Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

[Maple]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”
<more>

Of course, they are sitting on it. Obama has scared the be-jesus out of them with nothing but uncertainty. They have no idea what his health care plan is going to do to them, they don't know their tax liability, they are fearful and uncertain and if there is anything that will slam the brakes on growth in the economy it's uncertainty. Obama has declared war on the private sector, yet expects them to just go on hiring and expanding their business's. It ain't gonna happen until we get the socialist in Chief out of office, kicked to the curb somewhere in Chicago land with the rest of the crooks.

 

[Maple]

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”
<more>

Of course, they are sitting on it. Obama has scared the be-jesus out of them with nothing but uncertainty. They have no idea what his health care plan is going to do to them, they don't know their tax liability, they are fearful and uncertain and if there is anything that will slam the brakes on growth in the economy it's uncertainty. Obama has declared war on the private sector, yet expects them to just go on hiring and expanding their business's. It ain't gonna happen until we get the socialist in Chief out of office, kicked to the curb somewhere in Chicago land with the rest of the crooks.

Steve Wynn- Las Vegas Billionare has bill boards all over Las Vegas that state, " Fire Obama and I hire 10,000 people tomorrow." He's right.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

What major deregulation has been accomplished in the last 10 years? You've been called on this before and shown it is a lie.

I've already posted it and invited you to reply to the specific things I posted. I even reposted the links to the original posts and invited you to click them and then click the quote button on the posts and reply to them. You can do so any time.

Cop out.
An interview with somebody saying mortgage criteria were watered down is not evidence that Bush deregulated the mortgage industry.

Like I said, click the links then click the quote buttons.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Plenty of actual links when you click...

And it was Buffett's claim she was paying 30%.

You said that Buffet said the secretary was paying 30% income tax. I asked you to provide an actual link to an actual website where i can read that. So far you haven't been able to provide one and i'm betting you can't.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

How much did you bet?

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

2000-2006 republicans
2007-2008 democrats

I've already said that I put the blame on Congress much more than the president. You seem to think that Bush could legislate from the Oval Office.
Bush had stated his concerns about the housing market.
I'm not a republican, but what I'm saying is that it took both sides of the isle to get what we have right now.

Bush had concerns about Fannie and Freddie along with the rest of the GOP. They wanted to restrict their ability to compete for all the new mortgages that were being written, at a time when mortgage lending was growing and Fannie and freddie were losing market share to Wall Street and the banks. The Bush/GOP position might have had something to do with all the money being thrown at them by Wall Street securities firms and the banks. The Democrats were defending Fannie and Freddie, largely because of all the money that F and F were giving to Democrats. Basically you had a fight for market share going on between F and F and the rest of the mortgage/mortgage securities industry.

Imagine how much money the taxpayer would have saved if the Dems weren't keeping Fannie and Freddie running at full steam.

How would the taxpayer have saved any money?

 

[Meister]

Typical game of "Keep Asking Questions To Throw Them Off".

Ya gotta love it...don't respond to the post other than asking a question with a obvious answer.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Typical game of "Keep Asking Questions To Throw Them Off".

Ya gotta love it...don't respond to the post other than asking a question with a obvious answer.

What's the ovbious answer?

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical game of "Keep Asking Questions To Throw Them Off".

Ya gotta love it...don't respond to the post other than asking a question with a obvious answer.

What's the ovbious answer?

The obvious answer is you're a troll who needs to go on Iggy.
See ya.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Typical game of "Keep Asking Questions To Throw Them Off".

Ya gotta love it...don't respond to the post other than asking a question with a obvious answer.

What's the ovbious answer?

The obvious answer is you're a troll who needs to go on Iggy.
See ya.

Like I said, you can reply to my posts any time you like. Just click the links i reposted after you didn't answer them the first time and then click the quote button.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said that Buffet said the secretary was paying 30% income tax. I asked you to provide an actual link to an actual website where i can read that. So far you haven't been able to provide one and i'm betting you can't.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

How much did you bet?

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush had concerns about Fannie and Freddie along with the rest of the GOP. They wanted to restrict their ability to compete for all the new mortgages that were being written, at a time when mortgage lending was growing and Fannie and freddie were losing market share to Wall Street and the banks. The Bush/GOP position might have had something to do with all the money being thrown at them by Wall Street securities firms and the banks. The Democrats were defending Fannie and Freddie, largely because of all the money that F and F were giving to Democrats. Basically you had a fight for market share going on between F and F and the rest of the mortgage/mortgage securities industry.

Imagine how much money the taxpayer would have saved if the Dems weren't keeping Fannie and Freddie running at full steam.

How would the taxpayer have saved any money?

In case you haven't been paying attention, the taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie. It's been in all the papers.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

How much did you bet?

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Imagine how much money the taxpayer would have saved if the Dems weren't keeping Fannie and Freddie running at full steam.

How would the taxpayer have saved any money?

In case you haven't been paying attention, the taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie. It's been in all the papers.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession.

 

[boedicca]

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

All this proves is that Buffett is either incredibly ignorant or lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

Are you saying you can't prove Buffett was correct?

That she doesn't pay more than he does?

That she doesn't pay 30%?

Can he get away with lying just because he's a billionaire?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

All this proves is that Buffett is either incredibly ignorant or lying.

Of course it does. How about replying to this :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185788-obamas-regulatory-tsunami-2.html#post4166572

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would the taxpayer have saved any money?

In case you haven't been paying attention, the taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie. It's been in all the papers.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession.

All the bad debt and debt securities?
Are you sure?
If Merrill Lynch has some bad debt, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
How about Bear Stearns?
Lehman?
Bank of America?

How about you post some proof?
As far as I know, the only debt we're on the hook for is Fannie and Freddie.
Thanks liberals.

 

[boedicca]

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

All this proves is that Buffett is either incredibly ignorant or lying.

Of course it does. How about replying to this :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185788-obamas-regulatory-tsunami-2.html#post4166572

Answered in the proper thread, although your smarminess is really unworthy of a reply.

 

[boedicca]

In case you haven't been paying attention, the taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie. It's been in all the papers.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession.

All the bad debt and debt securities?
Are you sure?
If Merrill Lynch has some bad debt, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
How about Bear Stearns?
Lehman?
Bank of America?

How about you post some proof?
As far as I know, the only debt we're on the hook for is Fannie and Freddie.
Thanks liberals.

Well, we're now on the hook for Solyndra.

And that GM stock deal isn't so great either.

 

[UreaHype]

It is strange that the disparity is so severe. Surely no board of fairly represented parties would plan for that result if they were divvying up the spoils as between labor and those risking capital by investing their wealth. I would venture that the reverse of this scenario has never occured.