In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
"The greatest evils in our industrial system to-day are those which rise from the abuses of aggregated wealth; and our great problem is to overcome these evils and cut out these abuses. No one man can deal with this matter. It is the affair of the people as a whole. When aggregated wealth demands what is unfair, its immense power can be met only by the still greater power of the people as a whole, exerted in the only way it can be exerted, through the Government;..."
- Teddy Roosevelt 1910
Translation: I'm going to babble on about an entirely different matter, reciting the party line propaganda about something else entirely, and pretend that my previous bullshit wasn't demolished.
Right Bubba, YOU posit things have changed in your post, # 31
Close To Half Of Americans Have More Credit Card Debt Than Savings Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT, YOU CHOOSE TO CUT OFF THE REST OF THE HISTORY AND SAY YOU DEMOLISHED SOMETHING? lol
ONE nation or state your libertarian bullshit was or is used,. EVER?
You right wingers 'believe in' myths and fairy tales, nothing more Bubba
What are you talking about? I posted about modern leadership practices in the business place a greater emphasis on non monetary motivation for workers. All you've done is babble on about how much you hate Republicans.
More nonsense from you and your justification for greed for the 'job creators'
Under current tax rates, there's no reason for the 1% to not continue to pay themselves hundreds of times what the average family earns, even if some of the loopholes go away.
The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes. No board of directors would okay increases in CEO wages because most of it would go to the IRS. Cap gains rates were also higher. Paying yourself a big salary or bonus was worthless if you couldn't keep it.
AGAIN, HONESTY, TRY IT
You know, recent studies have shown that the most effective treatment for butt-hurt is to pull your head out of your ass.
The right wing ideology, at its roots, is based on fear instead of reason
I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds expect life to be.
Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory
The conclusion?
Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do
not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.
This paragraph from
the report says it all—
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes
Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued,
"it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
The second president,
John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest.
Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent
"an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored
"the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."
Late in life,
Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that t
he goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
