The richest one percent

[240 is Back]

Looks like a trend to me and no, with the proper guards, you don't have to lose the middle class.

Berserker,

was that graph Made in America?

[Hugo Chavez]

Berserker,

was that graph Made in America?

I confess, it was outsourced to Indonesia where I paid a worker .000000000001 cent for his work ....then killed the man's baby

[Al-Gebra]

Looks like a trend to me and no, with the proper guards, you don't have to lose the middle class.

to know if we're losing the middle class, that graph would also have to show a decline in middle-class income relative to middle class income in previous years.  it's quite possible for the rich to become richer w/o the middle class becoming poorer.

[Hugo Chavez]

I cannot acknowledge the trend based on the chart you posted.  Does that chart show that wages have gone down?  That people have moved from one bracket to another upward or downward?  What factor did education play?  Unions?  Too many variables. 

How can tariffs keep people in the middle class? 

Also, don't you think we should be pushing people into the "upper" class? 

LOL.... really, LOL... How can tariffs bennefit the working classes?  LOL... oh really I can't stop laughing...  Stop and think about it for a bit.  

TREND: " The wealth gap in America has long been in the making. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005, U.S. households in the bottom 80 percent income bracket saw their share of national income actually fall. Those in the bottom 40 percent saw a drop in their incomes when adjusted for inflation. Only the top 20 percent of households experienced an increase their share of the total national income; much of that went to households in the highest 5 percent of the income bracket."  The point is the GAP is widening which is illustrated in the chart and does show a trend!!!

[Hugo Chavez]

to know if we're losing the middle class, that graph would also have to show a decline in middle-class income relative to previous years.  it's quite possible for the rich to become richer w/o the middle class becoming poorer.

It shows a widening gap.

[Al-Gebra]

It shows a widening gap.

a gap's not a problem as long as the middle class is doing better. the increasing net worths of bill gates and google-boys does not mean that it's coming out of your pocket . . . their wealth may be increasing at a quicker clip, but that doesn't mean that yours hasn't increased too.

[Dos Equis]

LOL.... really, LOL... How can tariffs bennefit the working classes?  LOL... oh really I can't stop laughing...  Stop and think about it for a bit.  

TREND: " The wealth gap in America has long been in the making. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005, U.S. households in the bottom 80 percent income bracket saw their share of national income actually fall. Those in the bottom 40 percent saw a drop in their incomes when adjusted for inflation. Only the top 20 percent of households experienced an increase their share of the total national income; much of that went to households in the highest 5 percent of the income bracket."  The point is the GAP is widening which is illustrated in the chart and does show a trend!!!

I specifically asked "How can tariffs keep people in the middle class?"  I don't know precisely what you're talking about.  What specific tariffs are you talking about?  Levied against whom?  Payable to whom?    

[Hugo Chavez]

I specifically asked "How can tariffs keep people in the middle class?"  I don't know precisely what you're talking about.  What specific tariffs are you talking about?  Levied against whom?  Payable to whom?    

Not just tariffs.  They play a role.  I do not believe in unguarded capitalism.  Corporations function like a damned virus, there needs to be some guards.  I know you don't like wiki but this is really a pretty good history of tariffs and I think you'll see why someone semi-protectionist leaning against neoliberalism would consider tariffs a useful tool to have in place as one guard for American manufacturing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_American_history

[Dos Equis]

Not just tariffs.  They play a role.  I do not believe in unguarded capitalism.  Corporations function like a damned virus, there needs to be some guards.  I know you don't like wiki but this is really a pretty good history of tariffs and I think you'll see why someone semi-protectionist leaning against neoliberalism would consider tariffs a useful tool to have in place as one guard for American manufacturing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_American_history

I use and cite Wiki all the time, with the understanding that the information may not be completely reliable, because you never know who is providing/editing the material. 

I read it.  Income taxes replaced tariffs as the major federal revenue source.  You are suggesting we bring back tariffs as a major revenue source and give that money to the "middle class"?  Doesn't sound workable to me.   

We don't have unguarded capitalism.  Regarding "corporations," we have antitrust laws, federal and state agencies, licensing requirements, entire "corporate formality" statutory schemes, etc.  There are plenty of safeguards in place.  I don't believe in the corporation boogeyman as one of the evils of society.  I'm not a fan of people like Ralph Nader (although I might even vote for him over Hillary.)   

I think I understand the overall point you're trying to make regarding giving people an opportunity to make more money.  I think we agree on that part, but don't agree on how it's done.  I favor things like sending people to the Small Business Administration to help with education (including business plans), loans, etc. to help start a business.  Tax incentives for job creation.  Increasing educational opportunities.  Lowering everyone's tax burden.  Educating people and setting the bar higher than "middle class."  We ought to be teaching people that it's much harder to make money so long as you are punching someone else's clock.   

[Hugo Chavez]

You are suggesting we bring back tariffs as a major revenue source and give that money to the "middle class"?  Doesn't sound workable to me.   

yea and give it to the middle class That's what I suggested...  not...

[Dos Equis]

yea and give it to the middle class That's what I suggested...  not...

You didn't suggest what we would do with these tariffs, but I'm wondering how they are supposed to benefit the amorphous middle class if the money never gets to them.  How does your theory work?  You didn't say.  So I'll go back to my earlier questions:    "Levied against whom?  Payable to whom?"       

[Dos Equis]

you write like a dolt. 

C'mon Al-G.  Talk about stating the obvious. 

[Dos Equis]

Ok, it's obvious at this point that Beach doesn't drive a Mercedes.

The tariffs are levied against foreign made goods, and are payable to the goverment into which goods are imported.
That's why a Mercedes will cost a relative arm & leg comparable to what you'd pay for the same vehicle overseas.

It protects the jobs of middle class workers who are employed by the North American automakers,
...well it would've had they not allowed a huge influx of cheaper, more fuel efficient, and superior Japanese models.

[chuckle]  You know very little tutu.  But thanks for your participation.   

[Dos Equis]

At least I know who the Walton family is. 

Yeah for you.  I don't have a clue.     I bet you know who Ron Popeil is too. 

[Cap]

At least I know who the Walton family is. 

And I can say I know Ms. Elk Snout 1970.   


It's ludicrous that that the wealthier citizens pay for so many services that millions here are not even entitled (illegals), utilizing their income taxes in irresponsible ways.  On top of that, the bottom tier of the socioeconomic pyramid consumes in the economy with many funds that they do not earn, at least those receiving federal aid and gives nothing back but a continuing need for aid and more welfare babies.  KH300's thread really does highlight this occurrence.

[Decker]

The richest 1% earned a record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent .

the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc

This is a trend that's been going on since 1973.

The 1% do not really care about income taxes.  They make most of their money through capital gains:  buying and selling businesses, property etc.  The capital gain rate is 15% (sometimes 28% depending on the nature of the gain).

The lowest marginal tax rate at the federal level is 10%. 

So the elite bluebloods in this country really pay almost the same tax rate as the working poor.

Income tax is for the little people.

[Dos Equis]

This is a trend that's been going on since 1973.

The 1% do not really care about income taxes.  They make most of their money through capital gains:  buying and selling businesses, property etc.  The capital gain rate is 15% (sometimes 28% depending on the nature of the gain).

The lowest marginal tax rate at the federal level is 10%. 

So the elite bluebloods in this country really pay almost the same tax rate as the working poor.

Income tax is for the little people.

When you refer to "the 1%" are you talking about income or net worth? 

[I ETA PI]

When you refer to "the 1%" are you talking about income or net worth? 

You're not serious, are you?
Did you read his post?

[Dos Equis]

You're not serious, are you?
Did you read his post?

I read it (again).  And? 

[I ETA PI]

I read it (again).  And? 

The richest 1% don't care about income tax.  Do you not get this?

Do you think the richest 1% of Americans are on salary from their boss? 


Most people can't comprehend what the "richest 1% are worth." 
It's not Britney Spears.....she's poor in comparison.

In fact....if you too ALL the wealth of the low class, the lower middle class, the upper middle class, AND THE bottom half of the UPPER CLASS and combined them....you still would have LESS MONEY THAN THE RICHEST 1%.

The richest 1% don't post here. 

Do people understand what a Billionaire is? 

A Billionaire is 1,000 Millions. 
A millionaire is 1,000 thousands. 
So, someone who makes $1,000 a year is as poor to a millionaire as a millionaire is to a billionaire.

You don't spend 10's of billions of dollars.
You can buy every million dollar home in a America and it won't effect you EVEN CLOSE to the economic effect buying a small home has on a middle class american.


If the average American purchased a home for a PENNY, it would still be more expensive in relation to how a Billionaire feels about buying even a mega home. 

Hope this helps. 
You can go back to learning who Sam Walton is.

[Dos Equis]

The richest 1% don't care about income tax.  Do you not get this?

Do you think the richest 1% of Americans are on salary from their boss? 


Most people can't comprehend what the "richest 1% are worth." 
It's not Britney Spears.....she's poor in comparison.

In fact....if you too ALL the wealth of the low class, the lower middle class, the upper middle class, AND THE bottom half of the UPPER CLASS and combined them....you still would have LESS MONEY THAN THE RICHEST 1%.

The richest 1% don't post here. 

Do people understand what a Billionaire is? 

A Billionaire is 1,000 Millions. 
A millionaire is 1,000 thousands. 
So, someone who makes $1,000 a year is as poor to a millionaire as a millionaire is to a billionaire.

You don't spend 10's of billions of dollars.
You can buy every million dollar home in a America and it won't effect you EVEN CLOSE to the economic effect buying a small home has on a middle class american.


If the average American purchased a home for a PENNY, it would still be more expensive in relation to how a Billionaire feels about buying even a mega home. 

Hope this helps. 
You can go back to learning who Sam Walton is.

I see.  So income = net worth.  Thanks for clearing that up.    

My question to Decker was whether he was referring to income or net worth, because income and net worth are not synonymous.  A person can earn $300,000 a year, have zero net worth, and live paycheck to paycheck.  That person isn't "rich."  And if Decker was referring to people whose net worth is in the top 1%, those people don't necessarily "make most of their money through capital gains:  buying and selling businesses, property etc."  That's why I asked for a clarification.   

[I ETA PI]

I see.  So income = net worth.  Thanks for clearing that up.    

My question to Decker was whether he was referring to income or net worth, because income and net worth are not synonymous.  A person can earn $300,000 a year, have zero net worth, and live paycheck to paycheck.  That person isn't "rich."  And if Decker was referring to people whose net worth is in the top 1%, those people don't necessarily "make most of their money through capital gains:  buying and selling businesses, property etc."  That's why I asked for a clarification.   

$300,000 a year is dirt poor in comparisong to the top 1%.

People in that bracket don't have 'jobs.' 
They don't have "income."

They don't got to work everyday.  They typically come from wealthy families.  They buy real estate, stocks, companies, etc., etc.

Income means nothing to them.  They don't have income for the most part.  If they do, it's a minute fraction of their worht. 
Steve Jobs has a yearly salary of $1....income means nothing to him. 

The people who's net worth is in the top 1% most certainly do make their money through capital gains.


There are a few top Wal Street follks who command a salary in the $800 million to $1 billion dollar range.  But, even to them, the majority of their money is in their estates, stocks, investments, companies, etc.,

Poor people have jobs. 

[Dos Equis]

$300,000 a year is dirt poor in comparisong to the top 1%.

People in that bracket don't have 'jobs.' 
They don't have "income."

They don't got to work everyday.  They typically come from wealthy families.  They buy real estate, stocks, companies, etc., etc.

Income means nothing to them.  They don't have income for the most part.  If they do, it's a minute fraction of their worht. 
Steve Jobs has a yearly salary of $1....income means nothing to him. 

The people who's net worth is in the top 1% most certainly do make their money through capital gains.


There are a few top Wal Street follks who command a salary in the $800 million to $1 billion dollar range.  But, even to them, the majority of their money is in their estates, stocks, investments, companies, etc.,

Poor people have jobs. 

That's just factually inaccurate.  If you look at Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more, the majority of them did not inherit their wealth, they earned it by being frugal, living below their means, owning their business, investing in real estate, being conservative investors, etc.  A large percentage of them do not have to work, but many of them do.  The majority of them are good, hardworking people. 

To say "poor people have jobs" is just silly.  There are people who earn $1 million a year who have jobs.   

[I ETA PI]

That's just factually inaccurate.  If you look at Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more, the majority of them did not inherit their wealth, they earned it by being frugal, living below their means, owning their business, investing in real estate, being conservative investors, etc.  A large percentage of them do not have to work, but many of them do.  The majority of them are good, hardworking people. 

To say "poor people have jobs" is just silly.  There are people who earn $1 million a year who have jobs.   

Did you read my post before?
Millionaires are poor.  You're not getting it. 

When talking about the elite rich, you're talking about billionaires. 
There is no one on the Forbes 500 who isn't a BILLIONAIRE. 
To a BILLIONAIRE a millionaire is POOR.

Do you undertstand what a billion dollars is worth is?  You can buy 100 Homes that cost a MILLION DOLLARS and it will still cost you less in comparison to what a typically SMALL home is to most Americans. 

A Millionaire is not in the elite wealthy class.  They don't live where you live.  They don't buy real estate like that. 
Bill Gates could buy every home in your town (assuming you live in a town of less than a million), and it would be LESS expensive to him than your ONE home is to you.

[Dos Equis]

Did you read my post before?
Millionaires are poor.  You're not getting it. 

When talking about the elite rich, you're talking about billionaires. 
There is no one on the Forbes 500 who isn't a BILLIONAIRE. 
To a BILLIONAIRE a millionaire is POOR.

Do you undertstand what a billion dollars is worth is?  You can buy 100 Homes that cost a MILLION DOLLARS and it will still cost you less in comparison to what a typically SMALL home is to most Americans. 

A Millionaire is not in the elite wealthy class.  They don't live where you live.  They don't buy real estate like that. 
Bill Gates could buy every home in your town (assuming you live in a town of less than a million), and it would be LESS expensive to him than your ONE home is to you.

I wasn't talking about billionaires.  There are apparently only about 371 billionaires in the U.S.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

My comments were focused on the highest income earners and those with a high net worth.