So why isn't the "bottom 90 percent" really pissed off!!??
Hey Folks,
This is insane!! But no one is in the streets throwing bricks through bank windows. Why??
Read this unbelievable story keeping these examples in mind:
There are 300,000,000 (three hundred million) Americans.
1% of that equals 3,000,000 (3 million) Americans (slightly more than the population of Chicago).
10% equals 30,000,000 (thirty million) Americans (roughly the combined population of New York and Ohio).
90% equals 270,000,000 (270 million) Americans (roughly the population of the other 48 states).
I'll comment further at the end.
- Uke Man
Rich get richer, poor get poorer -- again/Gap between wealthiest 1 percent, rest of us growing, data show
Sunday, April 1, 2007 3:39 AM
By David Cay Johnston
The New York Times
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans -- those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 -- receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data are available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also show that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities are significant in terms of social and political stability.
"If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness," Saez said. "It can have important political consequences."
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now, Saez said.
He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans are more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The IRS estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
The Bush administration contends that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, have not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brooklyn McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman, said that this year, "The share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
Hey Folks,
The top 1% and 10% have done better than in any year since the depression.
The combined population of 48 states "dipped."
Now look at what the Bushiters said (in blue) above.
Obviously the claim that "tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, have not added to the widening gap" is a bald-faced lie. If A is larger than B, there is a disparity between A and B. if X is added to both A and B, the disparity remains the same. But if X is added only to B and more than X is added to A, then the disparity grows.
The Bushiters admit that they "benefitted those at the top more than others," but hope we failed algebra.
To distract our attention, they shift from the question of the income gap (about which they just lied) to a twisted notion of tax progresivity, one apparently based on the gross amount paid by those at the top as opposed to all 90% of the rest of us.
Well, sure. The income of 90% of us dipped; so the gross amount of income tax paid dipped. The income of the top 10% soared by the greatest increase since 1928; so the gross amount of income tax paid increased. THUS (ta-da!!!!!): "the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
THAT is not "progresivity"!! Even with a flat tax (one, universal tax rate - NO progresivity) "the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
On this one, instead of math, they hope we lack language and critical thinking skills.
At the start of this posting I asked why people weren't in the streets. Maybe we should have applied ourselves more in our math and English classes.
- Uke Man
This is insane!! But no one is in the streets throwing bricks through bank windows. Why??
Read this unbelievable story keeping these examples in mind:
There are 300,000,000 (three hundred million) Americans.
1% of that equals 3,000,000 (3 million) Americans (slightly more than the population of Chicago).
10% equals 30,000,000 (thirty million) Americans (roughly the combined population of New York and Ohio).
90% equals 270,000,000 (270 million) Americans (roughly the population of the other 48 states).
I'll comment further at the end.
- Uke Man
Rich get richer, poor get poorer -- again/Gap between wealthiest 1 percent, rest of us growing, data show
Sunday, April 1, 2007 3:39 AM
By David Cay Johnston
The New York Times
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans -- those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 -- receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data are available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also show that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities are significant in terms of social and political stability.
"If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness," Saez said. "It can have important political consequences."
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now, Saez said.
He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans are more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The IRS estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
The Bush administration contends that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, have not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brooklyn McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman, said that this year, "The share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
Hey Folks,
The top 1% and 10% have done better than in any year since the depression.
The combined population of 48 states "dipped."
Now look at what the Bushiters said (in blue) above.
Obviously the claim that "tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, have not added to the widening gap" is a bald-faced lie. If A is larger than B, there is a disparity between A and B. if X is added to both A and B, the disparity remains the same. But if X is added only to B and more than X is added to A, then the disparity grows.
The Bushiters admit that they "benefitted those at the top more than others," but hope we failed algebra.
To distract our attention, they shift from the question of the income gap (about which they just lied) to a twisted notion of tax progresivity, one apparently based on the gross amount paid by those at the top as opposed to all 90% of the rest of us.
Well, sure. The income of 90% of us dipped; so the gross amount of income tax paid dipped. The income of the top 10% soared by the greatest increase since 1928; so the gross amount of income tax paid increased. THUS (ta-da!!!!!): "the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
THAT is not "progresivity"!! Even with a flat tax (one, universal tax rate - NO progresivity) "the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
On this one, instead of math, they hope we lack language and critical thinking skills.
At the start of this posting I asked why people weren't in the streets. Maybe we should have applied ourselves more in our math and English classes.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home