The rich get richer and the poorer remain poorer?

[RandomVariable]

I posted the following tidbit from Fox News. No one responded. It's just more evidence that the backbone of America is continuing to get fucked over, that would include a majority of posters here on USMB.
We have a hell of a lot of posters on this board who are in denial of their own demise. They just keep on bashing their own demographic and strongly defending the status quo that is destroying the demographic these folks belong to.
Why would people wish the destruction of their economic class on themselves and more importantly, their children and grandchildren?
Keep it up people, it will only get worse for future generations of your family.

New York Times: The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the Business World. - Fox Nation

Great article. Thanks for the link.

 

[francoHFW]

This won't change until the greedy idiot megarich GOP ALLOWS AN END TO THE GIVEAWAY TO THE RICH TAX RATES, HATER DUPES....

 

[Jackson]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

The poorest are not recorded by the IRS for they do not pay taxes and the are receiving government welfare. They will remain the poorest Americans because there is nowhere for them to go. They do no go up the career ladder because they are on welfare. There is no place for them to go. The Democrats have their thumb on their futures. Yet they continue to vote for them in each election. Go figure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since 2009, the top percentiles have done great, not so much for everyone else. My link in my previous post offers up some details.

Since 2009, how many of the top percentiles are the same people? Trying linking THAT.

I'm referring to the same income quintile. Do you actually think that people within that quintile had great movement out of their quintile?

Yes, I do, in fact, think that intragenerational economic mobility has not changed significantly since the 1980s. And since it's obvious that you think this sort of thing is static, I am inviting you to prove that you're correct. Believe it or not, "It's obvious to ME!" constitutes proof of nothing to ME except that you're gullible. Provide something other than your assumptions, or shut your piehole. Your choice.

Meanwhile . . .

U.S. Intragenerational Economic Mobility From 1984 to 2004: Trends and Implications

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1%
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

I guess this article says it all.

Then you guess wrong.

 

[Mr. H.]

This won't change until the greedy idiot megarich GOP ALLOWS AN END TO THE GIVEAWAY TO THE RICH TAX RATES, HATER DUPES....

You are so steeped in your own moronic bullshit that it's pathetic and borderline absurd.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since 2009, the top percentiles have done great, not so much for everyone else. My link in my previous post offers up some details.

Since 2009, how many of the top percentiles are the same people? Trying linking THAT.

Why do you think that even matters?

It is one of those arguments that demonstrates a low level of understanding of the problem.

Really? Please explain to me how questioning whether the "rich people who get richer" today are the same people you were bitching about ten years ago is "not understanding the problem". If you don't get why it's VERY relevant to the topic to ask whether or not today's rich people were last decade's rich people, or if a significant proportion of them actually were able to improve their lot in life by a whole quintile or more, then YOU are the one with a "low level of understanding of the problem". In fact, I would go so far as to say you ARE the problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is your source credible? Afraid not.

Why? Because you don't like what they have to say?

By all means, show us the "credible source" that says most people in the United States stay in the same income bracket. It's not controversial, arguable, or news that economic mobility is incredibly fluid in the US.

What measure do you use to know that there is mobility?

The one in the OP was a rather pathetic attempt.

There have been studies in recent years of movement between the quintiles - both up and down - throughout individual lives (intragenerational mobility), and an increase in compiling and tracking data on the subject. It doesn't do much good to rail against "rich people" and bemoan "poor people" if you don't at least take SOME notice of the fact that quite often in this country - in at least 60% of cases, according to one recent study - the rich person today was the poor person ten years ago, but at a different stage in his life and career. It doesn't take a lot of thought to recognize that a 21-year-old, working at his entry-level job, is going to be in a lower quintile than he will be as a 41-year-old, assuming he has continued working steadily and being productive in the intervening years.

 

[Bombur]

Since 2009, how many of the top percentiles are the same people? Trying linking THAT.

Why do you think that even matters?

It is one of those arguments that demonstrates a low level of understanding of the problem.

Really? Please explain to me how questioning whether the "rich people who get richer" today are the same people you were bitching about ten years ago is "not understanding the problem". If you don't get why it's VERY relevant to the topic to ask whether or not today's rich people were last decade's rich people, or if a significant proportion of them actually were able to improve their lot in life by a whole quintile or more, then YOU are the one with a "low level of understanding of the problem". In fact, I would go so far as to say you ARE the problem.

Of course people make more money as they get older. Of course there is some upward mobility. Demonstrating a fact that is already assumed doesn't prove anything and you have yet to establish relevance because there is none.

Enjoy your red herring.

 

[Bombur]

Why? Because you don't like what they have to say?

By all means, show us the "credible source" that says most people in the United States stay in the same income bracket. It's not controversial, arguable, or news that economic mobility is incredibly fluid in the US.

What measure do you use to know that there is mobility?

The one in the OP was a rather pathetic attempt.

There have been studies in recent years of movement between the quintiles - both up and down - throughout individual lives (intragenerational mobility), and an increase in compiling and tracking data on the subject. It doesn't do much good to rail against "rich people" and bemoan "poor people" if you don't at least take SOME notice of the fact that quite often in this country - in at least 60% of cases, according to one recent study - the rich person today was the poor person ten years ago, but at a different stage in his life and career. It doesn't take a lot of thought to recognize that a 21-year-old, working at his entry-level job, is going to be in a lower quintile than he will be as a 41-year-old, assuming he has continued working steadily and being productive in the intervening years.

Once again, of course people have career paths that start low and increase over time. Income mobility is really just a sub-topic of a much larger issue.

The real issue in question is how the difference between the various quintile groups are changing. So if you look at a population and their career path you will see that changes in the various quintiles will impact them in various stages of their life. The problem is not the successful person who works their way up to the top 1% or .001% regardless of any stagnation. It is the fact that the large majority of people will be impacted by the stagnation and this stagnation is a direct result of the erosion of the value of US labor.

 

[edthecynic]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

Is your source credible? Afraid not.

Why? Because you don't like what they have to say?

No, because it is a meaningless stat. Most new entrants into the workforce start at the lowest income group and as they age their earnings increase. By the same token, as those in the highest income group retire their income is reduced. That stat in no way shows that people born to families in the middle income groups move out of the middle income groups.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Jesus said that the poor would always be among us.

 

[Bombur]

Jesus said that the poor would always be among us.

The issue is more about how the rise and fall of the middle class is massively important to economies and a nation. I know a lot of people want to make this about poor people or really the lazy people who don't deserve anything but that is not the issue. The issue is about those who labor.

 

[usmcstinger]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

Hey lets just go on our merry way here in America. There is no problem. It's just the jealous poor people bitching about whatever they ***** about.

One day, when the ultra rich control 60% of the nations income, will you be surprised that the ultra rich pay an even higher percentage of income tax?

How about if the ultra rich have 80% of the nations income. Still be surprised that they pay the bulk of the income tax.

Them poor ultra rich people. I bet you feel for them. All the vitriol and jealousy directed at them. Poor poor ultra wealthy people.

But I do want to be clear about one thing. I could give a flying **** less if the ultra rich people were taxed at 50% of their income. If you make 10 million a year and can't get by on 5 million a year, **** ya is what I say. They don't have an income problem, they must have a spending problem.

You sound like one of those poor people who can't deal with the truth. Look at the newest CBO Report for Obama's Legacy to his drones.

 

[usmcstinger]

This won't change until the greedy idiot megarich GOP ALLOWS AN END TO THE GIVEAWAY TO THE RICH TAX RATES, HATER DUPES....

You are so steeped in your own moronic bullshit that it's pathetic and borderline absurd.

Another Obama Drone who can't handle the truth.

 

[usmcstinger]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

Is your source credible? Afraid not.

Prove it is not credible. Obviously, you don't know what the term means. Oh I forgot, only Socialists and POTUS are credible sources.

 

[usmcstinger]

Obviously, you Fringe Left Wingers did read the link and/or have very poor reading comprehension.

 

[healthmyths]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

Hey lets just go on our merry way here in America. There is no problem. It's just the jealous poor people bitching about whatever they ***** about.

One day, when the ultra rich control 60% of the nations income, will you be surprised that the ultra rich pay an even higher percentage of income tax?

How about if the ultra rich have 80% of the nations income. Still be surprised that they pay the bulk of the income tax.

Them poor ultra rich people. I bet you feel for them. All the vitriol and jealousy directed at them. Poor poor ultra wealthy people.

But I do want to be clear about one thing. I could give a flying **** less if the ultra rich people were taxed at 50% of their income. If you make 10 million a year and can't get by on 5 million a year, **** ya is what I say. They don't have an income problem, they must have a spending problem.

HEY... what do rich people and "poor" people have in common???

CELL PHONES ONLY rich have to pay for them!
Internet Access... ONLY the rich have to pay for it!
Rent... Only rich have to pay it!
Food.... Only rich have to pay for it!

People in poverty in the USA get:

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:
* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

b) 40 million Americans on food stamps get $200/month in free food.

it cost $75.7 billion in 2011 compared to $35 billion in 2008; and enrollment has hit an all-time high of 46.7 million recipients. Meanwhile, the number of children receiving free school lunches has inflated from 18 to 21 million — an unprecedented jump —
about 2.1 million households (6 million) use Section 8 the Housing Choice Voucher program, pays a large

c) portion of the rents and utilities of or the Housing Choice Voucher Program up to $1,000 /month in FREE housing...

So these people get
=== $ 5,666 in EIC cash,
=== $12,000 free housing ,
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services...

ALL of which the RICH have to pay for!!

 

[edthecynic]

HEY... what do rich people and "poor" people have in common???

CELL PHONES ONLY rich have to pay for them!

People in poverty in the USA get:

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:
* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone

Again, every time the Right exaggerate they are actually admitting they know their case is too weak to defend otherwise!

The poor who get a cell phone get a bare bones phone and 125 to 250 minutes per month, basically a phone for emergencies. If you are paying $100 a month for 125 minutes, you are an idiot.

 

[hazlnut]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

This is a conservative front group, the report has no basis in reality.

Thanks for playing!