Top 1 percent took record share of US income in 2012

[francoHFW]

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008...

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:
1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50%

TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.

Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point isn't about how easy or difficult it is to get rich. The point is about how difficult it is now, as opposed to decades passed, just to support a family.

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

You might, if honest, take note of he fact that the ten richest Americans include five who inherited wealth.

(l)iberals aren't all weak, nor all white, nor all atheistic, nor all of any one characteristic or trait. Stating so is ridiculous as is the entire ideology held by dogmatic Libertarians.

Top 10 America's Richest People 2013 - List Dose

 

[kaz]

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008...

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:
1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50%

TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.

Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

From Keith Olbermann's lips through yours. The rich bastards you hate who earn 20% of the income still pay 40% of the taxes. 99 out of 100 people pay only 1 1/2 times the other one. We're good. Chillax.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Isnt it strange how the Repubs believe that the more money you make the better you are and most of them are poor bastards themselves? Some sort of advanced Stockholm syndrome mixed with some good ol Pimp game making them believe they have to take the shaft AND will get smacked up for not being down

 

[kaz]

The point isn't about how easy or difficult it is to get rich. The point is about how difficult it is now, as opposed to decades passed, just to support a family.

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

You might, if honest, take note of he fact that the ten richest Americans include five who inherited wealth.

(l)iberals aren't all weak, nor all white, nor all atheistic, nor all of any one characteristic or trait. Stating so is ridiculous as is the entire ideology held by dogmatic Libertarians.

Top 10 America's Richest People 2013 - List Dose

I don't concede to the Marxist dogma that inheriting wealth is evil, but even then you hand picked that stat because if you either measure wealth inherited as a percent of wealth held or the percent of millionaires who inherited their wealth then you come up with only a tiny percent. But hey, let's design our tax code to screw anyone named Walton. That's a way to run a country.

 

[Mustang]

The point isn't about how easy or difficult it is to get rich. The point is about how difficult it is now, as opposed to decades passed, just to support a family.

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

The goose that laid the golden egg? Are you talking about Wall Street? Those geese laid a bunch of golden eggs, alright. Wall Street and the big banks went to DC, got the laws changed that used to separate commercial banking from investment banking, and then used the new laws to developed a lot of risky financial instruments that essentially took the gold that used to belong to a lot of other people and institutions in the form of real estate, and 401Ks, and laid that gold in their own laps. That essentially obligated the US Gov't to bail out the commercial banks because <drumroll, please> the commercial banks were insured by the taxpayers (that's you and me) where as investment banks were not.

It was probably the largest scale short term transfer of wealth in our nation's history, and to my knowledge, not one of these bankers has ever spent a day in prison. OCCASIONALLY, the gov't pursues a criminal or civil case which results in a fine which represents a fraction of their ill-gotten gain. And to add insult to injury, a statement is included in the judgment that states that the payment of the fine is not an admission any guilt or wrongdoing.

But you guys want to blame liberals? Get a clue, PLEASE!

 

[kaz]

Isnt it strange how the Repubs believe that the more money you make the better you are and most of them are poor bastards themselves? Some sort of advanced Stockholm syndrome mixed with some good ol Pimp game making them believe they have to take the shaft AND will get smacked up for not being down

So if we object to targeting rich people, then we have Stockholm syndrome and some other things that were pretty incoherent, but I'm assuming are bad.

Actually we just think you're greedy and lazy and you should work for your money instead of stealing it.

 

[martybegan]

Isnt it strange how the Repubs believe that the more money you make the better you are and most of them are poor bastards themselves? Some sort of advanced Stockholm syndrome mixed with some good ol Pimp game making them believe they have to take the shaft AND will get smacked up for not being down

What we dont want is the government deciding how much money for a given person is "enough." All the caterwalling about income equality leads to the inevitable conclusion by the statists that a person's wealth is not really theirs, and must be taken by the government to be given to the masses.

But what really happens is the money is used to bloat up the government even further, with minimal benefit given to anyone, except the new federal/state/local government employees and the politicans who run the burecratic empires.

 

[kaz]

The point isn't about how easy or difficult it is to get rich. The point is about how difficult it is now, as opposed to decades passed, just to support a family.

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

The goose that laid the golden egg? Are you talking about Wall Street? Those geese laid a bunch of golden eggs, alright. Wall Street and the big banks went to DC, got the laws changed that used to separate commercial banking from investment banking, and then used the new laws to developed a lot of risky financial instruments that essentially took the gold that used to belong to a lot of other people and institutions in the form of real estate, and 401Ks, and laid in that gold in their own laps. That essentially obligated the US Gov't to bail out the commercial banks because <drumroll, please> the commercial banks were insured by the taxpayers (that's you and me) where as investment banks were not.

It was probably the largest scale short term transfer of wealth in our nation's history, and to my knowledge, not one of these bankers has ever spent a day in prison. OCCASIONALLY, the gov't pursues a criminal or civil case which results in a fine which represents a fraction of their ill-gotten gain. And to add insult to injury, a statement is included in the judgment that states that the payment of the fine is not an admission any guilt or wrongdoing.

But you guys want to blame liberals? Get a clue, PLEASE!

Objecting to liberals blaming rich people for your problems is blaming liberals. I love getting you talking, you can't make that shit up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

he pay gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened last year, making a record.

The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 percent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

One of them, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.

Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.

What else can be said, the powerful line their pockets while chastising and hurting workers.
Top 1 percent took record share of US income in 2012 - NBC News.com

There is no such thing as a "share" of income.

The possible income earned is not a finite amount.

You assume that because a rich guy made a million more this year than last that someone else or a group of someones made a million less.

That is not and has not ever been the case.

 

[boilermaker55]

your ad hominem does not address the situation at all it only shows your ignorance but that is to be expected from someone of your "caliber."
And to those who injected political ideology into the equation, read again. There was nothing mentioned what so ever about political parties.
The rich and powerful control this country. Simple enough.
Democracy!.
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Republic!b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
So if you "edgetho" choose to insult that is one thing; if however we were to trade insults, it would be the equivalent of me fighting a one-armed person.
That is no fun. You would surely be the loser.

Which means... What?

That they're getting smarter and you're getting more stupid?

That the Stuttering Clusterfukk lied about caring about the 'working class'?

Or that it's conditions beyond your understanding that cause things like this....

Yeah... That's it

 

[Mustang]

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

The goose that laid the golden egg? Are you talking about Wall Street? Those geese laid a bunch of golden eggs, alright. Wall Street and the big banks went to DC, got the laws changed that used to separate commercial banking from investment banking, and then used the new laws to developed a lot of risky financial instruments that essentially took the gold that used to belong to a lot of other people and institutions in the form of real estate, and 401Ks, and laid in that gold in their own laps. That essentially obligated the US Gov't to bail out the commercial banks because <drumroll, please> the commercial banks were insured by the taxpayers (that's you and me) where as investment banks were not.

It was probably the largest scale short term transfer of wealth in our nation's history, and to my knowledge, not one of these bankers has ever spent a day in prison. OCCASIONALLY, the gov't pursues a criminal or civil case which results in a fine which represents a fraction of their ill-gotten gain. And to add insult to injury, a statement is included in the judgment that states that the payment of the fine is not an admission any guilt or wrongdoing.

But you guys want to blame liberals? Get a clue, PLEASE!

Objecting to liberals blaming rich people for your problems is blaming liberals. I love getting you talking, you can't make that shit up.

Being rich, in and of itself, is not the issue. There are plenty of rich people who didn't have a damn thing to do with it. The point is that the people I'm talking about were "connected" to the political process through lobbying efforts which involved campaign contributions, and they PAID to get the legislation they wanted which then allowed them to game the system for heretofore unheard of sums of money. Not just millions of dollars or even hundreds of millions. Not even just billions. We're talking about TRILLIONS of dollars of value was either lost or changed hands in the process of the financial collapse. And the taxpayers who already got screwed on the front end ended up getting screwed on the back end when they ended up financing the bailout.

But you want to blame liberals?

Liberals are the ones who supported regulation and gov't oversight of the financial system which, correct me if I get it wrong, is anathema to conservatives who continue to claim that it was too MUCH regulation (as opposed to unfettered capitalism) which wrecked the economy. In fact, the GOP is currently pushing for loosening regulation yet again. Wall Street must be licking their figurative lips at the thought at getting another crack at gaming the system. And why wouldn't they since they got away with it the first time pretty much unscathed, not to mention a damn sight richer in the process.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Even after almost 5 years of Obama, it's easier now and more rewarding in this country then for almost any in the history of mankind. The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort. You don't get that your soft life was provided by a lot of hard work and in your greed, you're working to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

You might, if honest, take note of he fact that the ten richest Americans include five who inherited wealth.

(l)iberals aren't all weak, nor all white, nor all atheistic, nor all of any one characteristic or trait. Stating so is ridiculous as is the entire ideology held by dogmatic Libertarians.

Top 10 America's Richest People 2013 - List Dose

I don't concede to the Marxist dogma that inheriting wealth is evil, but even then you hand picked that stat because if you either measure wealth inherited as a percent of wealth held or the percent of millionaires who inherited their wealth then you come up with only a tiny percent. But hey, let's design our tax code to screw anyone named Walton. That's a way to run a country.

You post opinions sans facts ("The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort") based on your hate for those who don't subscribe to your non pragmatic and emotion laden ideology.

There is no quintessential liberal and no Liberal Political Party is on the national scene. The same is true of progressives, of whom many have a personal agenda based on their sexual orientation, race, creed or belief in personal freedom.

Most liberals and progressives are registered Democrats, for the tent of he GOP has no room for them. Some belong to the Green Party but reject the radical ideas held within the far left, i.e. the Peace and Freedom or the Socialist Worker's Party.

Those on the far right are too dishonest and/or too stupid to notice the vast differences displayed by members of the P&F and SWP from those who register and vote for Democratic Candidates.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Isnt it strange how the Repubs believe that the more money you make the better you are and most of them are poor bastards themselves? Some sort of advanced Stockholm syndrome mixed with some good ol Pimp game making them believe they have to take the shaft AND will get smacked up for not being down

So if we object to targeting rich people, then we have Stockholm syndrome and some other things that were pretty incoherent, but I'm assuming are bad.

Actually we just think you're greedy and lazy and you should work for your money instead of stealing it.

More money = Better
Less money (applies to most repubs) = You figure it out

 

[kaz]

You post opinions sans facts ("The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort") based on your hate for those who don't subscribe to your non pragmatic and emotion laden ideology.

Actually I gave the only fact in this discussion, it's you and your buds who are blowing opinion out of your posteriors.

The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. IRS data. The problem is what exactly? How much should they pay?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You post opinions sans facts ("The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort") based on your hate for those who don't subscribe to your non pragmatic and emotion laden ideology.

Actually I gave the only fact in this discussion, it's you and your buds who are blowing opinion out of your posteriors.

The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. IRS data. The problem is what exactly? How much should they pay?

The fact that you actually believe your "fact" actually says something of substance is evidence you lack critical thinking skills and/or are not very bright.

I hope this is not too abstract for you: "There are liars, damn liars and statistics", Mark Twain

 

[ClosedCaption]

Isnt it strange how the Repubs believe that the more money you make the better you are and most of them are poor bastards themselves? Some sort of advanced Stockholm syndrome mixed with some good ol Pimp game making them believe they have to take the shaft AND will get smacked up for not being down

What we dont want is the government deciding how much money for a given person is "enough." All the caterwalling about income equality leads to the inevitable conclusion by the statists that a person's wealth is not really theirs, and must be taken by the government to be given to the masses.

But what really happens is the money is used to bloat up the government even further, with minimal benefit given to anyone, except the new federal/state/local government employees and the politicans who run the burecratic empires.

I know what you DONT WANT its what you DO want that you guys seem to have trouble with.

No it doesn't the only thing income inequaltity shows is how fucked up America is for having such a gap. That's IT.

 

[Dutch]

You post opinions sans facts ("The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort") based on your hate for those who don't subscribe to your non pragmatic and emotion laden ideology.

Actually I gave the only fact in this discussion, it's you and your buds who are blowing opinion out of your posteriors.

The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. IRS data. The problem is what exactly? How much should they pay?

You are missing the entire point. No one disagrees with you that the top 1% pay most of the taxes. The problem is that all of the income gains in the last 30 years or so have gone almost exclusively to the top 1% and if this continues it can be detrimental to our society. If the top 1% is sharing 25-30 percent of income gains in this country and 300 million have to fight for the other 70% it can become an unstable situation. Just look throughout history and there are plenty of examples of empires and countries collapsing with income inequality being a major factor in that collapse. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc......An economic model that allows the richest members of society to accumulate a larger and larger share of the cake will eventually self-destruct. It is a lesson that is yet to be learned.

 

[chikenwing]

Wow who would have thought that the top earners once again are the top earners.

While the rabid left,beat their chest over the stock market ,praising Obama for setting records,then complain like a little school girl its not fair,pretzel logic!

 

[ClosedCaption]

You post opinions sans facts ("The problem is that liberals are weak and you want lots of reward for almost no effort") based on your hate for those who don't subscribe to your non pragmatic and emotion laden ideology.

Actually I gave the only fact in this discussion, it's you and your buds who are blowing opinion out of your posteriors.

The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. IRS data. The problem is what exactly? How much should they pay?

You are missing the entire point. No one disagrees with you that the top 1% pay most of the taxes. The problem is that all of the income gains in the last 30 years or so have gone almost exclusively to the top 1% and if this continues it can be detrimental to our society. If the top 1% is sharing 25-30 percent of income gains in this country and 300 million have to fight for the other 70% it can become an unstable situation. Just look throughout history and there are plenty of examples of empires and countries collapsing with income inequality being a major factor in that collapse. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc......

This point will be...MUST BE ignored. Watch