Wealth Gap

[darin]

One thing I'm thinking about this minute - the "Wealth Gap".

Saw a headline on drudge about Warren Buffett decrying the wealth gap.

Any of you smart folk explain something to me?

If more people had "money", money would be worth less, right? I mean, if say, everybody were millionaires, wouldn't businesses just raise the prices of the products so shampoo cost $500, etc? What's the motivation behind liberals trying to equalize incomes and what-not?

[manu1959]

One thing I'm thinking about this minute - the "Wealth Gap".

Saw a headline on drudge about Warren Buffett decrying the wealth gap.

Any of you smart folk explain something to me?

If more people had "money", money would be worth less, right? I mean, if say, everybody were millionaires, wouldn't businesses just raise the prices of the products so shampoo cost $500, etc? What's the motivation behind liberals trying to equalize incomes and what-not?

can you say dodge ball syndrome.....

[avatar4321]

wouldnt a wage gap be a good thing? I mean wouldnt it inspire people to shoot for something? its not like the lower end of the gap can get lower. I mean whats lower than zero? so if there is a gap that means the higher number is getting hire. Why is creating wealth a bad thing?

[PostmodernProphet]

if everyone had everything they wanted, they wouldn't strive to get more.....unless having a million dollars didn't provide everything they wanted, they wouldn't work....if no one worked there would be no-one providing anything to spend money on....

it's simple ...."I have a million dollars. Will you make me a hamburger if I give it to you?"...."Nah, I already have a million dollars".....

[JohnDoe]

We as a country took PRIDE in having a vibrant middle class. It is what the USA has stood for, the land of opportunity for the every day folk.

Read about our history and how we flourished as a country. It was not because we had 1% of the country holding the majority of our wealth.

90% or more of our country will never be wealthy and don't even want to be wealthy, but they do want to be in the middle class and not be struggling to make ends meet.

When all the wealth is concentrated in to the hands of the few, it will shrink the opportunities for the middle class and for us to progress as a country.

Princes and paupers, no inbetween, is unhealthy and bad for our country.

When we instituted the GI Bill, we brought millions of Americans in to the middle class and we have been thriving since.

jd

[red states rule]

We as a country took PRIDE in having a vibrant middle class. It is what the USA has stood for, the land of opportunity for the every day folk.

Read about our history and how we flourished as a country. It was not because we had 1% of the country holding the majority of our wealth.

90% or more of our country will never be wealthy and don't even want to be wealthy, but they do want to be in the middle class and not be struggling to make ends meet.

When all the wealth is concentrated in to the hands of the few, it will shrink the opportunities for the middle class and for us to progress as a country.

Princes and paupers, no inbetween, is unhealthy and bad for our country.

When we instituted the GI Bill, we brought millions of Americans in to the middle class and we have thriving since.

jd

Sorry JD - the lie the left constantly tosses out about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer has been proven wrong
once again


Movin' On Up
A Treasury study refutes populist hokum about "income inequality."

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST


snip

The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.
Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.

Also encouraging is the fact that the after-inflation median income of all tax filers increased by an impressive 24% over the same period. Two of every three workers had a real income gain--which contradicts the Huckabee-Edwards-Lou Dobbs spin about stagnant incomes. This is even more impressive when you consider that "median" income and wage numbers are often skewed downward because the U.S. has had a huge influx of young workers and immigrants in the last 20 years. They start their work years with low wages, dragging down the averages.

Those who start at the bottom but hold full-time jobs nonetheless enjoyed steady income gains. The Treasury study found that those tax filers who were in the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade. Those in the highest quintile, on the other hand, saw only modest income gains (10%). The nearby table tells the story, which is that the poorer an individual or household was in 1996 the greater the percentage income gain after 10 years.

Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

for the complete article

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010855

[darin]

90% or more of our country will never be wealthy and don't even want to be wealthy, but they do want to be in the middle class and not be struggling to make ends meet.


But if 'everyone' - or even 'most everyone' were in what is now the middle class, it'd be re-named 'poor', because nothing or not much would be under it. It'd become the new baseline for the "have-nots". If folk want to make ends meet, maybe they should work harder? I dunno...seems reasonable to me.

[Monkeybone]

But if 'everyone' - or even 'most everyone' were in what is now the middle class, it'd be re-named 'poor', because nothing or not much would be under it. It'd become the new baseline for the "have-nots". If folk want to make ends meet, maybe they should work harder? I dunno...seems reasonable to me.

nah..we can just kick back and wait for the next Government program. They will take care of us.

[darin]

And what do gov't programs do? Oh! They keep people in poverty and strain the middle class...nobody seems to give a rat's ass about the finances of a 35yo white christian middle-class male. The ONLY benefits I've had, tax wise, were from GWB's initial tax refund checks.

Top that off with a state run by far left libs (King County/Seattle), and you have a plan to drive me and my family into debt and loss of wealth.

[Hagbard Celine]

Isn't the wage gap getting bigger? I was under the impression that richies are getting richer while the rest of us, middle class and below, stay the same. Isn't that what the "wealth gap" is?

[manu1959]

Isn't the wage gap getting bigger? I was under the impression that richies are getting richer while the rest of us, middle class and below, stay the same. Isn't that what the "wealth gap" is?

richies don't work......their money does......

[truthmatters]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/national/main3504653.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3504653


Feds: 35.5M In U.S. Struggle To Buy Food
Survey, Based On Census Bureau Data, Does Not Include The Homeless

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2007


(AP) More than 35.5 million people in the United States went hungry in 2006 as they struggled to find jobs that can support them, a figure that was virtually unchanged from the previous year.

That's according to an Agriculture Department study, which says single mothers and their children were among the most likely to be in this situation.

The 35.5 million people represented more than 1 in 10, or 12.1 percent, who said they did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year, according to the department's annual hunger survey. That is compared with 35.1 million people who made similar claims in 2005.

"This is encouraging, but we know we have more work to do," said Kate Houston, the department's deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services. She said the numbers aren't much different from 2005, which saw a decline after five straight years of increases.

Of the 35.5 million people, 11.1 million reported they had "very low food security," meaning they had a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat. For example, among families, a third of those facing disruption in the food they typically eat said an adult in their family did not eat for a whole day because they could not afford it.

"No one in America should go hungry," Houston said.

The survey was based on Census Bureau data and does not include the homeless. About three-quarters of a million people were homeless on a given day in 2005, according to federal estimates.

Among the findings:

-Among families, about 12.6 million, or 10.9 percent, reported going hungry for at least some period last year. Those disproportionately reporting hunger were single mothers (30.4 percent); black households (21.8 percent); Hispanic households (19.5 percent); and households with incomes below the official poverty line (36.3 percent).

[Hagbard Celine]

richies don't work......their money does......

That's the goal for me. Livin' off interest. When I sell my house I should've tripled my nest egg. Then I'll do it again and again and again until I wake up at 35 or 40 and I'm riiich byotch!

[darin]

-Among families, about 12.6 million, or 10.9 percent, reported going hungry for at least some period last year. Those disproportionately reporting hunger were single mothers (30.4 percent); black households (21.8 percent); Hispanic households (19.5 percent); and households with incomes below the official poverty line (36.3 percent).

Let's toss out the 66% of those who are over-weight and that means about FOUR million normally-nourished folk went hungry AT SOME SINGLE POINT in time, perhaps.

So - out of, what? 125 MILLION families, 3.2% of them didn't work hard enough to keep from being hungry AT SOME POINT DURING LAST YEAR

Ya know? I make pretty good money, and YESTERDAY I was hungry from 1pm-3pm. Course, i'm overweight so it didn't hurt me. I wonder if I'm in the group you care about most? The Lazy Entitlement-minded Poor?

[manu1959]

That's the goal for me. Livin' off interest. When I sell my house I should've tripled my nest egg. Then I'll do it again and again and again until I wake up at 35 or 40 and I'm riiich byotch!

well, if that is the plan you better figure out the housing market cycle.....and with interest at 4% you better reverse engineer what you need in your "savings account" to live off of......

[manu1959]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/national/main3504653.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3504653


Feds: 35.5M In U.S. Struggle To Buy Food
Survey, Based On Census Bureau Data, Does Not Include The Homeless

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2007


(AP) More than 35.5 million people in the United States went hungry in 2006 as they struggled to find jobs that can support them, a figure that was virtually unchanged from the previous year.

That's according to an Agriculture Department study, which says single mothers and their children were among the most likely to be in this situation.

The 35.5 million people represented more than 1 in 10, or 12.1 percent, who said they did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year, according to the department's annual hunger survey. That is compared with 35.1 million people who made similar claims in 2005.

"This is encouraging, but we know we have more work to do," said Kate Houston, the department's deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services. She said the numbers aren't much different from 2005, which saw a decline after five straight years of increases.

Of the 35.5 million people, 11.1 million reported they had "very low food security," meaning they had a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat. For example, among families, a third of those facing disruption in the food they typically eat said an adult in their family did not eat for a whole day because they could not afford it.

"No one in America should go hungry," Houston said.

The survey was based on Census Bureau data and does not include the homeless. About three-quarters of a million people were homeless on a given day in 2005, according to federal estimates.

Among the findings:

-Among families, about 12.6 million, or 10.9 percent, reported going hungry for at least some period last year. Those disproportionately reporting hunger were single mothers (30.4 percent); black households (21.8 percent); Hispanic households (19.5 percent); and households with incomes below the official poverty line (36.3 percent).


this is nothing new....in the 70s and 80s i went hungry almost every week at some point...of course i grew up dirt poor....

[darin]

this is nothing new....in the 70s and 80s i went hungry almost every week at some point...of course i grew up dirt poor....

Wanna be my financial planner? :)

[truthmatters]

this is nothing new....in the 70s and 80s i went hungry almost every week at some point...of course i grew up dirt poor....


I grew up dirt poor too.

So you think it is good for America to let childern go hungry?

[darin]

So you think it is good for America to let childern go hungry?


Fat children, yeah. They should go hungry a few times a day.

Children aren't "America's" responsibility - they are the responsibility of their parents. Kids who ARE the responsibility of the state get fed.

You should be campaigning against Poor PEOPLE for letting their kids go 'hungry' (boo hoo).

[red states rule]

Isn't the wage gap getting bigger? I was under the impression that richies are getting richer while the rest of us, middle class and below, stay the same. Isn't that what the "wealth gap" is?

Did you read (or ignore) post #6?

Wages are going up, and incomes on nearly all levels increased in the last 10 years

[truthmatters]

Fat children, yeah. They should go hungry a few times a day.

Children aren't "America's" responsibility - they are the responsibility of their parents. Kids who ARE the responsibility of the state get fed.

You should be campaigning against Poor PEOPLE for letting their kids go 'hungry' (boo hoo).

When you allow childern to go hungry and not recieve proper nutrition you effect their growth including their overall intelligence. Americas greatest asset is its people and their intelligence.

[red states rule]

When you allow childern to go hungry and not recieve proper nutrition you effect their growth including their overall intelligence. Americas greatest asset is its people and their intelligence.

According to the liberal media, most of the kids are fat. How can a fat kid be hungry?

Did they run out Twinkies before going to bed?

[darin]

When you allow childern to go hungry and not recieve proper nutrition you effect their growth including their overall intelligence. Americas greatest asset is its people and their intelligence.

You mentioned being dirt poor - did you go hungry quite a bit? ;)

FWIW, besides that, your statement is dumb because I don't allow kids to go hungry. I feed my kids.

[truthmatters]

According to the liberal media, most of the kids are fat. How can a fat kid be hungry?

Did they run out Twinkies before going to bed?

People can be fat and malnourised.

A fat and carbohydrate laiden diet can produce this.

[darin]

People can be fat and malnourised.

A fat and carbohydrate laiden diet can produce this.

I thought this was about 'hunger' - not 'nourishment'. If a fat kid is malnourished the SOLE responsibility sits upon the shoulders of that fat kid's parents.

Would you support the Government forming a Police force who checks-up on what parents are feeding their kids, to ensure the kids' diet meets the (bs) food pyramid?

[truthmatters]

I thought this was about 'hunger' - not 'nourishment'. If a fat kid is malnourished the SOLE responsibility sits upon the shoulders of that fat kid's parents.

Would you support the Government forming a Police force who checks-up on what parents are feeding their kids, to ensure the kids' diet meets the (bs) food pyramid?


I merely answered his question. I in no way said that these hungry childern are all fat. That was his implication not mine.

No I do not advocate it as a policing issue. I advocate for food banks and help with ensuring childern get proper nutrition in any way that works.

I believe Jesus was right about people caring for each other.

[BoogyMan]

Wealth Gap is the new terminology the left wishes to apply to their reasoning behind their tax policy. They don't seem to wish to help the poor to better their lot in life, they wish to simply take money from those who have it in order to give it to the poor. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem helping out people in need, but I do it as I see fit and have control over my own input. But lets face it, liberals want a Robin Hood scenario.

[Immanuel]

You mentioned being dirt poor - did you go hungry quite a bit? ;)


Oh, now that was cruel!

You owe her an apology. :poke: Come on, give it up.


Would you support the Government forming a Police force who checks-up on what parents are feeding their kids, to ensure the kids' diet meets the (bs) food pyramid?

Don't even joke about that... we're close enough to that happening already. As soon as they have killed off all the smokers, fatso's like me are likely to be next.

Immie

[red states rule]

Wealth Gap is the new terminology the left wishes to apply to their reasoning behind their tax policy. They don't seem to wish to help the poor to better their lot in life, they wish to simply take money from those who have it in order to give it to the poor. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem helping out people in need, but I do it as I see fit and have control over my own input. But lets face it, liberals want a Robin Hood scenario.

Liberals also see their party as the "Mommy and Daddy" party. They will coddle you, provide all your needs for you, and make excuses for you when you screw up.

[truthmatters]

Wealth Gap is the new terminology the left wishes to apply to their reasoning behind their tax policy. They don't seem to wish to help the poor to better their lot in life, they wish to simply take money from those who have it in order to give it to the poor. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem helping out people in need, but I do it as I see fit and have control over my own input. But lets face it, liberals want a Robin Hood scenario.


You can charactorize it that way all you want. Its not true. It is not what I want or any Dem I know.

I want an economy that lifts all boats. I want America to flourish.

[darin]

Oh, now that was cruel!

You owe her an apology. :poke: Come on, give it up.



DUDE - if she serves up a softball like that, it's my DUTY to hit it out of the park.

:D


I want America to flourish.

Best way for that? Reduce Taxes. Reduced Taxes on businesses. Reduced government involvement in business and MY finances. :)

[manu1959]

I grew up dirt poor too.

So you think it is good for America to let childern go hungry?

america doen't let them go hungry their parents do....

[red states rule]

america doen't let them go hungry their parents do....

If you can't feed them - don't breed them

[Immanuel]

DUDE - if she serves up a softball like that, it's my DUTY to hit it out of the park.

:D


Well that was a Grand Slam in the bottom of the ninth with two out, an 0-2 count trailing by three runs.

Now apologize! :slap: It IS the ethical thing to do :D

Immie

[truthmatters]

Im not worried about it Immie but thanks.

Some people can only communicate with their chests puffed out.

[Immanuel]

Im not worried about it Immie but thanks.

Some people can only communicate with their chests puffed out.

Oh come on, you have to learn to take some ribbing.

Heck, I might have said the exact same thing to you as a joke as well. You have to admit you tossed him a lob ball that he could put out of the park.

Immie

[darin]

Well that was a Grand Slam in the bottom of the ninth with two out, an 0-2 count trailing by three runs.

Now apologize! :slap: It IS the ethical thing to do :D

Immie


No. It was a fair ball. She's losing the debate and decides to get stupid with her arguments. It was a 'jab'. If she is offended or otherwise upset, she may need thicker skin.

I WISH the worst shot I've taken here was somebody saying "You aren't intelligent because you didn't eat right as a kid".

[BoogyMan]

You can charactorize it that way all you want. Its not true. It is not what I want or any Dem I know.

I want an economy that lifts all boats. I want America to flourish.

TM, open your eyes. The whole tax platform of the Democratic party is based on punitive taxation of the wealthy in order to provide those dollars to the poor through government programs.

I characterized it just as it is, and it hit the bullseye dead on.

[truthmatters]

Oh come on, you have to learn to take some ribbing.

Heck, I might have said the exact same thing to you as a joke as well. You have to admit you tossed him a lob ball that he could put out of the park.

Immie

Its was a cute zing. I just wish people would really discuss the real issues like adults once in awhile.

[manu1959]

If you can't feed them - don't breed them

same for a home loan....a car.....pretty much everything else

if you can't take care of yourself or you make bad decissions the govt will bail you out.....

tell you what ....eliminate the saftey net and a majority of people will shape up...

[truthmatters]

TM, open your eyes. The whole tax platform of the Democratic party is based on punitive taxation of the wealthy in order to provide those dollars to the poor through government programs.

I characterized it just as it is, and it hit the bullseye dead on.

No its just how you see it.

There is nothing punitive in the majority of it. It is merely an attempt to keep the economy from running up against a shore of all the money in a few hands and the majority living in squalor which has happen many times in the history of man.

[darin]

TM, open your eyes. The whole tax platform of the Democratic party is based on punitive taxation of the wealthy in order to provide those dollars to the poor through government programs.

I characterized it just as it is, and it hit the bullseye dead on.

Absolutely you nailed it. TM doesn't want equality or fairness. She wants oppressive government control. She doesn't KNOW she wants it, but the things she support LEAD to that result.

[manu1959]

No its just how you see it.

There is nothing punitive in the majority of it. It is merely an attempt to keep the economy from running up against a shore of all the money in a few hands and the majority living in squalor which has happen many times in the history of man.

really....which free society in the last hundred years has ened up as you claim....

[truthmatters]

Could you name some?

[Immanuel]

Its was a cute zing. I just wish people would really discuss the real issues like adults once in awhile.

If it were like that around here or any of the sites we have been together on, you would not see me around.

I enjoy the banter back and forth. If it were simply "facts, figures and documentation" I would not come here. This place would be BORING!!!

I'm not saying I don't like the information and point of view sharing, but I don't want to be stuck in a discussion where no one can be free to kid around.

Immie

[truthmatters]

I said once in awhile

[darin]

I said once in awhile

Put down the Salvia, and walk away from the keyboard, mmkay? :) Sleep it off.

[truthmatters]

What is it you suggest I am sleeping off?

[BoogyMan]

No its just how you see it.

There is nothing punitive in the majority of it. It is merely an attempt to keep the economy from running up against a shore of all the money in a few hands and the majority living in squalor which has happen many times in the history of man.

You can deny it as you wish, but doing so simply weakens your stance and quite frankly shows a desire to run from your own accepted leaders platform. Have you not listened to Clinton and Obama? Have you not heard them talk about taxing the wealthy at higher and quite frankly unconscionable rates in order to redistribute those dollars to the poor?

The democrats have taken an egregiously disingenuous path paved with the desires of classist warriors.

[Immanuel]

No its just how you see it.

There is nothing punitive in the majority of it. It is merely an attempt to keep the economy from running up against a shore of all the money in a few hands and the majority living in squalor which has happen many times in the history of man.

Like he said, punish the rich for doing well and reward the poor for not even trying. But, the truth is that actually hurts the poor, in my opinion. Would you want to live off the lamb all your life receiving free money (just enough to by the beer), drinking beer on the porch all day long and doing nothing with your life, or you would you rather be given help to get out of the rut you are in and allowed to make something better of yourself? Me? I'd chose the latter. I would hate like hell to beg to the government for my substinence every month.

Immie

[darin]

What is it you suggest I am sleeping off?

Salvia...mildly hallucinogenic...sometimes I think you're high when you post.

[manu1959]

You can deny it as you wish, but doing so simply weakens your stance and quite frankly shows a desire to run from your own accepted leaders platform. Have you not listened to Clinton and Obama? Have you not heard them talk about taxing the wealthy at higher and quite frankly unconscionable rates in order to redistribute those dollars to the poor?

The democrats have taken an egregiously disingenuous path paved with the desires of classist warriors.

their path will get the non-wealthy to vote for them in order to get something.....

they are dividing america by pitting the less successful against the successful.....

reminds me of hitler's speeches in the 30's blaming the rich jews in their hillside homes for the poverty of the average german....

[Said1]

this is nothing new....in the 70s and 80s i went hungry almost every week at some point...of course i grew up dirt poor....

So did I. I can remember having apples for supper one night, then apples for breakfast and lunch the next day. Both my parents were very young, but worked, no one gave them anything. Now they're both comfortable and quite plump. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

So did I. I can remember having apples for supper one night, then apples for breakfast and lunch the next day. Both my parents were very young, but worked, no one gave them anything. Now they're both comfortable and quite plump. :laugh2:

apples .... one time my brother and i split a snickers bar and a bag of M+M's for dinner .....

[Said1]

No its just how you see it.

There is nothing punitive in the majority of it. It is merely an attempt to keep the economy from running up against a shore of all the money in a few hands and the majority living in squalor which has happen many times in the history of man.

Let me interject you with a quote from you from another thread 'things have changed since then' ie: your definition of punative tax systems. Punative isn't a good word to use with you (and I'm assuming you are taking the word in it's literal context, right?) Let's call these taxes dispersement taxes. Money taken from the rich at a higher percentage than low-middle income earners and spread around. To be even clearer, I'm mean top SALARIES, NOT CORPORATIONS.

Today, you know, like the millenium, most western societies operate that way. In the past, like 250 yrs ago, you would be right in saying that the wealth was very concentrated and it was hard for the little poor surf to break into affluent circles or even get a good ejumecation. :laugh2:

[Said1]

apples .... one time my brother and i split a snickers bar and a bag of M+M's for dinner .....

Luuuucky. What were you supposed to buy with the money - or did you swipe them? :laugh2:

[April15]

Sorry JD - the lie the left constantly tosses out about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer has been proven wrong
once again


Movin' On Up
A Treasury study refutes populist hokum about "income inequality."

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST


snip

The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.
Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.

Also encouraging is the fact that the after-inflation median income of all tax filers increased by an impressive 24% over the same period. Two of every three workers had a real income gain--which contradicts the Huckabee-Edwards-Lou Dobbs spin about stagnant incomes. This is even more impressive when you consider that "median" income and wage numbers are often skewed downward because the U.S. has had a huge influx of young workers and immigrants in the last 20 years. They start their work years with low wages, dragging down the averages.

Those who start at the bottom but hold full-time jobs nonetheless enjoyed steady income gains. The Treasury study found that those tax filers who were in the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade. Those in the highest quintile, on the other hand, saw only modest income gains (10%). The nearby table tells the story, which is that the poorer an individual or household was in 1996 the greater the percentage income gain after 10 years.

Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

for the complete article

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010855

URL no work!

Rebuttal
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
ROBERT KUTTNER
Another year, another wage loss

By Robert Kuttner | September 2, 2006

LABOR DAY was created by the machinists union in New York in 1882 as a ``workingmen's holiday." Unions all over America adopted the idea. By 1894, Congress passed legislation making Labor Day an official holiday. The day also celebrated the act of organizing, politically and in the workplace, to improve livelihoods and lives.

Today, the politics have largely been leached out of it. Labor Day is a long weekend that marks summer's end.

And that extra day of rest is needed more than ever. Government statistics show that the typical family works about 500 more hours a year than families did 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes to make it. Even so, family incomes are failing to keep pace with the cost of living.

This past week, these items have been in the news:

The Census Bureau reported that median incomes for working-age families were down again, for the fifth straight year. Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year. All of that gain has gone to upper-bracket people and corporate profits.

The Pew Research Center released an extensive survey on public attitudes about the economy. Pew reported, ``The public thinks that workers were better off a generation ago on every key dimension of worker life -- be it wages, benefits, retirement plans, on-the-job stress, the loyalty they are shown by employers." And, statistically, the public is right.

The Globe recently reported that chief executives of nonprofit hospitals now routinely make more than $1 million. University presidents are not far behind.

Rest at Link:


WWW.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss?mode=PF

[red states rule]

URL no work!

Rebuttal
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
ROBERT KUTTNER
Another year, another wage loss

By Robert Kuttner | September 2, 2006

LABOR DAY was created by the machinists union in New York in 1882 as a ``workingmen's holiday." Unions all over America adopted the idea. By 1894, Congress passed legislation making Labor Day an official holiday. The day also celebrated the act of organizing, politically and in the workplace, to improve livelihoods and lives.

Today, the politics have largely been leached out of it. Labor Day is a long weekend that marks summer's end.

And that extra day of rest is needed more than ever. Government statistics show that the typical family works about 500 more hours a year than families did 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes to make it. Even so, family incomes are failing to keep pace with the cost of living.

This past week, these items have been in the news:

The Census Bureau reported that median incomes for working-age families were down again, for the fifth straight year. Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year. All of that gain has gone to upper-bracket people and corporate profits.

The Pew Research Center released an extensive survey on public attitudes about the economy. Pew reported, ``The public thinks that workers were better off a generation ago on every key dimension of worker life -- be it wages, benefits, retirement plans, on-the-job stress, the loyalty they are shown by employers." And, statistically, the public is right.

The Globe recently reported that chief executives of nonprofit hospitals now routinely make more than $1 million. University presidents are not far behind.

Rest at Link:


WWW.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss?mode=PF

My link was based on tax returns - a good source to use when looking at the trends of incomes

The Census Bureau is not a good source. When they release poverty numbers and the number of uninsured they include illegals. Chances are they are including illegals in this report as well