Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 2nd, 2011, 09:51 AM   #1
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds



WASHINGTON — The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.



In addition, the report said,


government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.



In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax


income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income.



For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.



By contrast, the budget office said,


for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.



And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.



The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.



Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.



The report found that higher-income households got a larger share of the pie, while other households got smaller shares.



¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.



¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.



¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.



¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007.



The joint Congressional committee on deficit reduction is considering changes in a wide range of benefit programs.



Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said Tuesday that he was hopeful but not entirely confident that the panel would succeed in reaching a bipartisan agreement to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.



“Hopeful is not confident,” Mr. Hoyer said.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...gewanted=print
garysher is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 10:56 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
What percentage of these changes are due to personal responsibility and personal risk factors?
borden123 is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 11:58 AM   #3
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
What percentage of these changes are due to personal responsibility and personal risk factors?


The CBO cites fiscal and taxation policy





Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.
garysher is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123' timestamp='1320260209' post='365542

What percentage of these changes are due to personal responsibility and personal risk factors?


The CBO cites fiscal and taxation policy





Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.
That's not really an answer to my question.
borden123 is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:51 PM   #5
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1320263911' post='365549

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1320260209' post='365542']

What percentage of these changes are due to personal responsibility and personal risk factors?


The CBO cites fiscal and taxation policy





Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.
That's not really an answer to my question.

[/quote]



There is no answer to your question



Nobody can estimate how many members of the 99% lost their homes, jobs and life savings despite being personally responsible and minimising risks.



What we know for sure is that taxation and fiscal policy make it far more likely that the 1% will continue to get richer
garysher is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:53 PM   #6
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:

That's not really an answer to my question.




That's because your question is total bull. Personal responsibility and personal risk factors? Man you are supreme at the art of adding bullshit to every topic you post in.
waitingtables is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:54 PM   #7
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
That's because your question is total bull. Personal responsibility and personal risk factors? Man you are supreme at the art of adding bullshit to every topic you post in.


It's called a leading, hypothetical question , a technique borden enjoys using repeatedly
garysher is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:58 PM   #8
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1320267195' post='365569

That's because your question is total bull. Personal responsibility and personal risk factors? Man you are supreme at the art of adding bullshit to every topic you post in.


It's called a leading, hypothetical question , a technique borden enjoys using repeatedly


I noticed that as well. I prefer the less formal definition, total bullshit.
waitingtables is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 01:03 PM   #9
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1320267297' post='365570

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1320267195' post='365569']

That's because your question is total bull. Personal responsibility and personal risk factors? Man you are supreme at the art of adding bullshit to every topic you post in.


It's called a leading, hypothetical question , a technique borden enjoys using repeatedly


I noticed that as well. I prefer the less formal definition, total bullshit.

[/quote]



That's very NJ !
garysher is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 01:07 PM   #10
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1320267498' post='365573

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1320267297' post='365570']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1320267195' post='365569']

That's because your question is total bull. Personal responsibility and personal risk factors? Man you are supreme at the art of adding bullshit to every topic you post in.


It's called a leading, hypothetical question , a technique borden enjoys using repeatedly


I noticed that as well. I prefer the less formal definition, total bullshit.

[/quote]



That's very NJ !

[/quote]



We don't mince words here in New Jersey, and we don't all suffer fools gladly, though there are many, many fools to be found here. There are also many smart folks who just don't get as much attention as the dopes that give us a bad name. (Snookie)
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
fayt, richer!



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Should Fayt's Next Thread Be About? Fayt Opinion Polls 268 January 26th, 2013 10:22 AM
Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer Danjb25 Current Events 13 September 26th, 2012 07:19 PM
How The Rich Get Richer Podium Pentothal Current Events 11 June 23rd, 2012 07:16 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.