomo dynasty back in New York

So there is hope in Arizona after all.
Yes, thank g-d for small facors like Andrew Cuomo. Sure to be a paragon of ethics and integrity.

Glad we still have the Adams dynasty around. Oh, wait.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.

In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.

What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.

I prefer the American system.

 

[B. Kidd]

How can our current level of concentrated wealth be good?
The last time we reached this level of wealth concentration was in the late '20's just before the Great Depression.
And yes, the accumulation of this level of concentrated wealth has resulted in a zero-sum game.

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.

In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.

What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.

I prefer the American system.

I do to

The American system has had a "socialist" progressive tax for over 75 years

Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How can our current level of concentrated wealth be good?
The last time we reached this level of wealth concentration was in the late '20's just before the Great Depression.
And yes, the accumulation of this level of concentrated wealth has resulted in a zero-sum game.

That's an opinion ...Not based in fact.
Well now...Since you opened the door. What is your solution?...Really...You libs are great at pontificating about what you consider"obscene wealth", but you are incapable or unwillling to say what it is really on your minds as to how to reduce this so-called "wealth gap"...W Why don't you simply admit that you want government to "take it from them". From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, correct?
Quite frankly, this wealth thing is all about getting votes for democrats anyway.
No one talked about wealth gaps or any of that nonsense when the democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
This is much ado about nothing. The ones screaming about this issue are simply looking for a handout.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.

In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.

What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.

I prefer the American system.

I do to

The American system has had a "socialist" progressive tax for over 75 years

Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?

NIce try.....It's bullshit.
The person in poverty doesn't pay taxes. So cut the bullshit. And even those that do pay, their burden is a mere blip on the tax radar when compared to what the highest earners pay.
Here I am going to drive you nutso...I am from NJ, where most everyone is fiscally conservative about THEIR money and free spending with everyone else's.
A flat tax. Everyone pays 15% of their gross income above $40k per year.
No deductions, No exemptions. Get rid of the IRS and ave bazillions of dollars in compensation for IRS workers. Let them find a job in the private sector.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?

Oh I don't know. Maybe the one the Founders envisioned in which the people would not be subject to a king or dictator or fuedal lord or any other authority that would decide what property the people could have and what their rights would be?

Maybe the one in which all people have an equal vote and an equal responsibility for the integrity and accountability of those they elect to administer the people's shared affairs?

Maybe the one in which government has no power to buy or bribe votes or enslave people with entitlements and thereby increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and thus does not corrupt itself or those it bribes or enslaves?

Maybe the one the Founders saw in which for the first time in the history of the world, the people would secure unalienable rights for all and then govern themselves. The system that made us the greatest nation on Earth? The system that we are slowly but inevitably losing through creeping socialism unless the people have the will to turn that around?

 

[boedicca]

Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.

In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.

What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.

I prefer the American system.

I do to

The American system has had a "socialist" progressive tax for over 75 years

Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?

A flat tax doesn't make someone living in poverty pay the same as a billionaire.