Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Things That the 99%ers Apparently Don't Know
1) That the top 1% only made 16.9% of the adjusted gross income for 2009.............2) That the percentage of the overall pie going to the top 1% actually went down from 20% in 2008 to the just mentioned 16.9%.............3) That the top 1%, even though they only made 16.9% of the AGI, payed 36.7% of all federal income taxes.............4) That a full 57% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 had actually made it to a higher quintile by 2005.............5) That the top 1% controlled 42.9% of country's total financial wealth in 1983, and that that number actually went down a smidge to 42.7% by 2007.............6) That, while, yes, the top 1%'s percentage of the income pie did go up 11.7% from 1988 to 2009 (from 15.16% to 16.93%), their percentage of the total federal income tax went up at a significantly higher rate; 33.2% (from 27.58% to 36.73%).............7) That 46% of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax.............8) That a person who graduates high school and who doesn't have a child out of wedlock has but a 7% chance of living in poverty (this, as opposed to a 64% chance for those who do just the opposite.............9) That the United States spends (err, I mean, invests) more on K-12 education than any other country on the planet (not named Switzerland) - this, despite the fact that the outcomes continue to deteriorate.............10) That African immigrants achieve the highest educational attainment rate of any immigrant group in the country and that they also achieve at a significantly higher rate than Caucasian-Americans.............11) That social spending increased markedly from 2000 to 2010. Here, folks, are the respective increases (adjusted for inflation) from specific areas; Medicaid and SCHIP 87%, Veteran's benefits 107%, Welfare and other income security programs 91%, Education 155%, Health resources and regulation 69%, Natural resources and the environment 47%, Unemployment compensation 559%, Medicare 81%, Housing assistance 108%, Food assistance 139%, WIC 52%, Child nutrition 47%, Child tax credit payments 2,155%, and the Earned Income Tax Credit 48%.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
They know.
Of course they know.Yet still they want more from the 1% and are'nt the least bit embarrassed holding out their hand.
There was a time success was lauded in America,it seems now the entitlement crowd views successful people as evil...sad state of affairs...very sad.
Obamas speech was sickening,saying its just the right thing to do to take more from the successful americans and give it to the underclass.
Two months ago Obama said the "Buffet Rule" would reduce the debt he's run up,after they found it would be akin to pissing in the ocean they changed their tune to "Its the right thing to do."
Obama cant run on his record so it clear his campaign strategy is going to be class warefare.
Its really quite sad when a sitting president whose been an
abject failure and whose only chance for reelection is to turn americans against each other.This guy is showing what an absoulte POS he really is.
I think your point is that federal taxation is progressive in design.
They know this. When all legally-mandated expenses are considered, they are regressive, not progressive. When a poor person has to pay a larger chunk of his income for a state license, that is regressive. When a poor person has to pay a larger chunk of his income for sales and property tax, that is regressive.
The wealthiest Americans are paying irrelevant portions of their income in taxes, while the poorer are paying oppressive amounts.
You can use stats and charts to prove anything, but this reality is depicted here:
http://johnmyste.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/fair-taxation-and-the-sophistry-of-statistical-proofs/
P.S.
Don't even get me started on Capital Gains and Social Security caps. I don't have the time currently for the debate, even though I am itching for a fight.
Actually, Rusty, it's the wealthy who have their hands out. But they don't ask, they just take. There is no such thing as enough where these greedy leeches are concerned. It used to be that wages tracked productivity. Until the Reagan era. That's when the corporate bosses decided to keep those gains for themselves.
If wages had continued to track productivity there were be significantly less need for all these social programs (that's why spending for all of them has gone up so much). The rich would still be rich (and no one would begrudge them that), but everyone else would be doing better too.
The problem is greed. This pronouncement has absolutely nothing to do with "demonizing the wealthy". It's based on the facts.
I'm encouraged that President Obama recognizes that the wealthy need to pay more. Some may call it "divisive", but more see it for what it really is: just (yes Rusty, it is the right thing to do).
Sorry, wd, but your deficiencies in statistics and critical thinking have reared their ugly heads again. Mr. Bernstein is engaging in some very rank deception here (I say deception because he, unlike you, is an intelligent human being who should know better). He's talking median family income, which, yes, HAS gone a little stagnant. But what Mr. Bernstein isn't saying here (and what you, being totally uninquisitive, didn't know) is that the average size of the household has also been reduced to the tune where there are now 1-2 less income earners in these households (families in the past had more intergenerational configurations). If Mr. Bernstein had done the honest thing and used per capita income, he would have come up with an entirely different narrative.......And just look around you. Most poor people today have cable TV, computers, cell phones. Back when I was a kid, a lot of poor people didn't even have a damned TV, for Christ.
John, most of the poor people that I know pay ZERO state income taxes and close to zero in property taxes. Yes, they pay sales taxes and gas taxes but Social Security is something that we all have to pay and at least theoretically we're supposed to get it back at retirement. AND a lot of poor people also get an Earned Income Tax Credit to the tune of often thousands of dollars per year. Hey, I'm not saying that it's a picnic to be poor but pretty soon we're all going to be poor if in fact those politicians don't get their act together.
Rusty, truth in advertising. I am actually in favor of increasing revenues (as part of an overall budget reduction package), too. But I agree with you that Mr. Obama's rhetoric has been exceedingly divisive on this. He really needs to stop talking down to the American people and pitting people against each other like this. It's extremely unbecoming.......And how 'bout wd, Russ? - "Actually, Rusty, it's the wealthy who have their hands out. But they don't ask, they just take. There is no such thing as enough where these greedy leeches are concerned." Wow, huh? And he wants us all to buy this idiotic notion that he isn't anti-rich.
Will, the deception is on your side. The truth is the opposite of what you say it is. Families used to get by on one salary. The man was the breadwinner and the wife stayed home and took care of the children and household.
And you want us all to buy this idiotic notion that you're a "moderate". Give me a break.
btw, what you're asking for is NEVER going to happen. Because your post is what is called a false narrative. Liberals see that the way you've presented the problem is totally bogus.
President Obama's rhetoric has not been exceedingly divisive on this. He isn't talking down to the American people and he isn't pitting people against each other. It simply isn't happening.
He's talking about fairness, and a large number of Americans agree with him. He isn't running for the Republican nomination (another reason why he isn't going to say what you want to hear).
Vote for Mitt Romney if you want a Republican in office. Stop these silly posts where you berate Obama for talking like a Democrat. It's completely nuts IMO.
And I'm not anti-rich. I'm anti unfairness. Not all rich people are greedy. But there are quite a few who are. I was going to prove this to be so by pointing to the fact that wages and productivity haven't kept pace... but your answer to that is to flat-out deny the facts (and call the author of the article I linked to a liar)... REALLY? Shame on you Will.
No, you're wrong, wd. Family size has indeed gotten smaller and there are less wage earners per family that there used to be. It's a demographic fact. And if in fact it isn't, then why didn't Mr. Bernstein utilize per capita income as his indicator instead of household income? I'll tell you why, fella'. He didn't because it wouldn't have shown the same level of disparity and it would have ruined his partisan narrative. And shame on you for believing whatever you frigging hear and not vetting it first.
"Government data, if misunderstood or improperly used, can lead to many false conclusions.
For example, from 2000 to 2009, inflation-adjusted household income fell 4.5 percent, but consumer spending increased 22.4 percent. This raises an obvious question: How did people dramatically increase spending on shrinking paychecks?
The answer is: They didn’t.
They did increase spending. But paychecks weren’t shrinking. Instead, the number of individuals per U.S. household was shrinking, which lowered the average.
Real disposable income, which is essentially total after-tax income, rose 25.2 percent from 2000 to 2009. At the same time, however, households got smaller, as more people divorced, or rejected or delayed marriage. So total spending went up, while average household income — due to the larger number of households — went down."......Analysis from Steven Cunningham, Sr. Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research
You gotta did a little deeper sometimes, wd. Throw off the chains, so to speak.
And the sad thing, wd, is that Mr. Bernstein was probably aware of these facts (the rapid increase in divorce rates, the fact that more and more people are putting off marriage, etc.) prior to doing the piece. And he still did it anyway. That is greatly disappointing, I think.............And I already told you that I don't like Romney. I don't like the fact that he's probably going to appoint pro-life judges, that he seemingly treats the military like a sacred cow, that he's seemingly anti-gay now, that he'd probably be even an even cozier President to big business than Obama, that he's a flat-out frigging phony-baloney, etc.. I mean, what do you want me to do here, shoot him?
No, you're wrong, wd. Family size has indeed gotten smaller and there are less wage earners per family that there used to be.
Sorry, Will, but one wage earner used to suffice much better in the past than today. No digging is needed. You are the first person I have heard disagree with this obvious truth. I will grant you that the "poor" have more than they did in the past, because there is more to have. That does not change the fact that one salary rarely makes ends meet today, and it did before.
You are fighting a losing battle trying to prove otherwise. I would move on to the next topic, I think.
You're going to have to give me numbers, John. Show me that per capita income has gone down for people over the past 50 years as Mr. Bernstein is sneakily alleging. It hasn't and so also has the overall pie gotten bigger. The poor are getting poorer is simply a myth. Stay in school, don't get knocked up and, yes, you'll probably be just fine.......I would also point out, John, that these economic categories are hardly immutable. A strong majority of the people in the bottom quintile are generally out of it in less than a decade. You just have to work a little at it, that's all.
"Stay in school, don't get knocked up and, yes, you'll probably be just fine..."
In other words, don't make really stupid decisions which lead to big problems.
Your odds of being in poverty go down 89% (64% to 7%) when don't make these bad decisions.
John Myste: You are the first person I have heard disagree with this obvious truth.
Conservatives HAVE to disagree with obvious truths in order to validate their "blame the victim" worldview.
Will,
I wish I had the time to re-crunch the numbers, as I did here:
here
I think you actually realize that in the 50's most families were single income and now most families are not. If you don't know this, then I hope someone with more current time will "show" you, as you deny it, yet insist, I prove your assertion, which I haven't the time to do.
This is a good place to start, though:
Women in the work force
and here:
1950 vs Today
Will said: "Stay in school, don't get knocked up and, yes, you'll probably be just fine."
Self-destructive behavior like this makes for big problems in life. These people have no one to blame but themselves.
And if it is "blaming the victim*" so what? In these cases, the asterisk is that the person is being victimized only by him or herself.
Rusty: "Two months ago Obama said the "Buffet Rule" would reduce the debt he's run up,after they found it would be akin to pissing in the ocean they changed their tune to "Its the right thing to do."
Yeah, it's a few billion dollars at most. Which is a tiny percent of the deficit problem. And at what cost? Most of the people who get shafted by Obama's greed for greed's sake are small business owners and farmers.
DMarks (and Will),
And if it is "blaming the victim*" so what? In these cases, the asterisk is that the person is being victimized only by him or herself.
This is the case sometimes and sometimes not. Not everyone has equal skills.
For example, I think you would indict my mother as one of these deadbeats. I assure you, she is not.
Some people are fully to blame for the circumstance, and some are not, but consider this:
I was a child of one of these "dead beats," my mother, and I was completely innocent, and at times lamented that I the slice slice of bread was no longer available.
You blame the downtrodden for being downtrodden and then you concluded that their children should suffer because of it.
Your don't only blame one victim, but victim-hood in general.
I would be willing to be that there is a correlation between getting raped and not finishing school also.
Correlation does not equal guilt. Those who don't finish school sometimes don't finish as a result of obstacles those who did, did not have. Additionally, I assure you that the six year old boy I was had not been given the opportunity to finish school. Yet I still suffered.
If you advocate reform, I am always on board. However, blaming the victim by default seems almost sick to me and not the actions I would expect from an advanced civilized society.
Some people "game" the system and some don't. There are plenty of victims of impoverishment who are unworthy of your scorn.
John, look at the graph that I've provided. Real disposable income has gone up and gone up decidedly over the past 40 years. Yes, more women have gone into the work force and some of that has no doubt been through necessity . But a lot of it has also been the result of the women's movement and the fact that women are wanting to have a career.......And over the past 20 years or so, family size HAS gone down. More people are divorcing and others are deferring marriage until they're older and more financially equipped. THAT is why household income has gone down (as opposed to per capita income, which has plainly not gone down).......And I refer you again to social mobility. I mean, I know that a lot of progressives (I would NOT put you in this category, btw) continue to think that America is some sort of stratified society in which poor people can't get ahead and in which wealthy people can never move downward. But that is a patently and purely false scenario. Yes, people often start off as poor, but the number of people who start off on minimum wage and who stay there their entire career is infinitesimal.
And I DON'T have scorn for poor people (I just kind of caught that at the end). I have PLAINLY made it clear that I fully differentiate between those who are poor from no fault of their own and those who are poor from their own idiotic choices. And even the latter I would help, for Christ. I would just make that help contingent upon them helping themselves. I mean, that one douche-bag who has 5 kids with 4 different mothers. That guy needs to step up with some very substantive changes or he is history (in terms of getting more of the dole, I'm saying.
Yes, more women have gone into the work force and some of that has no doubt been through necessity . But a lot of it has also been the result of the women's movement and the fact that women are wanting to have a career
I am sure a lot of it is that women want a career, to eat, stuff like that.
And over the past 20 years or so, family size HAS gone down.
So, is it your contention that even though the family size has gone down, it takes more incomes to sustain it? If so, I think I agree.
More people are divorcing and others are deferring marriage until they're older and more financially equipped. THAT is why household income has gone down (as opposed to per capita income, which has plainly not gone down).
I see. When the wife did not work in the 50’s, her mere presence oozed money. Now that working women are not joining the family, they cannot ooze, so families are poorer. As I am sure everyone knows, it is the married folk, not the single ones, that have the cash.
I know that a lot of progressives (I would NOT put you in this category, btw) continue to think that America is some sort of stratified society in which poor people can't get ahead and in which wealthy people can never move downward. But that is a patently and purely false scenario.
That is not what most progressives believe. They do believe that society is stratified. They do believe that those who have money control the nation, so those who do not have money cannot compete with an even footing. They do not generally think the American Dream is impossible for all people. They acknowledge that it is impossible for some, and that they want to live in a nation where their tax dollars help those people. I don’t want to live in a nation where some people are dying of exposure or starvation, with their purple hand held out pleadingly, while others live in comfort or luxury. I consider such a place to be a barbaric hell. Progressives acknowledge that we want to live in a nation that is somewhat intolerable of the poor; and they do acknowledge that a huge number of the victims of poverty are just that: victims.
I make a decent income now, but I was impoverished for much of my life. The first part, I had no chance and no choice. Later, through good fortune with a small amount of talent, I was able to rise above it. I personally know tons of people who were not able to rise above it, and cannot. They do not have the talent and have not had the good fortune. They do not know how, even if it were possible if they did know how, or they are too psychologically depressed and diffident to try, even if they did have the talent. It is easy for me to praise myself for not being like them. In reality: there but for the grace of God go I (and you).
Please do not respond to this comment. It is merely intended to tie loose ends before I get to my real response to your comment, which will follow momentarily.
P.S.
I don't think you have scorn for the poor. I think many conservatives do.
Yes, people often start off as poor, but the number of people who start off on minimum wage and who stay there their entire career is infinitesimal.
Taking myself as an example, from the ages of roughly one month old to my early to mid-twenties or so, I was probably technically near or below the poverty line.
By age 27, I was probably lower middle class.
Now I am somewhere above that, not sure where.
So, is it your contention that for the first 24 years, I should have not been able to get healthcare and not been able to eat (often), because later in life, if I survived, I would not have that problem?
I am not sure how later in life was relevant to my first 24 years. I guess I need to look back and figure out how I can blame myself and indict the boy I was for not pulling myself up by my own ragged bootstraps. Somehow it is just not in me to do that. Taking responsibility for your future to the best of your ability is healthy and right. Trying to find a way to blame yourself is a psychological mistake.
Everyone wants to be rich. Everyone wants to succeed. Poor people, on balance, have very hard lives, despite the Conservative rumors of luxury. My mom worked 14 hour days and without a day off for years at a time. She was a courier at one point, and when she had the flu, she would pull over, stick her head out the window and vomit profusely, then continue on. She had no choice. After all, she was one of those worthless people who had trouble making ends meet and she had to keep her meager income up. She had many people depending on her. She could never have got a college degree.
Despite Conservative notions, she would have loved to be rich. She once won $100.00 on grocery store bingo game. She went crazy. She was dancing around and shouting: “I won a hundred dollars.” Even then, that was not a lot of money. I cannot comprehend getting that excited about something so trivial. Trust me, she wanted to earn a good living.
SHE DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT!
NO POOR PERSON KNOWS HOW TO DO IT, OR THEY WOULD BE DOING IT. THEY ALL WANT COMFORT.
It is beyond me why that fact is so hard for so many to understand. Instead of accepting that, they decide that the poor are lazy, shiftless and wanting to live off of others. There are some who “game” the system. They have their own demons, but it probably should not be allowed anyway. There are plenty who do not, and we cannot easily sort them out.
My grandfather, a preacher and carpenter, was not a good businessman. He tried and for much of his live lived below the poverty line. He did not know how to fix that or he would have. He did not like poverty.
My mother, very hard-working, but with many circumstantial dependents and devoid of talent and business acumen was very poor for most of her life. She did not know how to fix that or she would have. She did not live poverty.
For much of my childhood, I was purely impoverished. I didn’t know how to fix that or I would have. I did not like poverty.
This whole unwillingness to accept the problem of dearth in America as anything more than a vice in the character of the poor, makes it impossible to have a reasonable conservation about it.
1) Again, John, look at the graph on real disposable income. It has gone up markedly and steadily for the past 40 years. You can say that the standard of living for most people has gone down but the evidence certainly doesn't support that. 2) Also again, I am in favor of helping the poor and if you can even find just one instance of me ever saying that I don't support a social safety net, please show it to me so I can disavow it. 3) The progressives are bald-faced wrong about social stratification. According to the IRS's own data, 58% of the people in the lowest quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005. And a second study fully reinforced it. A full 33% of the people in the lowest quintile in 2004 were out of it by 2007. 4) The standard of living is far better today than it was in the '50s. The concept that every family was "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" is nostalgia to the nth on steroids. Yes some people ARE worse off now. Recent immigrants, for example, start off at a lower ebb. But they also succeed. Just look at how well that African immigrants do educationally and occupationally and compare that to African-Americans as group. Do you have a government program to fix that one, John (me, I say create more charter schools maybe give those inner city parents a choice as to where they send THEIR kids, a la, the Obamas?
Again, John, look at the graph on real disposable income. It has gone up markedly and steadily for the past 40 years. You can say that the standard of living for most people has gone down but the evidence certainly doesn't support that.
I have never made that claim, nor do I believe it. It takes two incomes / jobs to survive, whereas one sufficed before. With those additional jobs, people have more today than they did before, partially because there is more to be had, and partially because luxuries are considered necessities in modern day America.
Also again, I am in favor of helping the poor and if you can even find just one instance of me ever saying that I don't support a social safety net, please show it to me so I can disavow it.
That is what most conservatives say (not to imply that you are a conservative). My response was not to you directly, but to conservatives. While they purportedly want to keep the social safety net (supposedly), they begrudge those using it and they think they are worthless and shiftless. Also, they definitely do not want to fund it. They want to keep it without funding it.
The progressives are bald-faced wrong about social stratification. According to the IRS's own data, 58% of the people in the lowest quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005. And a second study fully reinforced it. A full 33% of the people in the lowest quintile in 2004 were out of it by 2007
Again you appear to be missing my point. I am not arguing that some people do not move up in income. Most Middle Class earners were once poor, when they started their careers. Most wealthy people, unless they inherited their wealth, started out not wealthy. That some people can rise in rank does nothing to deny that some cannot. We should not plan our taxation and entitlements on the needs of those who no longer need it or on the assumption that those people are the only ones we should consider. If there is another group, then we have to handle the fact that they exist. Additionally, it is very hard for someone to rise out of there economic class once they are well into adulthood.
The standard of living is far better today than it was in the '50s. The concept that every family was "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" is nostalgia to the nth on steroids.
I completely agree with this. However, maintaining that standard costs you your family now. If everyone in the family worked in the 50’s, the standard of living would have been better then.
Yes some people ARE worse off now. Recent immigrants, for example, start off at a lower ebb. But they also succeed. Just look at how well that African immigrants do educationally and occupationally and compare that to African-Americans as group. Do you have a government program to fix that one, John
Any one individual who thinks his massive intellect has “the solution” is deluded in my opinion, no offense. I think we need to agree as a group that there is a problem, that we want to handle it and will, and then as a group solve it. The false notion that one individual has, or should have, the solution to the problem of millions is absurd. My mission is not to single-handedly discover or devise a solution. I am not a megalomaniac. My desire is to stop thinking of the poor as worthless leeches who deserve what they got. If we can achieve this, the solutions will come.
Your claim that it take 2 incomes to survive is much too broad of a brushstroke, John. And I totally agree with what you that it takes more to be happy these days (everybody has to have an i-pad, the latest stupid-assed cell-phone, etc.). But that isn't the same as saying that we need two incomes in order to survive. You can certainly survive without a cell-phone (I actually DO - more so on principle, though) and perhaps it's that that's more of a problem than the per capita income going down (it hasn't); bowing to the God of pure unadulterated consumerism. And I would also add that the breakdown of the family via the increase in divorce rates is probably causing this decrease in household income as much as the decrease in per capita income (which I believe at this point we both agree doesn't exist).............John, in 1983, the top 1% controlled 42.9% of the countries total financial worth. By 2007, it was 42.7%. So, yeah, the rich are still pretty damn rich, but if you listen to certain people, you'd have thought that it was an exponentially more discrepant reality now. It isn't.
And, like I said, John, I don't judge the poor any more collectively than I do the rich (Bill Gates I like, Bernie Madoff not so much).
Your claim that it take 2 incomes to survive is much too broad of a brushstroke, John.
Then allow me to scale it back: it often takes two incomes, where it far less frequently did in the 50’s.
You can certainly survive without a cell-phone (I actually DO - more so on principle, though) and perhaps it's that that's more of a problem than the per capita income going down (it hasn't)
Per Capita income is not relevant in a vacuum.
And I would also add that the breakdown of the family via the increase in divorce rates is probably causing this decrease in household income as much as the decrease in per capita income
The number one cause of distension in families is financial problems.
John, in 1983, the top 1% controlled 42.9% of the countries total financial worth. By 2007, it was 42.7%.
The bottom 80 percent dropped 8.7% to 7.0%, which is huge. The fact that the trend is going the direction it is, instead of the opposite direction, is disturbing, and the fact that we need everyone in the family, from the father to the family dog, to go to work to make ends meet (assuming it is true), whereas we did not before, is also disturbing. Most disturbing of all, though, is the fact that the slight upward trend of the wealthy and downward trend of the poor is only slight because democrats have controlled much, much of the time. The Conservative Revolution is taking hold, and if Conservatives primarily control the nation for a few decades, something that has never happened, it will be a whole new world and we see this “slight” trend, trend sharply in the direction it is going now. That is what we are up against.
I don't have sympathy for people whose claim to poverty is that they can't afford a cell-phone, bottled water, caller ID, special ring tones, fast food every single night, Budweiser instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon, Marlboros instead of generic smokes. Vacuums are for cleaning.
So, the good things that happened under Reagan were strictly because he had a Democratic Congress and the good things that happened in the '90s with a Republican Congress were strictly because they had a Democrat in the White House? Methinks that the Republicans cannot win here.
Will,
I don't have sympathy for people whose claim to poverty is that they can't afford a cell-phone, bottled water, caller ID, special ring tones, fast food every single night, Budweiser instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon, Marlboros instead of generic smokes.
I have never met such a person who claimed this as the definition of poverty. If I do, I will let them know that Will objects.
So, the good things that happened under Reagan were strictly because he had a Democratic Congress and the good things that happened in the '90s with a Republican Congress were strictly because they had a Democrat in the White House? Methinks that the Republicans cannot win here.
Methinks Reagan was a moderate by today’s standards. Reagan is responsible, not for the good things that happened under him, as he was not the only one there. He is responsible for what he advocated and how he advocated doing it. He ultimately thought we should pump up the rich in hopes that crumbs would fall to the masses. I give him complete credit for his perverse intentions.
Well said in regards to that last comment John Myste. Spoken like a true Liberal.
Post a Comment