Forum Post: 48 hours ago, I had 2229 points. Now, its down to 1900. From now on, I will create another page daily and repost ALL of my essays in honor of those who use multiple IDs and/or bots to vote down my comments. CLICK ON ALL + SIGNS TO VIEW COMMENTS.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 12:26 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist
(2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
48 hours ago, I had 2229 points. Now, its down to 1900. From now on, I will create another page daily and repost ALL of my essays in honor of those who use multiple IDs and/or bots to vote down my comments. CLICK ON ALL + SIGNS TO VIEW COMMENTS.
How do you like that you die-hard partisan puppet critics? Was this the result you were hoping for when you started using multiple IDs to aggressively track and 'vote down' my comments? Were you hoping to intimidate me? If so, I have some bad news for you.
IT DIDN'T WORK.
Say that reminds me.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
But that 66.1 percent spread is nothing. It is multiplied by hundreds just within that top centile. The richest 1%.
THATS THE PROBLEM.
Now, watch my die-hard partisan puppet critics deny the actual shrinkage of the middle class, the actual expansion of the lower class, and the actual transfer of wealth from poor to rich. In particular, the richest 1% who as of 2007, owned 43% of all financial wealth in America. Thats more than twice the share they held in 1976.
I see that my die-hard conservative partisan puppet critics and possibly another who has admitted despising me and using 'bots' of his own design to 'vote down' spammers are at it already. Be sure to click the '+' sign to view all comments.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/48-hours-ago-i-had-2229-points-on-this-ows-site-no/
No worries MC.
Viewing the truth scares them, more than a little.
Anybody who denies there has been a dramatis decrease in the taxes paid by the top eschilon of income earners and corporations over the past fifty years is just a bald faced liar. Every objective source of data backs this asserion in spades! Anybody willing to deny this is simply playing the cognative infiltration game. This fact is simply beyond dispute.
Man, when you look at Thrasymaque's score of almost three thousand, how could you give a damn what your score is? I like your posts, just keep posting them, and the hell with the "score".
Its not just the score. He was using multiple IDs to vote my comments to the bottom of every page causing them to collapse.
I'm not here for kudos but I am here to contribute to the cause. If some rat like Thrasymaque is going to use shady tactics to moderate that contribution, I will call him out for it as many times as necessary.
Well, that's certainly valid. We do nead to keep this forum as free of trolling as possible. Fortunately there have recently been great strides in that direction. Hang in there. I think it will keep getting better.
[Removed]
I had a friend not too long ago who injured his shoulder playing football. He started taking pain killers. After a few months, he was on pain killers, sleeping pills, bipolar pills, and seizure pills. I watched this guy go from being a strong athlete to a shell. He lost 30 or 40 pounds. He gave up sports alltogether. I witnessed him having a seizure. He was completely helpless. I had to drag him up a hill, put him in the car, and take him to the hospital. The next day, he was on another prescription drug. Then one day, he told me that he was referred to a neurologist. I went off. I told him that the whole thing was a god damn train wreck caused by pharmaceuticals.
He gave up all pharmaceuticals right then and there. That was almost 3 years ago. Now, he is drug free, in perfect health, and in better shape than ever serving in the US Army.
True story.
Anyone who can't see that doctors are in bed with the pharmaceutical industry is blind. My mother once attended an 'educational' seminar with a doctor. The event was held at a yacht club. They spent 30 minutes watching a video. Then it was out on the yachts. The entire event was catered and covered by the pharmaceutical industry. That sort of thing happens all the time. These aren't just perks. Its outright bribery.
The doctors are in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. The hell with ethics. The hell with responsibility. THE HELL WITH HEALTH. Pharmaceuticals are prescribed like candy. It shouldn't be that way. Pharmaceuticals should be prescribed only for excruciating pain or serious conditions that don't improve with proper diet, excercise, and other responsible healthy lifestyle choices. Side effects should never be treated with more pharmaceuticals unless the primary condition absolutely requires medication and the side effect is too serious to leave untreated. Otherwise, the patient might end up like my friend did before he finally came back to his senses.
The 'middle' 3 quintiles were doing much better 35 years ago than they are now. Again, you're refusing to aknowledge the huge point I made yesterday. That is the HUGE difference between core inflation and the ACTUAL cost of living.
Again, energy, food, and home sale prices ARE NOT considered when core inflation is calculated. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Between the years 1990 and 2008, key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education increased far beyond the rate of inflation.
For example:
Housing: UP 56%. Health care expenses: UP 155% Four year public college education: UP 60% Four year private college education: UP 43%
I don't have figures for energy and food but everyone knows that they have risen DRASTICALLY over the last few years alone.
Then you have consumer debt. Its nearly $2,000,000,000,000. THATS NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS. MORE THAN FIVE TIMES WHAT IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO EVEN AFTER YOU ADJUST FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH.
The majority of that debt is NOT held by the lower 50%. Its held primarily by the lower 90%. That drastic increase in consumer debt along with the stagnated and dropping wages of the majority (Wages, not household income) over the past 30 years along with the points regarding inflation vs ACTUAL living expenses and 2nd providers/retirees working in order to compensate shatters any claim that the middle class has not lost strength.
Self centered ego maniac. Just like zen you only care about your own voice
Bullshit. You're confusing determination with arrogance.
If it were about determination, you wouldn't care about your damn points. Everything with you is I I I ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE
You're missing the point. I'm here to contribute to a cause I believe in.
My contributions are being moderated by a chump using multiple IDs.
And how does crying about your points help the cause???????? Either you are capable of making a rational argument or your not. Your points have ZERO bearing on your contributions.
Again Sherlock. My comments which I feel contribute to a just cause were being moderated, that is, downvoted into collapse preventing them from being read. This was being done by a chump using multiple IDs.
The reference I made to 'points' was simply to indicate just how many of my comments were being downvoted into collapse preventing them from being read.
I may disagree with you on everything you post but I think it's lame to vote down posts that aren't offensive. It's clear that you put a lot of thought and energy into what you post and that takes time,regardless of the ideology.
I actually only use "reply" and that's it.
Thanks for the courtesy. Maybe, we'll find a patch of common ground some day.
Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.
Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group. It's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.
When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.
Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs (followed by attorneys, doctors, and celebrities). Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it.
The income for richest one percent has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth.
In 1976 (when their tax rates were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.
Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. Not even close. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Not even close. Their share as a group represents about their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile.
The richest 500 Americans hold more personal wealth than the lower 150 million Americans combined. These richest 500 Americans pay an effective rate of under 15%.
If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.
No more excuses.
RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!
This is a portion of a previous response to scammersworld in which I quote a research group and provide a source.
Note: There are no official government reports on total (Federal, state, and local) effective tax rates for any income group. There never have been. These studies have only been done by independent research groups. There are conflicting figures but all independent studies have indicated that the middle class end up paying about the same effective rate as a percentage of income when all Federal, State, and local taxes are considered.
Sorry about the profanity. Scammersworld had it coming.
"When you include these many Federal, State, and Local taxes and fees, the middle class end up paying about the same rate as a percentage of income as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, I state that disclaimer just to be safe. It's probably more like 2 percent. You want a source? You tell me to "put up or shut up"?
Check out this report from Citizens For Tax Justice:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf
Fucking read it bitch. In the meantime, read this quote from the report:
"The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent). From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups." "
And another:
"If you still have even the slightest doubt, watch this video of independent economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich debunking 7 lies about the economy. Pay special attention to that 7th lie.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0
I type the truth. When you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes, the middle class pay about the same effective rate as the richest one percent."
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.
Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.
One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
I have stated many times that FDR's policies (designed to partially reverse the record high concentration of wealth) were successful every year but one. I have stated that his policies resulted in economic growth and job creation every year but one. Also that he did in fact, officially end the Great Depression.
The following is an entry from 'looselyhuman' who has gone on record with a similar claim. One source to verify our claims is included. Out of respect for 'looselyhuman', I will post not only the source, but also his entire entry unedited:
Its a good one. Looselyhuman said:
"Revisionist history. Check this out re: FDR's taxes that long outlived him (until 1980-82): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Then, yes, things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.
Unemployment (% labor force)
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
Percent change GDP
1933 -4%
1934 15%
1935 10%
1936 13%
1937 9%
1938 -7%
1939 7%
1940 9%
How would you feel about 15% economic growth today?"
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR
You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?
That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.
So why are we in this mess again?
"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.
Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.
All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its caising economic instability. But they absolutely will not stop.
It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
The following are quotes from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which confirm the rapid rise in inequality and the growing concentration of wealth.
"FACT: The CBO Study Notes That Rising Income Inequality Slowed During Recessions But Points To Different Causes
CBO: Income Inequality Rose Over 30-Year Period, Except During Recessions. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "The dispersion of household income rose almost continually throughout the nearly 30-year period spanning 1979 through 2007 except during the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions. The recent turmoil in financial markets, the prolonged recession that began in December 2007, and the ongoing slow recovery may have caused a pause in that upward trend, but the present analysis does not extend beyond 2007." [Congressional Budget Office, October 2011]
CBO Report Measures Change In Income Inequality From 1979 To 2007 Because Those Years Both Preceded Recessions And Therefore Had "Similar Overall Economic Activity." From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "To assess trends in the distribution of household income, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the span from 1979 to 2007 because those endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity (they were both years before recessions)." [Congressional Budget Office, October 2011]
Despite Similar Economic Forces In Both Years, Income Inequality Has Risen "Substantially." From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "The distribution of after-tax income (including government transfer payments) became substantially more unequal from 1979 to 2007 as a result of a rapid rise in income for the highest-income households, sluggish income growth for the middle 60 percent of the population, and an even smaller increase in after-tax income for the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income."
The Congressional Budget Office also included in its report the following chart showing the share of after-tax income enjoyed by each quintile in 1979 and in 2007:
CBO: "Major Reason" For Rising Income Inequality Between 1979 And 2007 Was Wealthier Households' Share Of Market Income Increased. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007":
CBO: Change In Market Income Occurred Because Sources Of Income Became More Concentrated With The Wealthy And Because Capital Gains, Which Are Skewed Toward The Wealthy, Grew. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007":
The following are two quotes of Albert Einstein which address the link between concentration of wealth and economic instability:
I have included a link to a source where Einstein's entire essay "Why Socialism" can be read. As can be verified, my quotes of Einstein are accurate.
Note: I have never called for socialism and I never will. Personally, I think it would be too boring. But in Eistein's day it was far more stable than capitalism.
" "Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949"
www.ucm.es/info/bas/es/einstein/html/why.htm
why do you care so much, dude? this is pathetic
I've already explained this several times.
My contributions are being moderated by a chump using multiple IDs.
Modestcapitalist...I still think you are full of shit.....BUT, the practice of voting down comments, is childish and stupid....I've had it happen to me, as well..... there is room for all voices in debate, even those with as much disparity as your's and mine...I actually enjoy the discourse
Hey, stop being douches and voting this shit down......I WANT this guy here...and I don't agree with him on much at all...
When I read something half-way courteous like this from a die-hard critic, it almost gives me hope for the future. Almost.
MATH problems-
MC said above: "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent."
CBO says http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220: "The share going to the bottom fifth of households declined from 6.8 percent to 4.9 percent." THIS EQUALS A 1.9% drop NOT a 27.9% drop!
MC said: "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. " PLUS "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent." PLUS "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent." Those three totals = a drop of 48.40% for the three "middle" quintiles according to MC
CBO says: "The share of income going to the middle three-fifths (or 60 percent) of households shrank from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent." WHICH EQUALS A 7.6% drop in the SHARE for the three "middle quintiles".
CBO SAYS: "The share going to the bottom four-fifths (80 percent) of the population declined from 58 percent to 48 percent."
That is a 10% drop across all 4 bottom quintiles.9.5% of that income drop came from the bottom 4/5ths-so the TOP quintile (the top 20%-NOT the 1%) ALSO saw a .5% drop in income shares.
Which is why the CBO says: "The top 1 percent’s share of the nation’s total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent." (Where the 10% "drop" went)
I'm not denying the FACT that there is a vast income inequality. Nor am I denying the FACT that the top 1% is becoming exponentially richer than the lower 99%.
I DO have a problem with people who look at statistics and then come up with "creative" ways to make certain statistics appear WORSE or more disturbing than they are on their own.
Now, MC might have a perfectly acceptable explanation for HOW he arrived at the SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER percentages that HE STATED, which are not reflected by those stated by the actual CBO. He needs to EXPLAIN himself-in order to prove his method was accurate-rather than EXPECT total strangers to just accept "his math" and statements as if they ARE THE SAME as the math and statements in the CBO.
Your math is wrong. A decrease from 6.8 percent to 4.9 percent is an almost 28 percent drop.
Using what planet's math?
The math of planet earth.
You trolls have a problem with percents. Last night wellgreed or something like that posted that Federal ees were getting a 5% increase when it was in fact a .5% increase which means one-half of one percent.
If the share of income starts at 6.8 percent and falls to 4.9 percent that is a 28 percent drop. Not 28 out of 100, but 28 percent of 6.8 (their prior share.) MC's math is right.
MC SAID : " Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent."
MC did NOT SAY: "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent from it's former share".
THAT is a problem. The two statements mean something completely different. And saying it the way YOU are interpreting it can ALSO be incorrect.
IF, in 1997-whatever amount equaled 6.8% of the TOTAL amount of income (100%) in the US "after taxes" was LESS than what 4.9% of the total income (100%) "after taxes" was in 2007 it's an INCREASE-not a "drop" of any kind.
The CBO that MC keeps referring to STATES the SHARES of the "income after taxes" as PERCENTS out of 100%. NOT as percents of their prior shares. And it's obvious it doesn't read as MC (or you) want it to read because it speaks of incomes INCREASING in every quintile-NOT falling....which they would HAVE to be for you and MC to be "correct". READ THE CBO for hell's sake.
There is no getting through to you. MC's math was right. Lay off. Go get a calculator. And, the way he said it was exactly right.
I'm only addressing your first two paragraphs that start with "MC said" and "CBO says" as that was what I noticed was wrong by merely glancing at it. I am not reading the rest of what you wrote. I didn't before and I won't now.
You two deserve each other. There really is a sycophant for every psycho.
To be fair this is how you do it. You take 4.9 divided by 6.8 and that equals .72. The answer is 100 minus 72 which is 28 percent.
You need a kindergarten teacher with a pie to show you this math. What else can I say?
First of all, I don't know of one kindergarten teacher who teaches fractions and percentages. But hey-I'm the stupid one here.
What would a kindergarten teacher tell me about how to compare one slice of a smaller pie to one slice of a larger pie accurately?
Or how to compare the people who ate one slice of pie in 1997 to the people who ate another slice of pie in 2007 accurately?
Okay. A 4th grade teacher.
2nd Para - No. She'd show you how a whole pie has so many slices, however many you cut it up into.
3rd Para - No. She'd show you how the one slice of pie has shrunk. Some rich people took some bites out of it.
I have explained the rise in income/net worth of the highest income earners who largely earn their income via capital gains or dividends, and who's net worth is largely equities position.....the 1200+% rise in the financial markets since 1982 is an easy explanation, it's not the only one...but it fits the bill for brevity....
Sorry.... My post was directed at MC, but you're the one currently discussing his methods so I posted it to you. He keeps reposting the statistics I referenced above WITHOUT giving any explanation of where "his" version of those statistics come from. They DO NOT MATCH. (My version of "he's full of shit" too)
yeah...I called him out on that here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-publicly-and-formally-challenging-modestcapit/#comment-577057