MB360 has given us some hard income data to mull over:
- 2011 Census data says the the median U.S. household income is $50,500; that means half of U.S. households make more, and half less than $50,500.
- 2010 Social Security data says the median worker's income is $26,000.
- An individual making more than $250,000 is in the top one percent of all earners in the U.S.
- A household making more than $250,000 per year is in the top two percent of all U.S. households.
- A household making more than $100,000 is in the top 20 percent of all U.S. households.
$250,000 and $100,000 are common cut-off points in political discussions about who is really middle class, and who deserves a tax cut or a tax hike.
Mitt Romney told ABC that, "Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less." (A person making $200,000 or more is in the top four percent of U.S. income earners.) Obama more or less agrees with Romney. By their definition, 96 percent of Americans are middle class. That's ridiculous on its face.
More to the point, do average Americans believe that the top 1-2 percent need and deserve a tax cut right now? Both Obama and Romney do. I don't.
Does it even make sense to regard a household earning $100,000 -- double the median household income -- as middle class? Probably not, relatively.
Meanwhile, we have 46.7 million Americans receiving food stamps, and 56 million receiving Social Security. That's about one-third of the U.S. population. That's not to mention 48 million Americans on Medicare, and about 4 million on Medicaid. Meanwhile, 60 percent of those 65 or older receive at least 75 percent of their income from Social Security. How low would U.S. median income be without these programs? It's frightening to think about how insecure most Americans are, financially.
Here's what these programs cost, or, to put it in Republican terms, how much wealth they redistribute:
TOTAL: $1.8 trillion
But what about the deficit? As a Bloomberg study revealed, "the rise in the deficit -- from an average of 1.9 percent of gross domestic product in the pre-crisis years (2005 to 2007) to 9.3 percent of GDP post- crisis (2009-2011) -- is almost entirely due to the economic decline, which drove down tax receipts and pushed up spending on unemployment, food stamps and other support programs."
But we already knew that, right? We must know that 33 percent or 47 percent or whatever share of Americans didn't suddenly become lazy moochers while Obama went on a wild spending spree. No, it's that suddenly our economy got very, very bad: shrinking 6.3 percent in 2008 alone, erasing $15.5 trillion in U.S. wealth, costing 8.8 million U.S. jobs, and dunking 24 percent of houses -- most Americans' most valuable asset -- underwater.
Given all this, it is madness to suggest that the answer to our economic malaise is to cut spending for needy Americans while reducing taxes for Americans making $200,000 or more.
