09-14-2011, 10:32 AM
The facts are the facts.
Here it is from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/08...ch-richer.html
Unemployment is at 9.2%, and the ruins of the U.S. housing market are still smoldering after the 2008 bonfire. But the planet's rich are getting richer, especially in the growing BRIC economies.
In fact, there are more rich people today than there were before the credit crisis destroyed Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and nearly crippled the world's financial industry.
The Census Bureau divides household income into quintiles -- 20% each, from the lowest to the highest, with an added column that breaks out the top 5% of households. To assess how well each household quintile has done financially since 1975, I took the raw data for 1975 and 2001 (the last year available in this series) and calculated how much each quintile gained in income, both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of their 1975 income.
The results are striking. The vast majority of income increases has accrued to the top 20% and especially the top 5%. Here are some of the numbers, adjusted into 2001 dollars. (Note that this is an "apples to apples" analysis that is adjusted for inflation.)
The 400 wealthiest Americans have seen their annual incomes skyrocket over the last two decades while their tax rates have decreased dramatically, according to newly released data from the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, between 1992 to 2007, the annual incomes of this tiny club of über-rich increased seven-fold to a whopping $345 million on average, while their effective tax rate dropped by more than one-third from a 1995 peak of nearly 30%, the data shows.
"This just-disclosed data shows that government policy is concentrating incomes at the very top and steadily lowering their tax burden, thus shifting it on to Americans who in a lifetime don't make what these people make in a week," Johnston told DailyFinance.
Between 1992 to 2007, the last year included in the data, the income of the 400 richest Americans rose 637% to the average $345 million mark. During that same period, their effective tax rate declined by over one-third, from a peak tax rate of nearly 30% to 16.6%. Meanwhile, their share of all adjusted gross income increased from 0.52% to 1.59% over that same period.
Source: Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2011, "Wealth Holdings Remain Unequal in Good and Bad Times."
Source: Congressional Budget Office, Average Federal Taxes by Income Group, “Average After-Tax Household Income,” June, 2010.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
09-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Let me start by saying I watch Fox News all the time and listen to right wing radio so I can spot talking points a mile away.
This entire argument is based on the flawed fantasy that all employers are just itching to hire as many employees as they can, if only they had lower taxes or "more certainty". No businessman or woman worth their salt is going to hire people simply because they have more money coming in. That is absolutely stupid.
Businesses hire when demand increases, because they need the extra employees to meet the demand. Labor costs are some of the or sometimes the largest business expense, so no businessperson is going to hire people unless they need more people.
Let me repeat this: You don't hire people simply because you have more revenue, you only hire people to meet increased demand.
Working class people spend a far higher percentage of their income on goods or services than wealthy people (because they have to). So, if you increase the spending power of the working class, demand for goods and services will increase, and businesses will have to hire in order to keep up with business.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
09-14-2011, 10:50 AM
For the people saying we should lower taxes, how about this idea:
We lower taxes only on employers who actually do hire people. Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, but if they hire people (domestically, not outsourced), then they get big tax credits that keep their effective tax rates where they are now (or maybe even lower).
This way, companies will be rewarded for hiring. That is an incentive. It's not an incentive to give them tax cuts and just sit around waiting for a decade for them to hire.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
09-14-2011, 12:07 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
You have no plan to create jobs. All you have is negative left wing talking points. What is your plan. Tell you what, combine Obamacare, onerous regulations, the EPA breathing down your neck, higher taxes, and you will stifle job growth, a job killer. That is what causes UNCERTAINTY. Capiche. This administration is anti-business. Your listening to Fox must go in one ear and out the other cause there is no absorption there. BTW, I can spot left wing liberal talking points a mile away also.
09-14-2011, 12:30 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
The top 1%.
That's 3 million people. Almost none of whom work for anyone but themselves.
The message in the article is clear: Rich people have a lot more money than you do and they got it by taking it away from the poor.
I don't buy that.
Talking about the greed of the top 1% of wage earners (even though they are not wage earners) and then taxing the top 15% is the plan. Carter had the same plan, and it's a bad plan.
09-14-2011, 03:26 PMEducation without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
C. S. Lewis
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
09-14-2011, 06:37 PM
I have asked you to study real economics from real economists, classical, Keynesian, monetarists and Austrians alike. Yet you show up day after day with a bag full of sociological nonsense consisting of jumbled ideas set together by their ears, orchestrated by some ideologue hack. How do you expect to ever learn how real, real world economies, function?"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
09-14-2011, 07:43 PM
I always love the "there are no jobs" mantra. Last December, my wife left her job with the state to spend more time at home in preparation for our becoming foster parents. So she's not siting idle, she got a work from home job. Took her about 3 days between jobs to get this job. When that job stopped(Turbo Tax..ended after tax day) then it took her all of a few days to hook on with another work from home gig. So it's not that there are no jobs, it's that everyone wants a job where you do nothing and get paid to do it.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|