ilia25
I can do math
- Jan 12, 2012
- 1,859
- 100
- 48
Middle class is doing just fine....
And yet, here is median household income (at 50% boundary):
1979: 44,481
2010: 49,445, or 11% increase
... and poorest household of the top 5%
1979: 124,540
2010: 180,810, or 45% increase
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
As you can see, the incomes grew much faster at the top, resulting in rising inequality. And virtually all rise in per capita incomes for the past 30 years went to the richest households.
Some folks are hard to fool...
....then, there's you..
1. The charge is that there has been very little change in the average real income of American households over a period of decades. And there is proof of that: income adjusted for inflation rose by only 6% from 1969 to 1999 stagnation? There it is: simple proof for the simple mind never mind.
a. You see, it is also true that the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!! http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
b. The explanation? Changes in the average number of persons per household was declining over that period! It also varies with racial and ethnic groups and with income brackets.
Yes, you've got me here! The average number of persons in a household decreased in the past 30 years from 2.8 to 2.5. Wow, it sure would explain why the incomes of the top 1% grew 40 times faster than in the median.
Or may be not?
c. Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standard of living than individual income data.
So where can we see that individual income data?
2. The increases in income is partially responsible for the decreasing size of households, as it enables more to live in their own separate homes.
The keyword here is of course "partially".
b. But in high income families, the rich, household size is often the explanation for increased income. With 39 million in households in the lowest 20% vs. 64 million in the households with the top 20% of earnings, its easy to see the reason for the disparity.
I have no problem with the rich earning more than the poor. The issue is that inequality is rising over time -- and as that trend continues, what will become of this country?
c. Further, the educational backgrounds and skills of the two quintiles are far from comparable.
No, they not -- and that is the reason for taxing the rich more. We cannot all be CEO, someone has to clean the toilets too. And CEO should take home much more than a janitor so talented people have the incentives to advance their careers. But when CEO is bringing home 500 times more than a plumber, that is just ridiculous.
Tell me a single reason why setting 70% marginal tax rate for the rich is NOT the best way to pay for Medicare or social security, or defense?
Last edited: