Top 1% take biggest income slice on record (union, borrow, money)

[shaker281]

Originally Posted by BlueRidge1

Do you actually think that the condition of the "poor" has not improved since the 1980s? In pretty much every measure, what rich people in had, "poor" people can now afford. Everyone has a refrigerator and access to food. There are too many examples to mention. Pick anything and you'll see that there has been a material improvement.

There are plenty of problems in the world with poverty, but America isn't one of them. We should be proud to have the richest "poor" people on earth.

But of course this thread has nothing to do with recognizing how far we've come -- it's egalitarian nonsense about being peeved that someone, somewhere is making a LOT of money that WE don't think they deserve, and how we can correct this problem of someone having something that we don't want them to have.

Is the number of poor people in America even relevant to this discussion, other than peripherally?

In 2010 the top 20% in America owned 89% (84% by some measures) of all the wealth. Obviously that leaves 11-16% for the remaining 80%. If this trend continues to accelerate could the top 5% have 95% of the wealth eventually? Does that seem like an acceptable situation? How about if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth? Still good?

Or is where we are now just the perfect point?

You don't have to be some socialist anti-capitalist or envious of the wealthy to wonder if there might be a troubling trend.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by shaker281

Is the number of poor people in America even relevant to this discussion, other than peripherally?

In 2010 the top 20% in America owned 89% (84% by some measures) of all the wealth. Obviously that leaves 11-16% for the remaining 80%. If this trend continues to accelerate could the top 5% have 95% of the wealth eventually? Does that seem like an acceptable situation? How about if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth? Still good?

Or is where we are now just the perfect point?

You don't have to be some socialist anti-capitalist or envious of the wealthy to wonder if there might be a troubling trend.

If the richest person lived in a trailer home, this might be an issue because the poor would have nothing. They'd be living in TRUE third world fashion.

I don't care if the rich controlled 99.99999% of the wealth if the .0000001% left means that I lived in a 3,000 sq ft home with a constantly full refrigerator, ac, plumbing, entertainment and two cars in the garage. It doesn't bother me that others have more than I have.

The fact is that our poor do really well in comparison to the rest of the world. And actually, if you don't work and are in a subsidized apartment, with a refrigerator, food, a couple of tv's and a cell phone (which the majority of our poor have), you just need to stop worrying what our rich have and realize that by the standards of someone in Somalia, you are rich.

It's like someone comes and gives you a free Honda Civic that runs great and has no problems. Later you find out that your neighbor got a free Mercedes convertible, and suddenly you're all pissed off that you only got a free Civic.

Sure, there is a super elite class that control a whole lot, but the rest of us have it pretty dang good.

[shaker281]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

...I don't care if the rich controlled 99.99999% of the wealth if the .0000001% left means that I lived in a 3,000 sq ft home with a constantly full refrigerator, ac, plumbing, entertainment and two cars in the garage. It doesn't bother me that others have more than I have.

It doesn't bother me either. I have 4000 sq ft, 4 cars, zero debt and much, much more. Even by USA standards I am doing quite well. Your contention that this is about envy is misguided.

Unfortunately, as the wealth gravitates to the top, it leaves the middle class with less to go around. So, when 99.99999% are divying up that .000001% (removed the extra "0") the vast majority are not going to have any of the things you desire.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The fact is that our poor do really well in comparison to the rest of the world. And actually, if you don't work and are in a subsidized apartment, with a refrigerator, food, a couple of tv's and a cell phone (which the majority of our poor have), you just need to stop worrying what our rich have and realize that by the standards of someone in Somalia, you are rich.

Again, not worrying what the rich have. Nor does the state of America's poor enter into this. This is about the decline of the middle class. Falling wages, rising health care costs, the elimination of pensions and questionable job security. And how this transfer of wealth might affect our children and grandchildren. Some folks might think about this more seriously when their children are still living with them at age 40.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

It's like someone comes and gives you a free Honda Civic that runs great and has no problems. Later you find out that your neighbor got a free Mercedes convertible, and suddenly you're all pissed off that you only got a free Civic.

Sure, there is a super elite class that control a whole lot, but the rest of us have it pretty dang good.

I don't care about control. I leave that sort of thing to people who like to be aggravated.
While they are trying to control things, I am relaxing with an amused smile a cold beer.
And I don't need a free Mercedes vert, I prefer American muscle cars, of which I have two.

[MTAtech]

A good read: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Vanity Fair

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by shaker281

Is the number of poor people in America even relevant to this discussion, other than peripherally?

In 2010 the top 20% in America owned 89% (84% by some measures) of all the wealth. Obviously that leaves 11-16% for the remaining 80%. If this trend continues to accelerate could the top 5% have 95% of the wealth eventually? Does that seem like an acceptable situation? How about if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth? Still good?

Or is where we are now just the perfect point?

You don't have to be some socialist anti-capitalist or envious of the wealthy to wonder if there might be a troubling trend.

Our government is about to open the flood gates to another nations poor.

Adding 30 MILLION new poor people will further skew this number.

Besides....our dollar is getting devalued so much, it doesn't really matter.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Our government is about to open the flood gates to another nations poor.

Adding 30 MILLION new poor people will further skew this number.

Besides....our dollar is getting devalued so much, it doesn't really matter.

How much has the dollar been devalued over the last five years? Please quantify your answer -- because what I see is that the dollar has been relatively stable for five years.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

How much has the dollar been devalued over the last five years? Please quantify your answer -- because what I see is that the dollar has been relatively stable for five years.

In terms of purchasing power calculated based on the dollar relative to the CPI, the dollar has been devalued by 11% over the last five years. That is hardly 'stable'.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by shaker281

It doesn't bother me either. I have 4000 sq ft, 4 cars, zero debt and much, much more. Even by USA standards I am doing quite well. Your contention that this is about envy is misguided.

So, you're part of the world's elite .5%, and apparently you keep getting richer.

Better have the government divvy up your stuff to put you in line with the rest of the world's middle class.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by hnsq

So you didn't read the actual study then? From 2007-2009, average incomes in the united states fell by 17.4%, whereas the average income of the top 1% fell by 36.3%. What you see is simply a correction to the norm. Read the actual research next time, not a journalist's interpretation.

You do understand your asking for a lot, right?

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Really? Inequality is extraordinarily much lower in Sweden than the U.S.

That's because wealthy Swedes like Ygnwie Malmstein flee the country.

If all of the so-called wealthy in the US fled the country, then the US would have, um, "income equality" just like Sweden.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

And you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that this does exist.

Nothing unreal exists.

"Income inequality" is unreal. It is an Orwellian buzz-phrase just like WMD, or IQ Inequality or Nasty Inequality.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Why not does a little fact checking by looking into Mr. Saez' work? He's pretty a renowned researcher in this area of study.

What area? Income inequality? It doesn't exist. Saez is simply making a mountain out of a mole hill, and then crying the sky is falling.

I could create something out of nothing, then claim nothing was a problem, and then exploit it to make money or become renown, but then that would be immoral and unethical

Originally Posted by Tekkie

I presented an article which stated information found from research on this subject matter.

Uh-huh. Let's critically examine the article.

"The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year."

And what exactly is history?

Records were not maintain prior to 1913 and the federal income tax, so at most 100 years, but then the article uses the term "wealth" and data on "wealth" was neither collected nor reported until the 1980s.

"The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012...."

Do you understand the meaning of "total household income?"

It does not appear to me that you realize there's a difference between the ~114 Million households in the US, and the ~245 Million eligible tax filers.

"The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice of total wealth...."

What's wrong with that?

Wages/Salaries are not the same thing as Income, which is not the same thing as Wealth.

There is a very real difference between "Wages/Salaries" and "Income" and "Wealth," and those differences are neither merely technical nor merely legal.

The fact that someone would so cavalierly use those three terms interchangeably is your first indication that what you're reading is either propaganda and disinformation, or the author is completely ignorant of
the subject matter.

"In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%."

Income is a matter of personal choice.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Here are some questions for starters:

Why is the earning power of the bottom 99% of wage earners so stagnant?

You have failed to prove that it is.

In fact, you yourself have conflated Wages/Salaries with Income, in spite of the fact that they are not the same thing, and one might assume that you did that intentionally, in an attempt to propagandize and spread disinformation, or that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter.

It is acceptable --and ethical --- to use the term "Earned Income" in lieu of Wages/Salaries, and also to use "Unearned Income" when referring to monies not gained through Wages/Salaries.

It is possible to have $1 Million in Income, with $0 in Earned Income and $1 Million in Unearned Income, just as it is possible to have $1 Million in Income with $1 Million in Earned Income and $0 in Unearned Income.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Why is there such a huge gap in the ability to earn income between the top 1% and the bottom 99%?

Again, you have conflated Earned Income with Unearned Income. Unearned Income is a matter of personal choice.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Can we fix this?

Buy Netflix subscription or buy Stocks/Bonds
Buy Netflix subscription or buy Stocks/Bonds
Buy Netflix subscription or buy Stocks/Bonds...

(like Fish or Cut Bait...only different)

Can you fix that? Probably not.

By the way....uh, I just want to gauge your level of understanding here, which creates wealth, spending money on Netflix or buying stocks/bonds?

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Now, if this is a matter where you simply don't buy into the research provided, can you at least point us in the direction of some research that supports your opposition?

IRS Individual Income Tax Returns, Preliminary Data, 2010 by Adrian Dungan and Michael Parisi. Adrian Dungan and Michael Parisi are economists with the Individual Returns Analysis Section. This article was prepared under the direction of Michael Strudler, Chief, Individual Returns Research Section, Internal Revenue Service.

Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2010 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax
Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income (page 8)

Total AGI $8,045,020,527,000 ($8.045 TRILLION); Total Returns = 142,856,282

AGI $250,000 or Less = $6,199,158,684,000 ($6.199 TRILLION); Total Returns = 140,117,235
AGI $250,000 or More = $1,845,861,843,000 ($1.845 TRILLION); Total Returns = 2,739,048

Percentage of Tax Filers AGI > $250,000 = 1.92%
Percentage of Total AGI for AGI >$250,000 = 22.94%

How much Wealth is that? Impossible to know. An approximation based on Theoretical Value could be made, provided the total number of assets were known.

The figures presented are for Income. We would need to break Income down into Earned Income and Unearned Income.

Total Earned Income $5,920,186,109,000 ($5.920 TRILLION); Total Returns = 142,856,282

Earned Income $250,000 or Less = $4,937,824,599,000 ($4.937 TRILLION); Total Returns = 140,117,235
Earned Income $250,000 or More = $982,361,511,000 ($9.82 Billion); Total Returns = 2,739,048

Percentage of Earned Income for AGI >$250,000 = 16.59%

Who typically earns more than $250,000 per year? Athletes, Entertainers, Actress/Actors, Producers, Directors, Musicians and such.

An important note is made here....

AGI $250,000 or More = $1,845,861,843,000 ($1.845 TRILLION)
Earned Income $250,000 or More = $982,361,511,000 ($9.82 Billion)

....as everyone can plainly see, only 53.2% if the total Income is Earned Income, meaning that the remaining 46.8% is Unearned Income.


AGI $250,000 or Less = $6,199,158,684,000 ($6.199 TRILLION)
Earned Income $250,000 or Less = $4,937,824,599,000 ($4.937 TRILLION)

....and as everyone can see, about 79.65% is Earned Income.

That means that the, um, 99% has chosen voluntarily to not invest money in order to create wealth.

Originally Posted by Tekkie

Perhaps you have some Thomas Sowell articles you can share?

No, but I have a candy wrapper from Thomas Sowell that I dug out of a trash can and saved. I had it bronzed.

Originally Posted by Camlon

I don't think using 1985 numbers for the rest of the world and 2010 numbers for the US is a very good comparison.

Yeah, well, we people are grasping at straws to make a point that cannot be made, that's what happens.

Originally Posted by shaker281

Still, we have the issue of wealth concentration.

The acquisition of wealth is voluntary. It is a choice. Either people choose to create wealth, or they choose not to create wealth.

Originally Posted by shaker281

So, zero capital gains would be even better? Or is there a point where we have a balance?

Optimum Capital Gains Tax Rate would be ~9.5%

Originally Posted by shaker281

It is not a question of whether it "works" or not. It is a question of whether tax law is giving an outsized advantage at the top and resulting is a concentration of wealth that is leaving everyone else on the outside looking in.

Wealth is voluntary. No one is required to acquire Wealth. It is purely matter of choice, and the 99% have repeatedly proven that acquiring Netflix is more important that acquiring Wealth.

If you want to whine and gripe, then get out on the streets and start telling the 99% to quit wasting their money on stupid stuff.

Slicing...

Mircea

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

How much has the dollar been devalued over the last five years? Please quantify your answer -- because what I see is that the dollar has been relatively stable for five years.

You can't print money and not expect it to lose its value do you ?