Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The top one tenth of one percent make 12% of all U.S. income!

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 27, 2012, 12:41 a.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The graph above shows all income sources, not just salaries, but also capital gains, dividends, and business income for the top one tenth of one percent (one out of a thousand individuals).

During the 50's, the top 0.1% made about 3 1/2% to 4% of total U.S. income. Today their share has tripled to 12%!

This next graph below shows the relationship between the level of union membership and the level of wealth for the top 10%. As union membership increases, the share of wealth for the lower 90% increases. As union membership decreases, wealth for the top 10% increases. It's obvious why there's been such a strong anti union sentiment pervading the media for the past few decades. Break the unions and double or triple your income, if you're at the top.

The last graph below shows the taxes paid by various income groups including capital gains, business income, etc. Again it's obvious that the wealthy are not just making enormous profits, but they are paying record low taxes on those profits as well!

There are a lot of trolls on this site defending the wealthy, telling us what an unfair share of taxes the rich pay, but even the trolls really don't understand that their fair share of income is also being funneled to the top just like the rest of us.

170 Comments

170 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21343) 1 year ago

One big problem in this country is that American society largely values monetary success over all else. And so, the people who end up in poverty, through no fault of their own, but because of an economic system that is set up to exploit them, feel ashamed, and so don't speak out.

Plenty of Americans are happy to shame the poor into silence so that they don't ask for "entitlements." Meanwhile, it is the very rich exploiting capitalists that are getting all the entitlements. It is they who don't pay their fair share.

There is no shame in poverty. There is shame in greed.

Let's not forget that half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year, 49 million have no health insurance, 1 in 7 are on food stamps, 22% of American children live in poverty, 42% of African American children live in poverty and on and on.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Agree completely. So let's continue to put out the facts and wake up America so that all of it's citizens can have a full share of the fruit their labor provides.

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

Can't do that when half the country won't labor to begin with.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11-2/tax%20burden.jpg

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Literally half the country, 75 million workers make $27,000 a year, most much less. Between $7.25 and $13.00 an hour, many 30 hours or less. The statistics you cite are based on persons receiving food stamps and medicaid. Your conclusion that these people aren't working is wrong. Many people working at Walmart and other low paying corporations qualify for these government services because they make so little money. When was the last time you lived on a thousand dollars a month?

The obvious solution is to raise the minimum wage so that workers get paid enough directly from their employers, bypassing the inefficiency of the Government welfare system. And we both want a smaller Federal Government. Right?

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

and add to that, we should stop our government from penalizing our employers with matching tax deductions, insurance, but instead give the money to the poor worker. Im just so ashamed of our government who is the root cause of our nation inevitable doom.

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

I don't care. It gets to a point where those earning can't cover those freeloading.

The obvious solution is not to raise the minimum wage. It's to NOT debase the value of the currency in the first place through endless giveaways and entitlements for votes. It's like a treadmill; the more free sh1t and subsidies you promise to people, the less value the dollar has and the more people complain about their wages not being enough, because the government just prints up more for welfare and debases the currency. When you stop the stupidity, then and only then, will living on a thousand dollars a month not be a problem.

Can't do that when half the country won't labor to begin with.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"Can't do that when half the country won't labor to begin with."

Show me some figures to back that up.

Take a look at the top graph above. Just one tenth of one percent of the population makes 12% of all income. One person out of a thousand. It's the middle and lower classes who are in fact carrying them.

Look at the graph on this link.

http://paul.kedrosky.com/images/income-gains.png

See the thin blue line? That's the income of the bottom 90% of American workers. I would imagine that includes yourself. The graph is already corrected for inflation. Notice there hasn't been any real increase in wages over the past 40 years for the 90%. One of the reasons is the debased currency. The real value of the dollar has become blurred by inflation. When the people see their incomes rising every year, they think they're making more money. Of course they can't buy any more because the dollars have depreciated so rapidly. You probably suspected that, but this graph proves it.

So look where is the increase in income is really going. The top 10% make 50% of all income. Because they are hoarding the wealth, more and more people qualify for food stamps and other government assistance. The poor are blamed for the selfishness of the rich and you have fallen for their carefully orchestrated propaganda.

[-] -2 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

Yes, I see the blue line. It's a picture. What makes it real? Why should I believe "Emmanuel Saez"? For all I know the data is concocted. This is University of Berkeley after all. It's not like they don't have an agenda just to the left of Lenin.

The wealthy largely have their wealth in the equity market. That's not hoarding it. That's putting it to work creating jobs. You act like people have their wealth in stacks of bills in a lockbox somewhere. No, it's in the MARKET already. The only one falling for propaganda is you via the University of Kalifornya, a wholly owned leftist subsidiary of the National Education Association, AFL-CIO and SEIU.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If you don't believe Saez's numbers, provide some numbers that support your claim that the data is concocted.

Here's another chart based on figures from the congressional budget office confirming Saez's figures..

http://g.virbcdn.com/_f/cdn_images/resize_1024x1365/82/ContentImage-654-5389-Screenshot20111116at114231AM.png

Here's another from the social security administration saying that 50% of all American workers earn less than $27,000 a year, about $13 an hour or less. That's 75 million people.

Anther surprise from the same source is that middle income workers making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year comprise just 15% of the American workforce.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17849) 1 year ago

"Tax Rates For America's Wealthiest Fell in 2010", by Travis Waldron :

Thanx for the interesting and informative forum-post.

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Sure, but the credit should really go to Clamor and 1Sealyon. Their constant deceptive replies defending the wealthy spurred this post.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17849) 1 year ago

Fair enough, so be it & credit where credit's due. Thanx anyway, and I also append :

e tenebris lux ...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Clearly the chart shows the beginning of the acute income disparity around 1980. Busting unions certainly exasperated the problem. But I think the tax cuts on the wealthy under the guise of the phony conservative "trickle down" voodoo economics policy was the culprit.

Just reintroduce the tax rates before the false,discredited, conservative policy was implemented and we will see the balance start to improve.

Simple.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

And increase union membership too!

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Joining unions is the best thing for all workers.

[-] 1 points by Kinetica (14) from Houston, TX 1 year ago

Roger that.

[-] -1 points by thestonemill (-93) 1 year ago

hahhahahaha very funny you are and maybe that is why "unions" are continuing to dwindle and will probably disappear in a few years. Unions destroyed a lot of business's and bankrupt numerous States

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

In America we believe in separation of church and state!

Are you a religious fundamental case also?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You're absolutely wrong. But you are a right wing partisan so I would not expect any less.

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

union leaders expoit their memberhsip . how do you feel about card check?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your just anti union, anti American worker, & pro conservative corp1% plutocrats who created all our problems.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

most working people in the usa do not belong to a union .

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So? Every American worker benefits from the work improvments/labor rights achieved through sacrifice, blood sweat and tears by brave decent hard working union members.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

Yes, i'm anti union but i am pro america.you know nothing of "my " problems", and you choose to not know about the problems purposely created by the obama administration.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are still dealing with the problems created by Bush and the conservatives.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

Exploit?

How so?

Card check is a reaction to anti-union activities.

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

WRONG ! card check takes away the privacy of a members vote. members are exploited to support union leaders. the millions and millions of dollars in dues are used by union leaders for political clout. union leaders rule union members. union members = nothing more than fodder.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

Gosh, if I was forming a union, I sure as hell would want to know who among my brothers, was siding with the corporation.

It would allow me to have the chance to talk to him about his beliefs, so I don't have a problem with that.

The rest of your statement is blatant, oft repeated propaganda from the corporations themselves.

Some of it was written by Ed Bernays himself.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

you have no right to know how someone votes unless theyvoluntarily tell you. its supposed to be a secret ballot, it prevents intimidation.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

REALLY NOW???????

You say that as if there's no intimidation on the part of the corporations.

FUCK man I've seen whole videos they've produced to intimidate.

Nasty lying shit too.

Millions spent on their production.

I've seen them!!

All I'd want to do is talk to the guy like a brother.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

card check means no secret ballot. how you vote is your own business.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

I'm not gonna repeat myself, You're a fool who didn't understand a thing I said.

Propagandist, is what you are.

OWS is very much pro union.

Are you?

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

if you dont have to the join the union at your workplace why are you forced to pay union dues?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

OIC. You're going to repeat yourself.

I already answered this question.

Let me ask you one.

Why am I forced to pay so much to WallStreet?

I receive no service, or product from them.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Truth

No one consulted me as to the use of - let alone the best use of bailout money.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

No one consulted me about all the money I end up giving them each and every day, their act of economic/political extortion aside.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - People with more then 2 coppers to rub together.


[-] 3 points by shooz (14389) 8 minutes ago

oh?

We're not exactly livin' large.

I'm still paying off my daughters ticket to China..................:)

I was close to renting a backhoe just to clean out her room though......LOL ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

One must do ALL that one can do. Put your 401K into the credit union along with your checking account - buy only what is essential to sustain life and ability to work. Consider an extravagance as a case of beer - then buy from a small micro brewery if you can. Never use a credit card - except in dire emergency - if you can get by - even with moderate to extreme inconvenience - then do so. This is not a spring outing for the day.


[-] 1 points by shooz (14378) 3 minutes ago

You can't.

You can't take your money away from them. That's the issue.

They own all, or a piece of everything and they get a cut of every dime you spend........on anything at all.. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

oh?

We're not exactly livin' large.

I'm still paying off my daughters ticket to China..................:)

I was close to renting a backhoe just to clean out her room though......LOL

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Final call - who has let wallstreet run amok? Us - We The People. And It Is Up To Us - We The People to make the necessary changes - including taking our money away from wallstreet.


[-] 2 points by shooz (14378) 0 minutes ago

I'm not talking about politics here DK.

I'm talking purely about WallStreet and how they conduct business. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

You can't.

You can't take your money away from them. That's the issue.

They own all, or a piece of everything and they get a cut of every dime you spend........on anything at all..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I guess that is one reason why we are all here - Hey?

Because it is time and long past time that those who have been placed in a position to represent us - hear from us - in no uncertain fashion - they need our ( The People's ) Direction.


[-] 1 points by shooz (14378) 0 minutes ago

No one consulted me about all the money I end up giving them each and every day, their act of economic/political extortion aside. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

I'm not talking about politics here DK.

I'm talking purely about WallStreet and how they conduct business.

[-] 0 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

what exactly do you pay to " wall street"?

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

WallStreet gets a slice of EVERYthing!!

They don't ask.

They just take, and use that money for their own nefarious purposes.

They don't ask about that either.

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

if unions are so good why are people forced to join them? if unions are for their members why cant the members have a secret ballot?

[-] -2 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

100+ years of anti-union propaganda.

Propaganda you keep perpetuating.

Why do you do that?

If it's a union shop and you don't like that. YOU have the CHOICE to go to a non-union shop down the street that pays less, so get with it and go there.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

My - OH - MY - talk about delusional.


[-] 2 points by shooz (14438) 1 minute ago

Can the "right" wing get any stranger?

Limbaugh, wanting man of the year?

http://www.politicususa.com/rush-limbaugh-demands-named-time-person-year-making-sandra-fluke-famous.html

No harm in wanting Rush, but you are an ass that isn't going anywhere but down these days. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Daily aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo and be truly blessed aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo Holy Oil? aAHhahahah ahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo


[-] 1 points by shooz (14431) 3 minutes ago

Be sure and change the oil in your car every 100 miles, you wouldn't want to piss off God and all those gifted oil corporation execs, not to mention Wallstreet. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

Can the "right" wing get any stranger?

Limbaugh, wanting man of the year?

http://www.politicususa.com/rush-limbaugh-demands-named-time-person-year-making-sandra-fluke-famous.html

No harm in wanting Rush, but you are an ass that isn't going anywhere but down these days.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo ( PA ? Texass ? where??? ) Damn that is some funny stuff aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo

[-] 2 points by shooz (14431) 14 minutes ago

That was pretty funny.............................:)

It's like saying Wallstreet are the most gifted people in the World.

Like fucking the World over is an art form.

Or this clown, who manages to tie it into God.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/bryan-fischer-enormously-insensitive-to-hurt-gods-feelings-by-not-using-oil/

In a truly twisted example, of those gifted oil corporation executives. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

I have to try and be funny. At my age I have a lot less hair to pull out over this kind bullshit..................................:)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Stop aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo you're aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo killing aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo MEeee aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo unbelievable aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/bryan-fischer-enormously-insensitive-to-hurt-gods-feelings-by-not-using-oil/ aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo aAHhahahahahaheeheheheheeehehooo


[-] 2 points by shooz (14431) 0 minutes ago

I have to try and be funny. At my age I have a lot less hair to pull out over this kind bullshit..................................:) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

Be sure and change the oil in your car every 100 miles, you wouldn't want to piss off God and all those gifted oil corporation execs, not to mention Wallstreet.

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

because,..........................people that work in certain area are not given a choice, they must belong to the union, and if somehow they dont have to join the union they are forced to pay union dues via mandatory paycheck deductions.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

A very effective 100+ years of propaganda, I might add.

Here's the thing.

A union provides a service.

A service, don't you agree, should be paid for.

It was my belief, by reading your comments, that you feel that is case.

Am I mistaken?

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

most working people in the usa do not belong to a union.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

Then why are you bitching about unions, and then pointing out a sad state of affairs?

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

teachers are forced to join the teachers union.Why do dems hate right to work states?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Smart workers do not prefer 'right to work' (anti union) states because they know that workers get better pay, benefits, job security, safety, & leverage when they have the right to unionize.

It ain't "dems" (not a party thang!) and it ain't "hate."

It is "smart workers" "prefer".

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

If you want to go work for less, go "right" ahead, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to be FORCED to work for less because you like "right" to work BS.

I'm not gonna play your simplified view on unions.

Not gonna do it.........again.

OWS is STRONGLY pro union.

If you don't like those apples, I'm sure Glenn Beck will still have you.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Actually according to the CBO, the Census, and Piketty-Saez -the disparity began in the 1970's.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629#_ftn25

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah, it took off after Reagan and his voodoo economic trickle down policy.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Now THAT's a weird statement coming from someone who seems to keep repeating that:

A- the economy of the sitting president (Obama) can be rightly and reasonably attributed to the presidents who came immediately before him (Bush). AND B-economic changes caused by a previous president (Bush) take longer than 4 years to turn around (which is why Obama hasn't been able to do it yet)

I mean, if that is true, then in order not to contradict yourself entirely and look like an idiot, you MUST agree that if economic inequality was already manifesting itself in 1981 (when Reagan took office) it could ONLY be the result of practices put in place by Jimmy Carter.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Obviously the economic situations you are ignorantly trying to compare are vastly different.

Our current problems are the worst economic crash since the great depression (80 years ago). It WAS created by Bush and his 1% oligarch cronies and hit it's peak as Pres Obama took office, so that the worst effects occurred after Bush left office. In addition Pres Obama & the Dems implemented stimulus policy (watered down by repubs) that quickly improved the situation. We could have had a stronger recovery but your repubs have obstructed every Dem proposal to create jobs & strengthen the recovery.

Reagan had a much weaker recession which had been underway a while, He wasn't as right wing wacko partisan, Reagan had a Dem congress who were willing to work with Reagan, Tip O'neil recognized the Pres won and deserves to have his plan implemented.

And Reagan believed that SS was not part of deficit & should not be cut, He also believed that Millionaires should pay more in taxes. see below link

http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/?rc=daily.share

If only we had the reasonableness of the repubs from 30 years ago. The economy would be much stronger.

Which does not mean I support Reagans conservative voodoo economic trickle down policy disaster. I only support Reagans (or any repub) compromises towards progressive policy.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

we can begin to steer the wealth away from them by avoiding shopping at corporate stores. When you are hungry for a taco, no longer go to taco bell but stop by the small mexican cart in the parking lot, its likely to be a small business. Also, instead of shopping for clothes at the big retailers, look for a small business clothing supplier on the internet.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

So very true. How we spend our money can topple giants.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8653) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Great post jr, right on topic, and you what's even worst is when you look at net wealth, the affect of making a bit more added up over the years and the generations. There is a huge affect of making just what you need to get by and making enough to have a little left over. The public policies pushed by the 1% are designed to ensure the middle class do not a acquire any economic security, that makes it easier to deal with them at wage time, and when you want them to work on Christmas or Thanksgiving.

[-] 0 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

So now what do we do?? set on this forum day after day and complain that the rich have money and we do not??

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Get the knowledge out to the rest of your family, friends, and neighbors. If they don't realize they haven't had a raise in 40 years, they won't a settle for that next raise that just keeps up with inflation.

Form or join unions. Don't support corporations that underpay their workers like Walmart and McDonalds with your dollars. Buy less, buy used, buy in bulk, buy local, fix rather than replace, and make or grow your own. How we spend our dollars is a powerful form of revolution.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If that is what you want to do - have at it.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

I would think that if there was such a massive difference between the "have and the "have nots" there would be rioting and pilliaging in the streets.

I don't see that so that tells us that quite a few people in this country who are doing just fine and are more focused on their day to day life instead of what others are making.

However that is not to say they are not concerned about what the government is doing and want change. But hey, if they were that concerned about change they wouldn't have voted for Obama - so I guess they don't feel change is necessary right now.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

50% or workers make $27,000 or less. Many much less. Inflation masks the fact that incomes really haven't increased for the lower 90% for the last 40 years. They make many more dollars, but it still buys the same quantity of bread.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your data shows that most of the income (75%) of the top 0.1% comes from capital investments and income from small businesses (LLCs).

All this means is that the top 0.1 % are working hard and investing wisely. You should rejoice.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

What the data shows is that the top earners are taking a larger share of the economic pie. Productivity has doubled in the last 40 years. You would expect high income earners to also double their income during this time, but their income has increased three or four times. This extra income generated comes at the expense of the lower and mid level income workers. And you as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Worker-Productivity-Annual-Wage-Compensation.png

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Capital investments enable growth and innovation. If an investor makes a mistake on a business and it fails the investment is lost. If a worker makes a mistake does he lose the wage that he earns? No. He may get fired and has to find another job, but he is required to give nothing back and in fact receives unemployment compensation into which his employer must pay even more because of the increased turnover for which the employee is responsible.

There is both reward and penalty for investing. That is why the investment sometimes pays off big. Look at the entry in and out of the top 1% income bracket over time. It is actually quite fluid and demonstrates that the rich don't always stay rich.

Also, there are only a relatively few people that are willing and able to take large financial risks. Therefore, the reward for taking risks is concentrated among that relatively small group.

That group also tends to be well advised in their pursuits both in the selection of investments and in the minimization of taxes. Without that advice (as is the case with most lottery winners) the losses quickly outpace the gains.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The pie is not finite.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Exactly. They helped double the size of the pie, but instead of taking one slice of the larger pie they took three or four.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Since 1960 GDP has risen by nearly 10 times.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Not even close to reality. GDP needs to be adjusted for inflation and for the increase in population to compare GDP for different years. Real GDP per worker is the proper chart to use. I commonly see figures of 80% to 100% increase in productivity for the last 40 years.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IJHmAmDdLrc/TjNCdG0-oCI/AAAAAAAAC6o/XS8Q3wHZ3zQ/s1600/GDP%2Bper%2BEmployed.jpg

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago
  • Only the human being, absolved from kissing and strife

goes on and on and on, without wandering

fixed upon the hub of the ego

going, yet never wandering, fixed, yet in motion,

the kind of hell that is real, grey and awful

sinless and stainless going round and round

the kind of hell grey Dante never saw

but of which he had a bit inside him.

Know thyself, and that thou art mortal.

But know thyself, denying that thou art mortal:

a thing of kisses and strife

a lit-up shaft of rain

a calling column of blood

a rose tree bronzey with thorns

a mixture of yea and nay

a rainbow of love and hate

a wind that blows back and forth

a creature of beautiful peace, like a river

and a creature of conflict, like a cataract:

know thyself, in denial of all these things-

And thou shalt begin to spin round on the hub of the

obscene ego

a grey void thing that goes without wandering

a machine that in itself is nothing

a centre of the evil world-soul.

-D.H. Lawrence

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why does increasing population necessarily increase GDP? In fact, for the last 12 years while inflation adjusted GDP has increased by 21 % GPD per capita has increased by 42%. Why? Increase in productivity or population does not necessarily proportionally increase GDP.

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=67

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Why does increasing population necessarily increase GDP?

If the population increases by 50%, the overall GDP should also increase by about 50%. The GDP per worker does not change though, unless there is increased productivity per worker.

"In fact, for the last 12 years while inflation adjusted GDP has increased by 21 %"

I only get a real GDP increase of 9%-10% from 2000 to 2011. Your graph is GDP PPP which is modified to compare different countries GDP to each other.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/gdp-per-capita%202011-q2.png

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPC

Unlikely we had a 42% increase in per capita growth in 12 years, especially with the great recession in 20008. It took the last 40 to get an 80-100% increase.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There is not a consistent one-for-one increase in GPD with increasing population growth. In fact population increase can have a negative effect on GDP growth.

Increasing supply of labor (population) could lower the cost of labor (as we have seen recently with flat or decreasing wages), as the cost of goods decreases prices follow with competition. This could offset the increase in demand for goods and services by the additional population. This is particularly true if a large percentage of the population increase is due to working age, adult immigrants.

Several sources showing inflation adjusted GDP growth of ~ 20 % over the last 12 years:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/US_GDP_over_time.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-debt-2012-6

http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2011/02/17/title-282?blog=10

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The discussion has drifted far from the original topic. The fact remains that the top income earners make a disproportionate amount of the income pie. One tenth of one percent of the population, one person in a thousand, makes 12% of all income.

If you have any evidence that disproves this, please present it.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why are you surprised that a small percentage of the population makes such a large percentage of all income? Do you think that all people are equal?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Of course all people are equal. In their eligibility to rights.

But that has nothing to do with the damaging economic inequity/concentration of wealth that we MUST correct.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

People are not equal. Some are short, some are tall. Some have a talent for music, sports, science, and some have a talent for making money.

If you take money from the rich do you also take Tiger Woods' Green Jacket?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

corporations are responsible far ALL the exploitation of workers, & all the wage stagnation that decent hard working Americans suffer.

Unions are responsible for all good worker rights/benefits that exist today.

How's that.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gift of making money? LOL that is too funny. most wealthy inherited, or benefited from "connections", or govt largess, certainly the rigging of the tax system in their favor has been a big part oftheir wealth.

I don't buy the bullshit story that corp execs are just magical genious' who earned their money by some unique ability.

Most get compensated for easy decisions that hurt workers and make them wealthy.

Andthen there are all those many who make their money illegally, or questionably.

Sorry the real heroes are the decent hard working Americans who persevere in theface of this unfair reality.

The wealthy aren't "more equal" they have mostly gotten where they are at others expense, or unfair advantage, or cheating.

Sorry. I don't buy that non sense and I stand with the 99%.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

That was pretty funny.............................:)

It's like saying Wallstreet are the most gifted people in the World.

Like fucking the World over is an art form.

Or this clown, who manages to tie it into God.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/bryan-fischer-enormously-insensitive-to-hurt-gods-feelings-by-not-using-oil/

In a truly twisted example, of those gifted oil corporation executives.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

BTW, what is the greater source of displaced income from low wage workers, corporate profits or Unions?

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

From whom did Tiger Woods inherit his wealth?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"suffer"? You have a warped understanding of the word suffer. The wealthy will not suffer in any way shape or form! I disagree. In fact I submit the wealthy (like the entire population) would benefit from a more fair tax system that would create a stronger economy.

Paying taxes is not punishment it is the cost of living in a free society.

In fact the improved economy created by the more equitable tax system would be the reward for all (including the wealthy).

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why does it matter where Tiger Woods got his money?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Because he (and others like him) would suffer from the laws you would impose. You wrote that people deserve their fair share. Woods earned his fair share, every nickel. He inherited nothing except the talent to hit a little ball into a hole. He is better at this bizarre sport than just about anyone else on earth and people voluntarily give him money to watch.

You want to punish him for his talent.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Discussing one individual is ridiculous. It is a distraction. It is dishonest.

I submit again, We should tax any income over a million dollars at 90%, we should eliminate all deductions, loopholes, shelters for the top earners.

And I support cutting taxes for the working class!

[-] 4 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

1sealyon has no reply button-

Some are better at making money. Is a tax a punishment, maybe it's a reward, as they should feel happy they are able to help others, and the community. When I pay taxes, I don't feel punished for my success. I am proud I can do my fair share as a citizen of the country, at least when I feel like I am represented, by the government.

Sure if it hurts a little, I will work harder and watch more carefully how I spend on what I have power over buying.

[+] -4 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The tough part is sorting out just who really earned what.

In the end people are not equal. Some are better at making money than others. Is it really fair to punish them for their gift? We don't punish the violin virtuoso that brings tears when they play.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

:tiger woods"? He is irrelevant as an individual. As a class the wealthiest must pay their fair share. The existing concentration of wealth was gotten unfairly and must change if we are to grow the economy.

Tiger and every 1%'r must contribute just as the rest of us have going on 4 years now.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

But Tiger made his money fairly using his talent. You wrote that we are entitled to our fair share. Is Tiger not entitled to the $ 750 million that he earned fairly (well, actually I think Elin has half of it now)?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"green jacket"? ridiculous false comparison.

"take money from the rich"? We just want our fair share, Our money back. OUR money that the rich have taken unfairly.

"not equal"? in height, weight, talent? No but that is pathetically dishonest.

We are ALL equal in our eligibility of basic rights. Stop obfuscating this basic foundation of the great American democratic experiment.

(height,? weight? whatta joke)

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Does Tiger Woods then get to keep his money (Along with his jacket)? Seems like you agree that he earned his share.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..."

So in your opinion Jefferson was full of crap about that?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read the rest.

First of all he said all men; what about the women?

TJ owned slaves. Were they created equal?

Of course TJ did not mean that all people were equal. He meant that all free men (not women or slaves) were equal under the law. And even that is not completely true since the rich can hire better lawyers than the poor.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I can't argue with you about 'entitled' because that is a distraction. But I agree with the university & emloyment discrimination/favoritism you bring up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I like the words I chose. because I was born a human being.

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The rights are ours by virtue of the fact we are human beings, not through govt. We are entitled to rights because we've been born.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Not because we have been born; because we are human beings.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever Jefferson meant we hold that all people are equal under the law, and equally entitled to the rights we believe in.

The injustice wealthy advantage must be addressed but that doesn't we aren't equal.

We are.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We are entitled to nothing. Rights are not granted by Gov. The Constitution is a clarification of the limitations of Gov. The 9th amendment is my favorite:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Note the use of the word "enumerated". This is not a list of "granted" rights. It is just a list. A partial list of some of our rights that we enjoy as human beings and granted by no one.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

By what measure do you recon we are equal? Height, weight , intellect, skin color, sex, talent? We are about as unequal as could be and that is a good thing. It would be pretty boring if we were all equal.

Equality as it relates to Gov and our society boils down to this: individuals, and organizations like Gov, should be prohibited from placing arbitrary barriers that impede the pursuits of the individual. A proper role for Gov is to enforce this prohibition when we fail to behave and do it ourselves.

Examples of some basis for arbitrarily barriers include race, gender, etc.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Jefferson wrote those words in the Declaration of Independence-not the Constitution.

He used the word CREATED equal-not "born equal" and goes on to say "endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights". Endowed means GIVEN to, furnished by, granted to, provided by-the very word insinuates both a GIVER and a receiver of something.

If you're going to agree with Jefferson's words, you must agree with what he meant when he said them. Jefferson believed that GOD created men/humanity and then GAVE TO THEM specific rights which included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Certainly he didn't mean that the "law" created people or that the law "endowed" them with their rights.

And he certainly meant that the rich and the poor should both be equally protected under the law. You cannot favor a man because of his poverty any more than you can favor a man because of his wealth. Both are entitled to the same rights. NOWHERE does he or any of our founding documents declare equal outcomes or equal assurances.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm not saying equality exists. Only that we are entitled to it. I say further we must fight for it. We've fighting for all time for equality.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We are entitled to nothing.

Equality as it relates to Gov and our society boils down to this: individuals, and organizations like Gov, should be prohibited from placing arbitrary barriers that impede the pursuits of the individual. A proper role for Gov is to enforce this prohibition when we fail to behave and do it ourselves.

Examples of some basis for arbitrarily barriers include race, gender, etc. If you have a talent that you wish to pursue the Gov (or anybody else) must not impede that pursuit simply because of your skin color. Is that true today? Not at all. Try testing this theory at the admissions office of any State University.

Trade Unions are another example. The selection of workers providing service under Gov contract may not be restricted to the sons of Shop Stewards, friends of Local Leaders, and the Nephew of the materials supplier that gets football tickets for the Union Boss.

"I'm on your side, but you're not". -- M.F.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm saying that all people are equal under the law, and equally entitled to the rights we believe in.

You know I'm not talkin about height & weight.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Equal under the law? Do you really believe that two people accused of the same crime, one rich and one poor, are treated equally under the law (or any other way for that matter).

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You are a resource, right. You are an Engineer. But you get the Mushroom Treatment all the time too. You don't get Funding or Managment Information all the time do you?

We all compete, but we may be put in narrow positions and contract negotionations, management information, and customer relations information are held back ... and you will liklely not be able to draw upon that info in the future even if you worked on those projects.

There are "made men" in the business or industry that you are in. You can't really compete for higher positions or executive postions in many cases even if you become a junior executive ... because you will be seen as something else. You are not an insider ... or a washington insider ... or a marketing vice president ... or a connected executive.

We all have our limitations based on our Network connections and we really can't (well speaking for myself anyway) reach the highest levels of our organizations.

But take that as just my experience. I'm retired as a protest. Ended up making good money at the end. That was nice. But my Industry is chuck full of experts and know it alls. (this is the USA)

My Point ... ah, I'm just as smart as everyone else. I just didn't compete as well as others and didn't want to play the game. But I ended up getting the same salary/promotion as anyone else. The whole competition paradigm is mean and nasty and promotes back stabbing in the most genial circumstances. I don't buy the premise that we have to destroy co-worker souls to get them to compete.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The long and short of your issue is that people are not equal. Exactly, they are not equal. Never have been.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Arguing over the word is pedantic, and useless.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are entitled to human rights because we are human beings. I agree! I didn't say the govt gave them to us. I submit we created this govt to protect and spread those rights to the whole planet.

Weakness, greed, and sloth are your warped misinterpretations.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The word entitled means owed.

If we are owed a thing someone else must be obliged to remit. That means that your rights come from someone else.

This is simply untrue.

You rights are yours and come from no one.

However, your rights may be stolen from you by other people. This trend occurs today with increasing frequency. It starts with your neighbors rights but they will eventually come for yours.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But all are equally entitled to the human rights we believe in right?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We are not entitled to anything. I wish that word could be stricken from the language. It implies weakness, greed, and sloth in three short syllables.

We posses human rights by virtue of our status as human beings. They are not given by Gov or anybody else.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Sure, as long as you just keep printing more pie. But the newly printed pie will also go to the top.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Printed money is not wealth. Wealth is:

The steam engine The Electric Lamp The Mobile Phone The Polio Vaccine The Automobile The Internet Fracking

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Wealth and value are not the same. The things you point out are of value, and they can create wealth. They are not one in the same.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Perhaps the SEC should be appointed by the people, and not the criminals that pass the legislation in favor of the financials.

[-] -2 points by thestonemill (-93) 1 year ago

The proposed tax hike by obama, even though it does go through will have little to no impact on the economy. Like every thing else he has ever done, this also will result in more wasted tax dollars, but hey he is good at that.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The tax hike's success will depend on what segment of the population it's taken from. From the middle class will have little effect. From the upper class will have maximum effect.

[-] -1 points by thestonemill (-93) 1 year ago

It is still going to have very little impact on paying down on the debt and will another four years of the obama admin, they will probably rack up another 6 trillion or more in debt anyways.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by thestonemill (-93) 1 year ago

obama

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Looks like Reagan-Bush-Bush-Obama to me.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Fear. Corruptions first line of defense.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Fear is the prime mover in any economy.

Do you really believe that people who are clever enough to be rich in the first place are going to let an institution as dim witted and slothful as the Gov take their money?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

That's true. They'll bribe Congress first to prevent that. Wait a minute. It looks like Congress is already full of people who were clever enough to be rich in the first place.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why do so many people go to Congress as relatively middle class citizens, but end up among the wealthiest people in the US?

The Gov does not care where the money comes from, as long as they get theirs.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-about-money-and-congress-that-are-so-outrageous-that-it-is-hard-to-believe-that-they-are-actually-true

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Support movetoamend.org &

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

If you are concerned about money in politics.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Can you name one corporation that is not made up of people?

That said I agree with you that corp influence in Gov is a bad thing, but it is bad because Gov has the power to create an advantage for one group over another. If Gov was forbidden to be involved at all the ability to corrupt would disappear.

If you want to amend something start with the Commerce Clause.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The govt has this power to serve the peoples needs. In affect it must be the people wielding the power. We have allowed the wealthiest to buy/steal our govt and that power.

So I don't mind the power within the govt if they are serving the 99%.

What is your problem with the commerce clause?.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You really believe that the US Fed Gov serves the 99%? They get elected by less than 15% (or less) of the population and are beholden to a tiny number of large campaign contributors. Cut their power by cutting off the supply of money. All they do is pass laws that take away your liberty.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think I've said clearly that the wealthy 1% has bought/stolen the peoples govt.

I've made it clear as well we should cut off their money (campaign contributions)

Are you paying attention.?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The Fed Gov is not a solution to our problems. It is an uncontrollable institution that attempts to solve problems by taking away some right or other. They are so big, inept, and corrupt that they are incapable of producing effective, timely solutions. Try to find anything that they do that could not be done better by a good charity or business.

Most good charities get $0.90 on the dollar to the ascribed cause, the Fed Gov barley manages $0.37. That is shameful and immoral. Cut off their funding and ability to borrow. That is what you have not made clear.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

None of the organizations you mentioned have a fraction of the resources that the US govt has, None have the power & authority to do the things necessary to meet the needs of 315 million citizens. So therefore none are doing a better job in any way than the US govt.

You're dreaminf

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Are you sure?

How much money does the Fed Gov give to the poor (Not how much do they spend. How much actually gets to the poor)?

Make the same calculation for the combined aid to the poor by all US charities.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok if you say so.

I would say also I support the libertarian belief that the govt should not be involved in adults, marijuana use, & sexual activity (same sex, sex for money).

Does that fit in with you libertarian small govt beliefs.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am not a libertarian or anarchist.

What does a government do? It governs. Is that what you want?

I don't want a government, I want an administrator of the citizens business. A corporation that works for us to do those few things that we agree are better accomplished by a team. Like hiring a company with trucks to collect and dispose of our garbage to save each of us the smell, the filth, and the daily trips to the dump. And if they do a lousy job, they get fired and we hire a better one after the work is put out for competitive bid.

But to answer your question, of course the Gov has no role in regulating what we smoke, eat, love, pay for, gamble about, or the size of soft drink we prefer to consume. I am always perplexed by the question about getting the Gov to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. What are we daft? Why are we letting Gov require a license from them in the first place?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Where do you think we agree?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Death Penalty

Legal Abortion

Gov - Corp corruption

Liberty

Human Rights

Equal protection under the law

Humanity

Our main difference I believe lies in the degree to which we rely on Gov to effect the above.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So you offer me a decades old anti govt well known libertarian organizations opinion on whether govt or private orgs are better at providing a service.

I think they might be a little biased. And frankly it is offensive that you would push this ideological propaganda on me as if it was fair minded.

You and I disagree. We live on different ends of the political spectrum. I live amongst the caring "we're in this together" crowd. You live in the selfish "you're on your own" crowd.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts. I can't agree with you. My upbringing was one of caring, & sharing.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I have to disagree with you again. We are really not so far apart on that spectrum. I have noticed a number of areas where we agree.

After all the Latin root of the word liberal is freedom.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No thanks. Useless exercise. All the charities combined pale in comparison to the might of the US gubm'nt.

Sorry you could play number games if you like.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Give it a try, you may be surprised.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Charities could never respond to disaster relief as the fed govt does, Defense of the nation as well, The SS system. Challenging states that discriminate, research, EPA, There is many areas they the people benefit by having a fed govt working for them..

We just must take it back from the corp 1% oligarchs.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Private charities and businesses would do a much better job at all of the above (and in fact do in many places across the nation for example: The Red Cross, Salvation Army, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Broad Institute, Goodwill Industries International, Feeding America, Habitat for Humanity International, next to the US Gov the Catholic Church is the most benevolent organization on the planet). Combined they do much more than the Fed Gov already.

Even the courts are being replaced rapidly by private arbitration.

Let them take care of national defense. That should keep them busy and perhaps a narrowing focus will improve their competence.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Too long to fire them? Yeah we got the worst system in the world. Except all the others.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agreed.

It is good though that we grouse a lot. Push for continuous improvement.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I like the idea of firing the govt if they don't perform.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The problem is that today it takes too long to fire them. They can do a lot of damage while waiting for the pink slip.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"Nope. not gonna do it. wouldn't be prudent, not at this juncture." GHWB

[-] 0 points by shooz (17951) 1 year ago

FEE.

giggle.

More stupid libe(R)tarian claptrap.

I suppose you'll deny it though.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Economic_Education

If you look deeply enough you will likely find the Kochs hiding in the background.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"The graph above shows all income sources, not just salaries, but also capital gains, dividends, and business income for the top one tenth of one percent (one out of a thousand individuals). "

WRONG in TWO counts.

First- The first graph does NOT show "the top 1 tenth of 1 percent." if that is where you are claiming the title to your post. It shows the top 10%.

100% of the income would be represented as the number 1. 1=1 whole consisting of 100 parts.

Thus 0.1 is ONE TENTH of 1 as a whole, NOT one tenth of 1 percent.

One tenth of one percent, would be written as 0.001

Second-the graph shows the top 10% of ALL INCOME EARNERS-not the number of actual PEOPLE in the top 10% of income earners compared to the number of people in all the other income brackets.

No one else here picked up on that?

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Ten percent is a tenth part of, or 10%.

One percent is a hundredth part of, or 1.0%

One tenth of a percent is a tenth part of a hundredth part of, or 0.1%.

Since you bring up the income of the top 10%, lets look at their share of income too. About 50% of all U.S. income in 2010.

http://lasttechage.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/top-10-pct-income-1917-2007-saez.gif/2012/03/blogs/free-exchange/saez.jpg

"Second-the graph shows the top 10% of ALL INCOME EARNERS-not the number of actual PEOPLE in the top 10% of income earners compared to the number of people in all the other income brackets."

Exactly. It's much simpler to compare percentages of people than numbers of people.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

FROM THE OP IN YOUR OWN WORDS- "The graph above shows all income sources, not just salaries, but also capital gains, dividends, and business income for the top one tenth of one percent (one out of a thousand individuals). "

NO-the graph does NOT show that. It shows the top 10%

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/percent/onetenth.html

Go to the converter and enter 1/10. You'll get 0.1 Enter 1/1000 and you'll get .001.

If you ONE thing, and you break it in 100 parts, then 1 or (1.0)=100 parts.

0.1 would then = 10% of that whole-with the whole being 1 0.5 would be=50% of that whole.

Here's a "fun with math" page for you if you need more help converting percentages into decimals and fractions:

http://www.mathsisfun.com/decimal-fraction-percentage.html

You JUST said "Exactly. It's much simpler to compare percentages of people than numbers of people."

After stating in the OP IN YOUR OWN WORDS- "The graph above shows all income sources, not just salaries, but also capital gains, dividends, and business income for the top one tenth of one percent (one out of a thousand individuals). "

WHEN THE GRAPH doesn't mention THE number of people in the group they are comparing AT ALL!!!!

bangs head on desk

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You're using the wrong calculator.

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/percent/unit.html

Type in .001 (one part in one thousand) and the percentage comes out to 0.1%

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The graph clearly states the top 0.1% income share. 0.1% is not 10%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You said:

Jefferson wrote those words in the Declaration of Independence-not the Constitution.

He used the word CREATED equal-not "born equal" and goes on to say "endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights". Endowed means GIVEN to, furnished by, granted to, provided by-the very word insinuates both a GIVER and a receiver of something.

If you're going to agree with Jefferson's words, you must agree with what he meant when he said them. Jefferson believed that GOD created men/humanity and then GAVE TO THEM specific rights which included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Certainly he didn't mean that the "law" created people or that the law "endowed" them with their rights.

And he certainly meant that the rich and the poor should both be equally protected under the law. You cannot favor a man because of his poverty any more than you can favor a man because of his wealth. Both are entitled to the same rights. NOWHERE does he or any of our founding documents declare equal outcomes or equal assurances.

I can believe what I like thank you very much. I believe I have equal rights by virtue of my being born.

Jefferson agreed as far as I can tell, but whether he did or not is irrelevant.

God is dead! Time for us to grow up and put bronze age fairy tales in the past where they belong.