• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster

Deadly Sushi

The One, The Only, Sushi
SUPER Site Supporter
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/b...igg&adxnnlx=1197954186-9CgBOFrx4xfw1fOmxIaorA

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: December 15, 2007
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.
Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.
The budget office report takes into account a broader definition of income than tax returns that is known as comprehensive income. It includes untaxed Social Security benefits, welfare, food stamps and part of the value of Medicare benefits, giving a fuller picture of incomes at the bottom than tax data.
Much of the increase at the top reflected the rebound of the stock market after its sharp drop in 2000, economists from across the political spectrum said. About half of the income going to the top 1 percent comes from investments and business.
In addition, Congress in 2003 cut taxes on long-term capital gains and most dividends, which advocates said would encourage people to turn untaxed wealth into taxable income. Some economists have said that the increase in incomes at the top is illusory and is in good part simply converting untaxed assets into taxed income to take advantage of reduced tax rates.
The Congressional Budget Office report made no attempt to explain the increases in income in its annual report on effective federal tax rates paid by people at different income levels.
Asked how much of the increase at the top was from the tax cuts rather than market gains, Peter R. Orszag, the budget office director, said, “I can’t give you an answer to that because we just don’t know.”
Chris Frenze, Republican staff director for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, said the increase in top incomes is much more modest if viewed over longer time periods. Since 2000, he said, the average income of the top 1 percent has risen $97,900, or 6.7 percent, the same percentage increase this group had from 1992 to 1997.
Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington who characterizes the Bush administration’s policies as YOYO economics, based on You (Are) On Your Own, said the differences in income growth explained why so many Americans have told pollsters that they are feeling squeezed.
“A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.
On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.
The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, but only slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes because of the tax rate cuts. The top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, up from 22.9 percent in 2003, while the share paid by the middle fifth of taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 10 percent in 2003.
The share of their income that the top 1 percent paid in all federal taxes and in income taxes fell. The total tax rate dropped 1.8 percentage points, to 31.2 percent, from 2003 to 2005 while their average income tax rate declined one percentage point, to 19.4 percent, largely because of the cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Yep.

I'll point out another disparity in how them that has, gets.

Our California Proposition 13 tax law fixes your taxes at the initial 1978 level (plus a small inflationary increase) so as neighborhoods age, those who have been there longest pay far less tax than newcomers whose properties are assessed on their purchase date.

At the neighborhood Christmas party a newcomer asked how we could afford the $10,000 annual property tax they pay. Well, we bought in 1978 and our tax has now grown to $1,600 for our comparable house.

For the ranch it gets even better. Since title passed by inheritance (half, I paid cash into Dad's estate for the other half), I assumed Dad's old tax rate without reassessment.

I didn't write the law, I think it's terrible public policy and I voted against it when it was on the ballot in 1978, but it has saved me 10's of thousands of $ that some younger property buyer had to pay to make up the difference. Welcome to California. Just bring money. So you can pay my share.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Hey Cali -If you REALLY, TRULY feel guilty about this, you can always write a check for the difference to your local tax office. :poke:

Sushi - as long as you carry this attitude of resentment toward people who EARN more than you, you will remain broke. Yes, life is as simple as that. You cannot attract into your life that which you resent.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Chew on this Sushi:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/tax-rates-current-vs-historical.html
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Tax rates: Current vs Historical averages


A new CBO report gives the effective federal tax rate by income group. These numbers include all federal taxes, not just income taxes, and are expressed as a percentage of household income. (If you have questions about the CBO methodology, click here.)

The first number below is for 2005, the most recent year available. For comparison, I computed, and present in parentheses below, the average effective tax rate from 1979 to 2005, the time span covered in the report.

All households: 20.5 (21.6)

Lowest quintile: 4.3 (7.2)
Second quintile: 9.9 (13.2)
Middle quintile: 14.2 (17.1)
Fourth quintile: 17.4 (20.1)
Highest quintile: 25.5 (26.1)

Top 10 percent: 27.4 (27.6)
Top 5 percent: 28.9 (29.0)
Top 1 percent: 31.2 (31.7)

Notice that all groups are paying lower tax rates than the historical average. But in contrast to some popular perceptions, the change is not concentrated among the upper income groups. In fact, the opposite is true.
 

Deadly Sushi

The One, The Only, Sushi
SUPER Site Supporter
Sushi - as long as you carry this attitude of resentment toward people who EARN more than you, you will remain broke. Yes, life is as simple as that. You cannot attract into your life that which you resent.

Where did I EVER say I resent people making money? Or MORE money than I? I didnt you CHOWDA head. Dont put words in my mouth.

What I DO have a problem with are the people that dont work for their money NEARLY as hard as the next guy then proceeds to walk around like an elitist. Who cant see past the blinders they have on. Where if the sushi isnt the right temperature it has ruined their afternoon.

Im against inequality (except for really fat or ugly chicks. No getting past that.)
 

Cityboy

Banned
Where did I EVER say I resent people making money? Or MORE money than I? I didnt you CHOWDA head. Dont put words in my mouth.

What I DO have a problem with are the people that dont work for their money NEARLY as hard as the next guy then proceeds to walk around like an elitist. Who cant see past the blinders they have on. Where if the sushi isnt the right temperature it has ruined their afternoon.

Im against inequality (except for really fat or ugly chicks. No getting past that.)

Sushi - Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself??? :confused2:
 

RedRocker

Active member
Where did I EVER say I resent people making money? Or MORE money than I? I didnt you CHOWDA head. Dont put words in my mouth.

What I DO have a problem with are the people that dont work for their money NEARLY as hard as the next guy then proceeds to walk around like an elitist. Who cant see past the blinders they have on. Where if the sushi isnt the right temperature it has ruined their afternoon.

Im against inequality (except for really fat or ugly chicks. No getting past that.)

Pretty broad generalization there huh Sushi? Life ain't fair, we all have equal opportunity to seek our fortune. Nobody is holding you or me back from amassing vast wealth. Envy is a deadly sin, don't let it getcha!
 
Top