REPORT: US households incomes below end or recession

[jgarden]

it's the plutocracy of all the past govts. since Reagan that have fucked over the citizens

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 .....

The Great Recession (2008) also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

- between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%

- since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900

- the top 1% increased by over $700,000

- 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.

- 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000

- Great Recession (2008) also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth, but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%

- between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%

- between 2002 and 2007 ..... 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

The Congressional Budget Office confirms "Moonglow's" observation - while the top 1% continue to live the "American Dream," the bottom 90% of households have seen their average pre-tax income decrease by $900 since 1979!

This coincides with Republican introduction of a regressive tax system, tax cuts for the wealthy, that saw the average annual incomes of the top 1% of households increase by over $700,000 to $960 000 by 2009

Such a dramatic redistribution of income that rewarded the top 1% at the expense of the other 90% didn't occur by chance, it was the result of a deliberate, calculated campaign orchestrated by wealthy through their political arm - the Republican Party!

 

[Wyatt earp]

repeating fiftieth time - WHERE are YOU proposing to get the money for this spending?
we have 17 trillion in debt and counting

We're a dying nation....Maybe we need reform within welfare and wasteful spending instead of killing ourselves.

yes, we do.

we also can find money for all you have proposed - for now by giving tax incentives to private money, if economy really recovers and starts growing fast - taxpayers money can be carefully introduced.

But first and foremost we need to reduce WASTE.

Everywhere.

Including the areas you are suggesting - there is tons of waste in research government spending, I can assure you.

Government on steroids is not only about wasteful doubling of unnecessary social programs, waste in the defense ( there are tons there) or in the department of education.

It is in EVERY government department.

EVERY one.

Vox the democrats slammed Perots plan, slammed Forbes plan of a flat tax, slammed T.J. Pickens plan of natural gas. all the democrats try to do is be regressive.... the only fucking Ideas they want is spoon fed to them on msnbc... sheep..... baaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[FA_Q2]

it's the plutocracy of all the past govts. since Reagan that have fucked over the citizens

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% ..... Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Congressional Budget Office confirms "Moonglow's" observation - while the top 1% continue to live the "American Dream," the bottom 90% of households have seen their average pre-tax income decrease by $900 since 1979!

This coincides with Republican introduction of a regressive tax system - tax cuts that saw the annual income of the top 1% of households increase by over $700,000.

This is a classic example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I will note that you made zero logical or factual statements to make that assertion. Rather, you simply state that incomes are down and taxes for rich have been scaled back so therefore that is why incomes are down. That is, by the way, completely false and such an assertion relies on completely ignoring the reality of the current economy.

The fact is that the top 1% actual share of the tax burden has been INCREASING. That means assertion that they have been getting that cash because of tax breaks is utter bunk. They are not seeing more because of the tax code; they are seeing more because trade policy, productivity, automation and a host of other things as we move from the industrial age to the information age. The world is not the same as it was in the 50’s and to think that we can operate under the same principals is rather asinine.

Look to other places than the tax policy for real change as the tax policy is little more than a cover for the political parties to argue about.

 

[jgarden]

..... Vox the democrats slammed Perots plan, slammed Forbes plan of a flat tax, slammed T.J. Pickens plan of natural gas. all the democrats try to do is be regressive.... the only fucking Ideas they want is spoon fed to them on msnbc... sheep..... baaaaaaaaaaa.

..... This is a classic example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I will note that you made zero logical or factual statements to make that assertion. Rather, you simply state that incomes are down and taxes for rich have been scaled back so therefore that is why incomes are down. That is, by the way, completely false and such an assertion relies on completely ignoring the reality of the current economy.

The fact is that the top 1% actual share of the tax burden has been INCREASING. That means assertion that they have been getting that cash because of tax breaks is utter bunk. They are not seeing more because of the tax code; they are seeing more because trade policy, productivity, automation and a host of other things as we move from the industrial age to the information age. The world is not the same as it was in the 50’s and to think that we can operate under the same principals is rather asinine.

Look to other places than the tax policy for real change as the tax policy is little more than a cover for the political parties to argue about.

“Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.

If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income.

So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."

― Warren Buffett (America's 2nd richest individual in 2012 - $82 billion)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...class-has-won/2011/03/03/gIQApaFbAL_blog.html

This is not just my assertion but that of Warren Buffett who made it to The Washington Post on September 30th, 2011 - not in the 50's.

True to form "FA_Q2" doesn't provide any documented sources to support his argument - which is what you would expect when it comes to conservatives