Boo-hoo! This article was written for the same rich people sobbing in this article. And for the record, it says nothing about Obama's proposed spending. And don't forget savings of $100 billion (or more) a year after we pull out of Iraq!
Take that New York media executive they quoted who has made over $300 K a year for more than 10 years -- that's over $3 million -- and with only 1 child! Yet he's crying about the cost of living: "We're just dog paddling now." That guy should be smacked upside the head with a bag of quarters! I'd switch places with him in a second. Gimme a break!
Obama's advisor was exactly right: "Income growth in that group has been extremely rapid, while it's been stagnant for everyone else," says Goolsbee. "It's hard to argue they face the same struggle to get by."
I do have some sympathy for higher-income earners making less than, say, $300 K living with children in expensive areas of the country, like New York, Boston, and S. California. (Hmmm... and those happen to be liberal Democrat bastions... Go figure!....) But I have no sypmathy for the top 1 percent. You obviously don't understand the elite group you're talking about. They have plenty of money to fund any shortfalls in the federal budget. Since you won't read Free Lunch or Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston, let me break it down for you...
How does the national income pie divide up, then & now? The top 10 percent earned 34.6 percent of U.S. income in 1980, and 48.5 percent in 2005. The top 1 percent of income earners saw their share of all income rise from 10 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 2005. To parse that top percent further: the top 1/10th of 1 percent, or 300,000 Americans, earned 3.4 percent of all income in 1980, but a whopping 10.9 percent in 2005. That's almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans.
Let's parse even further: the very wealthiest 30,000 Americans (the top 1/100th of 1 percent) made 1.3 percent of all income in 1980, but just over 5 percent in 2005. They had an average income of $5.2 million in 1980, which rose to $25.7 million in 2005, after adjusting for inflation. To parse even further: in 2000, the top 400 very-highest-income taxpayers, with an average income of $174 million, reported more than 1 percent of all national income. Imagine that!
(And for the record, during Clinton's two terms, the effective income tax rate of these top 400 taxpayers fell from about 30 percent to 22.2 percent. And during an economic boom! Shame on him!)
Those were huge gains even compared to the rich in the 95th to 99th percentiles of income earners, who saw their share of national income grow from 13.2 percent in 1980 to "only" 15.3 percent in 2005. The share of national income of the 90th to 95th percentiles remained almost unchanged: 11.5 percent in 1980 vs. 11.4 percent in 2005.
By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of income earners made $15,464 in 1980; but only $14,149 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation. And the vast majority, the bottom 90 percent of income earners saw their average income peak in 1973 at $33,001; but in 2005 the bottom 90 percent's average income was only $29,000. The bottom 90 percent made 65.3 percent of all U.S. income in 1980, but only 51.7 percent in 2005. That's the lowest it's been since 1928, right before the Depression.
So, what should we do? Obama is right: let's increase taxes on those who have benefitted mightily over the past 30 years from our economy, and lower taxes, while other Americans have not. Let's increase taxes on the 3 million or so rich people who made an average of $359 K in 1975, but who now make an average of $1.11 million, after adjusting for inflation. Let's increase taxes on the top 95% of income earners, and really increase taxes on the top 1%, who have benefitted most of all. Will it bother your conscience or your economic principles to do that? Because it won't bother mine. Not one bit. Just the opposite.
When Reagan took office, the top tax bracket was 70 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Moreover, because of the Bush tax cuts, those earning more than $10 million a year pay a smaller share of their money in income SS, and Medicare taxes than those making between $100 - $200 K. Do you think maybe -- just maybe -- our tax & spending policies have had something to do with rising income inequality and stagnant incomes for the vast majority of Americans (90 percent)? Do you think our tax & spending policies just might possibly have something to do with the fact that 12.3 million U.S. children lived in poverty in 2005, according to the U.S. Census, and the fact the USA ranked 20th (below Portugal) in terms of children's material well being, according to the UN?
Think about it!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM, <Uncle T> wrote:
This article again brings up the point that "the rich" is always the other guy. I personally make so much less money than the people in the article that I can never be considered "rich" in income. However my house is probably twice as big and the amenities twice as nice as thiers. So who is "rich."
The article also points out that Obama's proposed programs can not be paid for with just increased taxes on "the rich" who only make up 1% to 3% of the population
"Yet limiting tax hikes to the $250,000-and-up set probably won't pump enough money into the U.S. Treasury to pay for new spending programs and deal with the ballooning deficit, even when combined with proposed corporate tax increases."
So now will you be forwarding articles about how Obama is lying, deceiving and misleading the general public about paying for his new programs that won't cost 97% of the general public a dime.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/080606/0824b4088081624555.html?.v=1&.pf=taxes
No comments:
Post a Comment