Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Latest figures: The richest 1% reap over 20% of all household income, own over 42% of all financial wealth, and pay less than 22% of all personal taxes.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 20, 2012, 1:27 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This according to economist Robert Wolff and Citizen For Tax Justice. An independent research group with a long history and proven record of exposing the ugly truth.

The truth THEY don't want you to know.

About The Citizens for Tax Justice

Our Mission

Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is a 501 (c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:

Fair taxes for middle and low-income families Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share Closing corporate tax loopholes Adequately funding important government services Reducing the federal debt Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets History

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan had an epiphany. His Treasury Secretary informed him that Reagan’s former employer, General Electric, and dozens of other major American corporations did not “pay a penny in taxes to the United States government.” In fact, the Treasury Secretary added, “your secretary paid more federal taxes last year than all of those giant companies put together.”

That information, not to mention the exact phrasing, came straight from Citizens for Tax Justice. Upon hearing it, Reagan ordered his Treasury Secretary to “go full steam ahead” with what became the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That law repudiated Reagan’s earlier loophole-crazed tax policies and swept away most of the tax-shelter schemes and loopholes that cluttered the tax code.

CTJ's studies on corporate tax avoidance, including 130 Reasons Why We Need Tax Reform (1986), Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Freeloaders (1985) and Money for Nothing: The Failure of Corporate Tax Incentives, 1981-1984 (1986) have been widely cited for their key role in the enactment of this tax reform legislation in 1986. Indeed, The Washington Post called CTJ's reports a "key turning point" in the tax reform debate that "had the effect of touching a spark to kindling" and "helped to raise public ire against corporate tax evaders." The Wall Street Journal said that CTJ "helped propel the tax-overhaul effort," and the Associated Press reported that CTJ's studies "assured that something would be done . . . to make profitable companies pay their share." And in the wake of CTJ's agenda-setting role in the 1986 tax reform debate, the Washington Monthly ranked CTJ at the top of its list of America's "best public interest groups."

In 1991, CTJ's Inequality and the Federal Budget Deficit examined the linkage between tax cuts for the wealthy and the mounting federal deficit. This attention helped set the stage for President Clinton's 1993 budget act, which took back some of the tax cuts previously granted to the wealthiest Americans by the supply-side tax plan of 1981. In the mid-1990s, CTJ demonstrated to lawmakers and the public that the tax cuts pushed by Newt Gingrich and his allies were both unaffordable and hugely tilted toward the rich.

During George W. Bush’s presidency, CTJ’s work showed that the Bush tax cuts were even more unfair and unaffordable. With both the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation refusing to publish data showing the estimated distribution of Bush’s proposed cuts, CTJ’s analyses were the primary source of information on which Congress, the media, and the public relied. The New York Times described CTJ as having “no doubt … exerted more influence on the tax debate this year than any lobbyist in town.” In a similar vein, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said “I don’t know what we’d do without CTJ. The agencies of government that are supposed to provide this information don’t, and the only way we can get it is from CTJ.”

Former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri recently appluaded CTJ for being committed to "what's fair for ordinary Americans who don't have much of a voice in our country and in our capitol, certainly on tax matters, which are usually esoteric, complicated issues that nobody quite understands."

Recently, CTJ has provided lawmakers with information to help them make the right decisions on several issues that impact the lives of ordinary Americans, including:

the economic recovery act and how it affects working families, the progressive tax provisions in President Obama's first budget and in Congress's budget resolution, the President's proposals to stop corporations from shifting their profits offshore, the federal tax on the estates of millionaires, progressive options to pay for health care reform, and how to separate myth from facts during the health care debate. Each year, CTJ continues to release more valuable and insightful analyses of legislative proposals, and works closely with lawmakers and other organizations in support of fairness and simplicity in tax policy. CTJ staff hold briefings with lawmakers, testify before legislative committees, and explain their work and the implications of tax policy issues directly to policymakers and policy advocates across the nation. Recently, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan called this work "indispensible" and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon praised CTJ for being "on the side of the typical working person, the person without the lobbyist" in the debate over tax fairness.

CTJ’s work is frequently featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications – big and small – across the country. Through press, television and radio coverage, CTJ's message gets out – to the public and policymakers alike.

Working with a growing network of labor, community, and church groups from every part of the country, CTJ's goal is to make taxes a better deal for middle- and low-income American families.

Copyright 2009 CTJ Citizen for Tax Justice. All Rights Reserved.

Their research is legitimate.

Don't let the critics of CTJ fool you with their outrageous crap about lower shares of income reaped and higher shares of taxes paid by the rich.

The devil is ALWAYS in the details.

Those bastards reap over 20% of all US personal income, own over 42% of all US financial wealth, and pay less than 22% of all personal US taxes.

I speak the truth.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

26 Comments

26 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

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. 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 household income growth across quintiles proves it. 

The highest percentile 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 taxes 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% 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. They never have. 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. Their share as a group represents just over 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. 

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!

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.

Don't let them get away with it. 

Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post. All my quotes and statistics are accurate.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

gosh

if we shifted the money about,

would that give us justification to move the resources?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20943) 2 years ago

Thanks for all of your hard work. It is crucial. Short of knocking them over the head I don't know who could do a better job of laying out the facts.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

We have some heavy hitters on our side. You're one of them.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20943) 2 years ago

We do have some amazing people on our side. It's interesting, isn't it, how each brings something so different but valuable.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

"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 all over again?

It's the same problem. Relatively simple.

"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.

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

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own over 42% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its causing hardship for ordinary (decent) people and economic instability. But the rich refuse to accept any responsibility. They are never satisfied. They always want more. They absolutely will not stop.

It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.

Don't let them get away with it. 

Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post. The quotes and statistics are accurate.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

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.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher.

The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East. One of which was waged to secure one of the largest oil reserves in the world. The oil industry has not contributed one dime to the effort. Instead, they reap record high profits and lobby congress for continued tax breaks and subsidies.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.

Don't let them get away with it. 

Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post. The quotes and statistics are accurate.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

The simple debunking of this post, the poster, the CTJ and Wolff is to inquire about the source of the data, the raw numbers, the calculation method and the assumptions used to create the results.....

Ask this poster where the specific information regarding sales and property taxes by income level are found to verify his, and CTJ's assertions.....and what is Wolff's source of comparative data to conclude alleged net worth, including actual data and sample size...

Now the poster will vote this comment down and deflect the question with verbose nonsense.......proving, yet again, that he is an obstinate and ignorant parrot

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Tell it to this guy scammersworld:

Here is another one. A SENIOR ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE went on record a few years back with a claim that approximately 1/3 of total US household wealth was held by the richest 1% in 2001. (Its worse now.)

A SENIOR FUCKING ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE! WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT SCAMMERSWORLD?

Let me guess. You don't approve of his methods? Thats what I thought you would say. But as I've told you over and over and over, your 'official data' from the IRS based only on the 'reported assets' of millionaire decedents and adult millionaires just doesn't cut it.

A SENIOR FUCKING ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE WENT ON RECORD WITH A CLAIM THAT APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF AMERICA'S TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH WAS HELD BY THE RICHEST 1% in 2001.

A quote from the report:

"In 2001, the division of wealth observed in the SCF attributed about a third each to the wealthiest 1 percent, the next wealthiest 9 percent, and the remaining 90 percent of the population."

Sorry Charlie. The evidence is stacking up pretty high. You're wrong.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 Total Net Worth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7% 1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5% 1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2% 1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1% 1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6% 2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6% 2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3% 2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%

Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7% 1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6% 1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7% 1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0% 1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1% 2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7% 2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5% 2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2010)."

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

"The top 1% held 33.4% of the nation's net worth in 2004, up from 32.7% in 2001, but still lower than a peak of 34.6% in 1995. Although the increase from 2001 is small, the data suggest that the upper strata, who saw their share of net worth decline between 1998 and 2001 as stock prices crashed, regained some of those losses by 2004. The new figures on net worth -- the difference between assets and liabilities -- come from the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial survey based on interviews of 4,522 families that excludes those listed on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals. Fed economist Arthur Kennickell noted that some respondents interviewed in the survey had wealth greater than the lowest value on the Forbes list, however. The survey identified 715 families in the top 1%, corresponding to 1.1 million nationwide, and said the minimum net worth for the group was $6 million. In 2004, the wealthiest percent owned 70% of bonds, 51% of stocks and 62.3% of business assets. After the richest 1%, the Fed found that the next wealthiest 9% of families held 36.1% of net worth in 2004, down from 37.1% in 2001. Below them, families in the top 50% to 90% held 27.9% of net worth in 2004, a slight increase from 2001, while families in the bottom half saw their share fall to 2.5% of net worth in 2004 from 2.8% in 2001."

http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf

Thats two entirely seperate reports of studies conducted by different groups using different methods. Both contradict Scammersworld's assertions drastically.

You will find none to support his lowball assertions which again are based only on the reported assets of the richest 1.2% of tax filers in a single given year. Not total US household wealth.

None whatsoever. Zero. Nada.

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

More evidence of concentration. This from an 'official' government source:

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.

The actual income of the richest 1% nearly tripled. The actual buying power of the richest 1% more than doubled.

I did have a link here but the page has been replaced recently.

[-] -2 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

Hey Modest quick question if ya got a sec??

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Sure. Go ahead.

[-] -1 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

Sorry I didnt get back to you sooner work called. Have you noticed any of your threads just up and gone???? I logged in the other day and found I had Mod power for a bit so I deleted a bunch of threads just to see if it was legit. I remember deleting some of yours. (nothing personal just random experimentation) Did you notice anything?? Like a drop in points or threads you specifically remember ghostin?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

If that's true, it was a rotten thing to do. I did take a look at what I had saved. It's all there. I also noticed that your ID was created right around the time I inadvertently landed on an OWS lookalike site.

It's all been noted.

[-] -1 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

Not trying to be a dick. Just trying to see if there is a glitch in the system and if others may have had the same issues. If i had wanted to be rotten I would have ghosted your whole profile. I needed to see if I truly was able to delete or it was a screen glitch. And it didn't happen under this name. It happened with my other name which I killed off a few days later.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

more parroted posts....

ask this poster what the SCF is how it's calculated and what the sample size is.....

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

We've already covered this scammer. The survey was of 4500 households from ACROSS INCOME GROUPS. Not only the 'reported assets' (subject to taxation) of decedent millionaire estates well after the survivors have had ample time to pillage.

Again, it's not just one economist, one study, one source, one year, or one method on my side.

It's the vast overwhelming majority of experts involved, studies conducted, and reports published over a number of years.

Virtually all have indicated a growing, almost uninterrupted concentration of US household Income and wealth over a period of three decades.

As I've told you before. Your sources are all worthy of consideration and scrutiny. But we have a truckload of evidence on our side. You have a duffle bag.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

it IS one study source....the SCF

and I'll take a duffle bag of "what IS" against a truckload of "what MIGHT be"....everytime

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

It IS NOT only one source. Let me refresh your memory (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.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

And another:

More evidence of concentration. This from an 'official' government source:

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.

The actual income of the richest 1% nearly tripled. The actual buying power of the richest 1% more than doubled.

I did have a link here but the page has been replaced recently.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

polly want a cracker......

What source does the CBO use to calculate income? or the SSA for that matter....HMMMM?

Is it credible, in your opinion?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

As I've told you before. Every source is worthy of consideration and scrutiny alike. The moment we take one source as gospel disregarding all others, we severely compromise any ability we may have ever had to get anywhere near the whole truth.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

that's not really the answer to the question i asked....

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Hmm? no answer huh?