Is this what class warfare would look like?

income

In 2010, total national income increased by some $288 billion. As economist Emmanuel Saez noted last month, that amounted to a growth in average real income per family of 2.3 percent.

Not bad, right? Welllllll…..

Remember that joke about Bill Gates walking into a bar and raising the average net worth of bar patrons to $6 billion? That’s what’s happening here, because as Saez also notes:

“Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality. It is likely that this uneven recovery has continued in 2011 as the stock market has continued to recover. National Accounts statistics show that corporate profits and dividends distributed have grown strongly in 2011 while wage and salary accruals have only grown only modestly. Unemployment and non-employment have remained high in 2011.”

Again, 93 percent of income growth went to 1 percent of the population; 99 percent of the population split the remaining 7 percent. I do not believe that over the long haul such a maldistribution of wealth can sustain a country with the values, traditions and economic structure of the United States.

Do you?

– Jay Bookman

446 comments Add your comment

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
5:14 pm

Hell to the NO!

Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.

Do you mean the Occutards?

They all need to go take a bath and quit mooching off of the rich…

Look at the market

April 16th, 2012
5:14 pm

The income comes from investments so is this surprising?

Jay

April 16th, 2012
5:16 pm

That’s certainly part of it, Market.

Record corporate profits, declining wages and high unemployment are part of it as well.

Doggone/GA

April 16th, 2012
5:17 pm

“Record corporate profits, declining wages and high unemployment are part of it as well”

The question is: how long will those record profits continue if their real customer base continues to lose income?

Phil Lunney

April 16th, 2012
5:19 pm

I have a question: If talking about raising taxes on the rich is class warfare, why is cutting women’s contraceptive coverage and Planned Parenthood spending not a War on Women?

devans00

April 16th, 2012
5:20 pm

The system is definitely broken. The current setup isn’t sustainable in the long run. No two ways about it.

Question to the 1%: What do you love more? Money and wealth or the USA?

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
5:25 pm

Yes that is true, this data you present, Jay. And what do you do with this knowledge. You try to imply that the wealthiest do not pay their fair share when we all know it is the Republican constituency that is not carrying their fair share of the tax burden. Clearly if we are to continue to allow people such as ourselves to have the opportunity to make over $85,000 per year in unearned income and pay no fed tax or payroll tax on a penny of it, then someone else needs to pick up the slack and I’m thinking that anyone that has extra cash laying around to do things like go to concerts or gamble on ball games and other such foolishness surely has much more money than they need. You may as well be wasting it on a prom dress or something.

King of Everything

April 16th, 2012
5:25 pm

Let’s keep voting in Republicans in Washington and in State Govt. They are doing a great job (for their donor class)

Simple Truths

April 16th, 2012
5:26 pm

Help me out here. The chart is from 2010. Who was the president that year? I can’t seem to put my finger on it…

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:27 pm

BROSEPHUS

Gibbon?

King of Everything

April 16th, 2012
5:28 pm

Simple…It only happened that one year. Never before and never after, only in 2010.

Joe Hussein Mama

April 16th, 2012
5:29 pm

P. Lunney — “I have a question: If talking about raising taxes on the rich is class warfare, why is cutting women’s contraceptive coverage and Planned Parenthood spending not a War on Women?”

Excellent question, sir. I think the conservative response would be ’shut up, that’s why.’ :D

Mary Elizabeth

April 16th, 2012
5:29 pm

“I do not believe that over the long haul such a maldistribution of wealth can sustain a country with the values, traditions and economic structure of the United States. Do you?”
———————————————————————-

No, I do not. This “maldistribution of wealth” has been a long time in the making, and it has been stealthy and deliberate.

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
5:30 pm

Simple…It only happened that one year. Never before and never after, only in 2010.

LOL.

Nice burn. King…

mona Lawrence

April 16th, 2012
5:30 pm

With Millions out of work and the ones that are working get scraps for salary ,one would think some of that so called investment money went to creating some decent paying jobs. They need to listen to the PATRIOTIC MILLIONAIRE. THE ELITE REPUBS MAKE ME ILL.

.

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:31 pm

TAXI

Just a thought here, but there’s Jay leading the pack and the rest of us following in on the ever so erudite interpretations, but seems that when Bruno put in in prom dress terms, the comments got a lot more, well, accessible and real life…

Just a thought, Imam…

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
5:32 pm

inflation of equities will
once again lead to equity
collapse and the
government is beginning
to inflate the housing
market again. good
times ahead.

ByteMe - Political thug for sale

April 16th, 2012
5:33 pm

The chart is from 2010. Who was the president that year?

No wonder the clowns call him “your savior”. Who else but God would have that kind of power in their pinkie?

kayaker 71

April 16th, 2012
5:33 pm

And we have that ever present one half of our electorate that pays no federal income tax at all. Problem is that the liberal solution is to distribute the wealth by raising taxes on the rich. That does nothing for those who are deemed the 99% except to cause more government spending, very little of which reaches them. The government benefits but the average joe continues to be behind the curve.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
5:33 pm

and now there’s some semi-fresh sheets upstairs for a prom dress…

Semi-fresh?? I would say that you’re being charitable with that assessment, josef. Jay’s been wearing his “poor man’s” tux for so long on this blog, I’m surprised his date hasn’t slammed the door in his face for trotting it out yet one more time.

Fred ™

April 16th, 2012
5:34 pm

Wow. Really Jay/ You wait til CLOSING TIME to do a new topic? We gotta work on your timing……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGytDsqkQY8

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 16th, 2012
5:34 pm

The question is: how long will those record profits continue if their real customer base continues to lose income?

I was thinking that myself as well. 16 pages downstairs of defending supply-side alchemy by saying that more is needed when 30 years of it has left us in these dire straights.

A consumer based economy needs consumers flush with cash, instead we’ve been sustaining trickle-on with debt.

Jay

April 16th, 2012
5:34 pm

… and kayaker’s solution is to make the bottom 50 percent pay more in taxes.

Yeah, I’m sure that will fix things.

N-GA

April 16th, 2012
5:35 pm

Modern Capitalism is starting to look more and more like the Capitalism of the Robber Barons.

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:36 pm

BRUNO

Are you accusing al Shariff of bein paternalistic? :-)

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 16th, 2012
5:38 pm

“I have a question: if cutting women’s contraceptive coverage and Planned Parenthood spending is a War on Women, why is talking about raising taxes on the rich not class warfare?”

I agree.

EJ Moosa

April 16th, 2012
5:38 pm

“The question is: how long will those record profits continue if their real customer base continues to lose income?”

You are asking the wrong question. After all, we have also had a record GDP, and that has not benefitted everyone either has it? We should have record profits if we have record GDP, right?

The rate of profit growth has fallen drastically. Layoffs will be coming soon. It’s the rate of profit growth that drives the rate of job growth.

You could give everyone a 1 % increase in salary, but that’s not enough to drive a serious boost in spending.

Which is which is why record profits, even though they are higher, are not high enough to continue driving job growth.

Lyman Hall

April 16th, 2012
5:41 pm

Despair………………you can believe in.
.
Just make sure you all keep voting the crooks back in.

Jay

April 16th, 2012
5:41 pm

The rate of profit growth has fallen drastically. Layoffs will be coming soon. It’s the rate of profit growth that drives the rate of job growth.

Not true. If corporations have squeezed all the profit they can from the current level of employment, they may be forced to add to their payrolls to restore those profits.

Doggone/GA

April 16th, 2012
5:41 pm

“Which is which is why record profits, even though they are higher, are not high enough to continue driving job growth”

HIgh profits don’t drive job growth at all. There’s only one thing that does: customers who buy your products. They drive jobs, income, profits and taxes. Fewer people buying less means fewer jobs, lower income, lower profits and lower taxes.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 16th, 2012
5:42 pm

It’s the rate of profit growth that drives the rate of job growth.

More supply-side BS.

kayaker 71

April 16th, 2012
5:42 pm

Bookman,6:34,

We all know that the key to increased wages and a better quality of life is a good job. If many of the lower 50% had good employment and a better job, tax revenues would increase on their own. The people on unemployment are sure as hell not contributing to the mix any more than those who pay no federal income taxes. Government is chasing away investment in our economy by raising the corporate tax schedule to 35%, the highest in the world. This crap is passed onto the consumer, who AmVet continues to describe as the forgotten generation of worker whose status has not improved since 1973. The American consumer pays all of these corporate taxes in the form of higher prices. Is it any wonder that some people cannot seem to get ahead with a scenario like this?

Matti

April 16th, 2012
5:42 pm

Wait… what? I thought if we upheld the Bush tax cuts for the JOB CREATIONISTS, that the richest 1% would create more jobs for the rest of us, and their God-sanctioned bounty would trickle down upon the rest of us like manna from heaven — so long as we work longer hours, do more with less, produce more with fewer people, postpone vacations, pick which kid we’ll spend college money on, pay more for our health insurance every year (like we have for the past 20 years), and do it CHEERFULLY with HUMBLE HEARTS and NO COMPLAINING….

… that everything would be okay! Right? I mean… it’s gonna turn around any minute now for those of us who played by the rules, worked, payed the bills, and took care of our homes, only to see our net worth PLUMMET (while Wall Street scum and our Republican Congressmen’s net worth tripled). Any minute, right?

…. right?

I was wrong, wasn’t I? It’s never gonna be okay. You can tell me.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
5:43 pm

Market: The income comes from investments so is this surprising?

Jay: That’s certainly part of it, Market.

Record corporate profits, declining wages and high unemployment are part of it as well

Once again, when you look into the details, then the headline loses some of its punch. Unemployment, and hence wages, should improve as the economy improves. The dramatic income gains at the top are in strong relationship to the dramatic income loss of that same group in 2008-2009 when the stock market tanked. As for how to stop those obnoxious high-earners from raking in all that dough, I still haven’t seen any practical answers that don’t involve ditching capitalism in favor of some socialistic/communistic system. No thanks.

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
5:43 pm

“Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery”.

S
O

The rich are sometimes the bug and sometimes they are the windshield as shown below. The rich seem to be getting richer under Obama. How did they fair under the W recession?

“Recession and the Rich.” The chart, based on 2009 IRS figures, shows that the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009; the number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent.

The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.

If you are tempted to join Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in a bit of schadenfreude over the fact that nearly four in ten millionaires disappeared in two years, don’t be. The chart also shows how the loss of these top income earners adversely affected the federal government’s bottom line.

In 2007, those making above $200,000 (but less than $1 million) paid $610 billion in federal income taxes. In 2009, it was only $434 billion – leading to a 29 percent decrease in government revenue.

Same for the 408,394 millionaires who paid $420 billion in taxes in 2007. Just two years later, their numbers had been dramatically reduced, and the revenue the U.S. government collected from them likewise decreased to $232 billion.

Aquagirl

April 16th, 2012
5:44 pm

Worth a re-read: What happened with the Atlanta Bread Company. The owner, Jerry Couvaras is back to making buckets of money after a “catharsis”: watching half the franchises crash and burn.

From the story…..“I know we closed a lot of stores,” he added, but it has paid off with rising sales at the stores that have remodeled.“The plan has worked,” he said.

D*ck.

http://www.ajc.com/business/atlanta-bread-company-franchisees-1208889.html

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
5:44 pm

this is a capitalistic
democratic republic.
we can elect
representatives to
control the capitalists
without becoming
socialists or communists,
if we will.

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:44 pm

DOGGONE
@ 5:41

Does that include prom dresses?

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:47 pm

barking frog

Police their own? Good luck with that one.

Doggone/GA

April 16th, 2012
5:47 pm

“Does that include prom dresses?”

Yup!

Michael

April 16th, 2012
5:47 pm

Class warfare sounds so good when you use it along with socialism and death panels and etc. etc. The truth is the middle class is shrinking and that includes some of the boobs on here that dont know they are in the middle class, or below.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
5:47 pm

I was wrong, wasn’t I? It’s never gonna be okay. You can tell me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RSK1JIb62c

Gordon

April 16th, 2012
5:48 pm

What are the high earners doing to prevent the others from earning more?

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
5:48 pm

josef

Gibbon could probably predict the outcome of the election as well as the first year’s action in Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 16th, 2012
5:49 pm

“Not true. If corporations have squeezed all the profit they can from the current level of employment, they may be forced to add to their payrolls to restore those profits.”

“may be” being the heart of that statement.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
5:50 pm

The rate of profit growth has fallen drastically. Layoffs will be coming soon.

Ummm… That kinda happens in a consumer-based economy when the consumer has nothing to pay for consumption.

Joe Hussein Mama

April 16th, 2012
5:51 pm

I’m out. All be well and drive safely.

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
5:51 pm

Less than a month after receiving a heart transplant, former Vice President Dick Cheney minced no words in his assessment of President Barack Obama: He’s been an “unmitigated disaster.”

Preach it Dick! Preach the truth!!!! Aint no doubt. Cheney is correct. Obama is a

D

I

S

A

S

T

E

R

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
5:53 pm

Oh lawdy. Gordon done went and asked a common sense question. Gonna have the libruls

S
T
U
M
P
E
D

kayaker 71

April 16th, 2012
5:54 pm

Success is a wonderful thing. Those that have it continue to be happy, prosperous and secure. Those that don’t continue to try to find a way to take it from them without putting out the same energy, work and dedication that it needs to be successful. That makes them the enemy. Enter a politician, like Bozo, who himself, is a 1%er who tries to exploit this scenario to get re-elected. He raises gazillions of dollars from that liberal !% without saying a word but now the Buffet Rule enters the picture to appease the voter base that thinks that the rich are evil and should “pay their fair share”. Which is it, Bozo?

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
5:56 pm

And for the next librul trick they will now state that supply side economics doesn’t work despite Reagan’s jawdropping explosion of economic growth and jobs creation. This silliness in librul gobbledeegook will commence in

3

2

1

.
.
.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
5:57 pm

One more nice Phil Collins number from the mid 80s. For PB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-IpCQp5Wdw

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

April 16th, 2012
5:57 pm

Well, I had my hopes up when I saw “class warfare,” but this turned out to be just another one of those librul pieces about taxing the Job Creators. I guess Bookman kept us on the same boring topic all day so he could write the good stuff for the Dead Tree edition. Then next Friday we’ll get a reprint of that. For now it looks like he settled for something that will make the most of us go ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Trouble is, Bookman don’t know what class warfare is. Class warfare is

1. Seeing your neighbor in the trailer on your right get a flat-screen that’s too big to fit thru the door, while you scraped and saved to finally get a 52-incher.
2. Seeing somebody in a new pickup that looks like a tractor trailer, when you thought your triple axle pickup was the biggest, baddest thing going.
3. Seeing your single-wide squeezed between a pair of double-wides that are bigger than most houses.

Anyhow, I ain’t too worried about how many breaks the rich people are getting. If it wasn’t them it would be somebody else getting them. Either way I’m pulling down my underwear and spreading ‘em wide. I know it won’t be me getting the good breaks, so I don’t care who gets them. Even if you was lucky enough to get the laws exackly like you want them, it wouldn’t be more than six months before some lobbyist dropped a big bag of money on some Congress critter and then we’d be right back the way we started.

In your heart you know I’m right. Have a good night everybody.

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
5:57 pm

Cheney has been a Dick
since birth.

josef

April 16th, 2012
5:57 pm

BROSEPHUS

Revolutions, as we know, are not fought on full bellies and so long as the masses have their bread and circuses…

The top 1% and their waterboys might want to consider a free prom dress program to supplement Food Stamps and Section 8…

Jay

April 16th, 2012
5:57 pm

I don’t know, Thulsa. I don’t put much credence in the judgment of a man who drove this country into the biggest foreign-policy blunder in its history, serving a president who left office with the highest disapproval rating in history, who helped to oversee the greatest economic collapse in more than 80 years and who was essentially frozen out of power in his second term because his advice in the first term proved so disastrous.

Other than that, he was fine I guess.

RF

April 16th, 2012
5:59 pm

And while we’re saying “thank you Mr. Scrooge” for our relatively stagnant income growth over the last thirty years, I guess we should be celebrating the increase the rich have. Yes the number of them has shrunk, but those remaining are raking in the cash. In total, since 1979, the top 1% are making 281% more. The 60% at the bottom have only grown very little. But that’s fair?

I guess the trickle down is finally being shown for what it is: it’s just them peeing on us as the head to the bank…

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
5:59 pm

josef,

Thinking back a little farther, I think Republicans brought the discussion way way down to a more accessible gutter level when they started leveling attacks at poorer people for daring to own a cell phone or a teevee or even a refrigerator. And for them to own all those things and pay no taxes to boot! How dare they!

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:00 pm

This argument that sometimes the rich are the ones who suffer is true.

If you look at a particular fifty day period.

NOT TRUE if you look at a fifty year period.

As in the past fifty years.

Since 1979 alone those in the top 1% have experienced an average $20 million increase in wealth.

Twenty million dollars. Each. On average.

How much have YOU seen in increased annual income since 1979? Maybe $20,000? $40,000? 60,000$

WOO HOO!

Party on piss poor Waynes…

Jay

April 16th, 2012
6:01 pm

It’s also interesting to see how desperately certain people are trying to refocus the conversation. Sorry boys — this ain’t going away any time soon.

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
6:02 pm

Jay,

I just had to throw that out there about Cheney seeing as how JamVet admires him so.

Thulsa Doom

April 16th, 2012
6:04 pm

“Sorry boys — this ain’t going away any time soon.”

This is Obama’s economy. And I’m sorry boys- this aint going away any time soon. Nor is the anemic economic growth under the O man.

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:05 pm

What are the high earners doing to prevent the others from earning more?

Hello?

They have FLAT LINED workers wages for nearly fifty years.

By crushing labor unions. By keeping the minimum wage below 1968 levels. By jacking up payroll taxes while cutting their own.

All of the income and wealth gains for middle Americans from the “golden years” between 1945 and 1975 have now been wiped out. Or more accurately, have now been transferred to the very rich. The top 1% holds 34% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 50% holds just 2.5%. The bottom 40% owns absolutely nothing.

And this was an accident? An oversight? An unplanned, but proper and natural evolution of American capitalism?

WAKE UP!

The Occutards need you!

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
6:05 pm

How did the rich get all
the money?

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
6:06 pm

“Shut up, Dick!” – G.W.

Matti

April 16th, 2012
6:06 pm

Bruno,

A 30-year-old Genesis song only fixes things if it’s Friday night and I’ve already started drinking. On a good week, the “fix” lasts about three hours.

Tens of millions of Americans are realizing that everything we were taught about work and opportunity is a GD lie. Look around: work only gets you so far. Screwing people over is how the REAL American dream happens! Just ask my lazy, shiftless, good-for-nothing Congressman. He’s ROLLING in the cash. Did he work hard for that? Not using the definition most of us are stuck with.

Paul

April 16th, 2012
6:06 pm

“I do not believe that over the long haul such a maldistribution of wealth can sustain a country with the values, traditions and economic structure of the United States.

Do you?”

No, I do not.

Have a lot of corporations headquartered in the DFW area. Over the weekend I read of one CEO and his comp package – nearly 40 million. Less than a quarter of it was classified as earned income. That results in a much lower tax rate, which is one reason the upper levels continue to amass a significant portion of wealth, an option not open to the majority of income earners in this country.

But some of you think that’s just dandy and in fact call for reducing their ‘enormous’ tax rate even further.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
6:07 pm

It’s also interesting to see how desperately certain people are trying to refocus the conversation. Sorry boys — this ain’t going away any time soon.

Well, have you come up with any workable answers to income disparity yet, Jay, or do you still subscribe to the OWS school of social change?? Just make a bunch of noise and let someone else figure out what to do??

Hard to respect the Dems these days anyway, after they extended the Bush tax cuts in 2009. As for seeing any meaningful tax reform, I guess we shouldn’t Hope for any Change in that area any time soon.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
6:08 pm

josef

Some would need to heed that advice. It would probably do us all some good in the long term.

josef

April 16th, 2012
6:08 pm

IMAM

Worst foreign policy disaster in history? Do Vietnam ring a bell? The war with Mexico and the “friendship” that one brought us with our neighbors to the South. That whole imperialist thingie of the last half of the 19th Century…

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:09 pm

Gordon and frog, among others…

Rather, they have followed as the intended consequences of the relentless application of a wide array of government and industry policies.

The massive run-up in debt is one such policy. The wealthy are net lenders. This means that massive public and private debt transfers interest income to them from the rest of the economy. Another method for effecting massive wealth transfer: Beginning in 1981 the Reagan administration effectively stopped enforcing anti-trust laws, allowing monopolies to gouge everyone who had to buy their products.

The government actually provided tax subsidies so that corporations could eliminate jobs in the industrial heartland and ship them to Mexico and later, China, India, and other low-wage countries, reducing wages and pitting American workers against each other for those jobs remaining.

The bank deregulation that began in the early 1980s reached its apex with the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in the late nineties. This set up the “casino capitalism” of the next decade that would spawn massive criminality and mortgage fraud by the nation’s leading banks—none of which has been prosecuted. The result was the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

I remember

April 16th, 2012
6:09 pm

Class warfare usually brings about the very things it opposes. Not surprising.

Not that MSNBC Jay has any credibility left now that he is a paid shill for the loony left news channel.

Paul

April 16th, 2012
6:11 pm

Gordon

“What are the high earners doing to prevent the others from earning more?”

As was noted on here a while ago when the conversation was on two particular CEOs, if they’d taken pay in the millions of dollars, instead of in the tens of millions, their workers could have each had a raise of thousands of dollars.

When the median household income is around $54k a year, that’s significant.

Glad to answer your question.

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
6:12 pm

Tens of millions of Americans are realizing that everything we were taught about work and opportunity is a GD lie.

Matti–I can appreciate the emotion, but there are a lot of reasons to believe that things will improve. As unemployment continues to drop, all of the positive feedback cycles built into our economic system will accelerate the recovery. Increased employment –> Increased consumer spending & increased tax revenue –> Increased demand for Labor.

It’s always darkest before the dawn.

josef

April 16th, 2012
6:15 pm

BROSEPHUS
I worry about our inability to draw parallels with the rise and fall of all past empires. Not a good line of thought for an imperialist nation.

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:17 pm

I remember.

Scintillating analysis. A superb contribution. Thanks…

But even as more than five million homeowners have lost their homes, the wealthy had their losses covered by the Bush and later Obama administrations.

Bloomberg news estimates that the transfer to the banks through the financial bailout comes to some $13 trillion dollars.

We could go on and on and on with the roster of ways the wealthy have used the government to transfer national wealth to themselves.

Environmental and health laws that are not enforced.

Deals with the pharmaceutical industry so they don’t have to compete with foreign manufacturers.

Health care “reform” that forces tens of millions of Americans to buy questionable insurance products, even as insurers continue to kick legitimate claimants off their rolls.

Give-aways of the telecommunication spectrum worth hundreds of billions of dollars to media monopolies that ladle out state propaganda as if were news and never, ever challenge official narratives.

In these and a thousand other ways, the rich have conspired with the government they largely control to shift more and still more of the nation’s wealth away from the working and middle classes, to themselves. It amounts to the most insidious class warfare and the most rapacious looting of public and private resources in the history of the world.

Jay

April 16th, 2012
6:18 pm

Bruno, that’s a harder question.

Unlike some, I do not believe this is a conspiracy, etc. It is the consequence of a range of things, from technology to globalization to ideology to the collapse of communism as a competitor to capitalism, which caused government and business to turn more of a blind eye to capitalism’s excesses. I think it’s something that we can alter at the margins but probably have to adjust to policy-wise.

And Josef, I stand by that characterization. As bad as Vietnam was, for example, I think Iraq was an unforced error, a conscious decision rather than a gradual error, and that its long-term consequences will be more serious than the consequences of Vietnam turned out to be.

Will The Richest 1% Please Raise Your Hands

April 16th, 2012
6:19 pm

Judging from the comments on this blog, WE HAVE AMONG US some of the

richest 1%ers.

heeheeheeheeheeheeeheeeeheee :)

kayaker 71

April 16th, 2012
6:22 pm

This same wealth envy scenario played out in Russia in 1917, followed by nearly 80 yrs of a totalitarian regime that killed millions, spent all of their money on corrupt leaders and fairy tale expectations that never worked out, Now we are to believe that if we just get those evil rich 1% we will be OK and right by the world. It really doesn’t seem to work out that way. The haves were slaughtered and maligned, the common worker was worse off than ever and what resulted? Tearing down the Berlin Wall and starting all over again. It doesn’t work, it never has and the results are usually not to the best interest of the people. We have multiple scenarios to prove it…. Cuba, China, Viet Nam, USSR……. what does it take, liberals, to prove to you that we still have the best system in the world. Some people rise to the top and some don’t. Get over it.

Mary Elizabeth

April 16th, 2012
6:24 pm

Average After-Tax Income by Income Group 1979 – 2007 (in 2007 dollars)

Income Category 1979; Income Category 2007; Percent Change; Dollar Change 1979-2007
————————————————————————————————————–
Lowest fifth $15,300 $17,700 16% $2,400

Second fifth $31,000 $38,000 23% $7,000

Middle fifth $44,100 $55,300 25% $11,200

Fourth fifth $57,700 $77,700 35% $20,000

Top fifth $101,700 $198,300 95% $96,600

Top 1 Percent $346,600 $1,319,700 281% $973,100

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2007, June 2010.

Link: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-25-10inc.pdf

What about the flip side?

April 16th, 2012
6:24 pm

And in 2008 and 2009 when the stock market (and real estate markets) went down 30-50%, what was the “1%” percentage of the drop…200%, 300%? Certainly when capital assets drop and rise, those who own them them suffer or gain ‘disproportionately’, correct? Where’s the graph?

The President is squarely in the 1%, so why didn’t he propose raising taxes on himself last year?

Jay

April 16th, 2012
6:25 pm

This same wealth envy scenario played out in Russia in 1917, followed by nearly 80 yrs of a totalitarian regime that killed millions, spent all of their money on corrupt leaders and fairy tale expectations that never worked out …

Yeah, all those serfs should have just kept their mouths shut and starved to death quietly.

F. Sinkwich

April 16th, 2012
6:25 pm

Stroked a check to the US Treasury for four-an-a-hey large over my withholding yesterday.

In an effort to help the efficiency of the Feds, I suggest I have the option to write the check directly to the Crony Green Solyndras, GSA Meeting Fund, SS recreation, or Loser Purchaser- POS Volt.

I always want to help where I can.

Paul

April 16th, 2012
6:26 pm

kayaker 71

You’re really comparing America’s social, economic and political situation in 2012 to Russia’s in the early 1900s?

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:27 pm

The result is vast impoverishment, demoralization, and the destruction of the American middle class.

One out of eight Americans are on food stamps.

One out of five people are in official poverty.

One out of four children are raised in poverty.

Twenty five million people cannot find enough work, while their skills atrophy and their families and communities are destroyed.

These are not figures describing a banana republic, a disaster-stricken region, or a third world country. They describe the United States of America after three decades of plunder by the rich. And now they want to go in for the kill.

Not satisfied with the staggering wealth they have already siphoned away, the ultra-rich are now using Barack Obama’s National Deficit Commission to propose even more brazen plunder. And the looting is no longer taking place behind closed doors or under the cover of arcane public policies.

The commission proposes to cut the federal government’s budget deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. But 75% of the “savings” will come from gutting programs that help stabilize the middle class and their communities. None of it comes from policies that would harm the rich.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 16th, 2012
6:28 pm

what was the “1%” percentage of the drop…200%, 300%? Certainly when capital assets drop and rise, those who own them them suffer or gain ‘disproportionately’, correct?

Those same 1%ers were shorting the market.

Do you really believe they don’t know how to do that?

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 16th, 2012
6:28 pm

I gots my piece of that 7%!

Thank you rich man! Thanks for sharing. Please bend over so I can give you a nice kiss….

Hwz

April 16th, 2012
6:29 pm

“Fair” would be the same tax on everyone as the definition of fair is equal. I also must say that the “poor” or not so well off seem to be doing pretty darn good. They all have cell phones, laptops, flat screens, etc.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

josef

If you change inability with refusal, I’ll co-sign with you. I think our underlying issue revolves more around hubris as opposed to ability. That’s just my take though.

josef

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

JAY

This is being said not so much for argument’s sake, but for perspective. I would give that “honor” to Manifest Destiny and its foreign policy statement in the Monroe Doctrine which, in turn, gave us the bastard child of American Exceptionalism which, in turn, gave us the Iraq-Afghanistan fiasco.

I will not contest your point that the latter was not an ego-driven, “unforced” error, but that is a moral judgment and but one of many disasters of our foreign policy. I’m just saying that it should be put into his genealogical begat place in history…

Bruno

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

Unlike some, I do not believe this is a conspiracy, etc.

Well, you just lost JamVet and Soothsayer with that bold statement, Jay. ;-)

It is the consequence of a range of things, from technology to globalization to ideology to the collapse of communism as a competitor to capitalism, which caused government and business to turn more of a blind eye to capitalism’s excesses. I think it’s something that we can alter at the margins but probably have to adjust to policy-wise.

Jay, though you often throw out one-sided BS to make a political point, I believe that you have an underlying sophistication of thought great enough to realize that fundamental changes HAVE taken place in our world, primarily through the ascent of technology in our lives, such that the economic landscape has changed in a way that may not be reversible. Simply put, the rapidity by which basic technology changes from year to year has changed the nature of business. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t change what we can, in terms of making tax laws fairer, for example, but I view this situation much in the same way as I do Global Warming. I believe in both situations that there are larger forces at work that we can’t necessarily control.

They BOTH suck

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

Even on Monday, it “Aint going to hurt nobody to…………….”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFxaYSQmeE&feature=related

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

Yeah, all those serfs should have just kept their mouths shut and starved to death quietly.

ummmm, fighting words? I believe in human beings so I believe one day soon the Republican voters who aren’t anywhere near the 1% will figure this out.

Paul

April 16th, 2012
6:30 pm

Afternoon, Sinkwich

“Stroked a check to the US Treasury for four-an-a-hey large over my withholding yesterday.

In an effort to help the efficiency of the Feds”

Or, you could just help your efficiency and adjust your withholding -

:-)

Paul

April 16th, 2012
6:31 pm

Sinkwich

You left out the biggest one of all – Dept of Defense for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Jay

April 16th, 2012
6:31 pm

Flip, the report linked to above answers those questions. The 1 percent indeed took an initial hard hit, but has more than recovered and now claims a notably larger share of income than it did pre-recession.

And that was already a lot.

josef

April 16th, 2012
6:32 pm

IMAM

My 6:30 under fatwah…I can see why, but since it’s addressed to you and you can see it, no big deal…

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
6:32 pm

The Commission’s proposals would actually lower the maximum tax on the highest income earners, from 35% to 24%.

The nominal tax rate on corporate income would fall as well, from 35% to 26%.

There is nothing proposed to raise taxes after so many decades of steadily amassed wealth. No financial transactions tax (as the IMF recommends) to stanch the kind of tsunami of speculative buying and selling that brought down the economy. Such a tax would raise over $700 billion over the next decade.

Of course, there will be no claw-backs of the trillions of dollars transferred to the rich under the phony duress of “saving the system” during the height of the financial crisis.

No proposal that the cap on earnings subject to Social Security withholding should be removed. That proviso alone would raise more than half a trillion dollars over the next decade.

Even Bruno agrees that this one move makes sense. To the tune of $500 billion in 10 years alone.

marko

April 16th, 2012
6:32 pm

Yeah but look at all the jobs they created. Just last week I notice an extra guy on the back of the garbage truck.

Mary Elizabeth

April 16th, 2012
6:33 pm

Title for the link I just provided from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

“INCOME GAPS BETWEEN VERY RICH AND EVERYONE ELSE MORE
THAN TRIPLED IN LAST THREE DECADES, NEW DATA SHOW
by Arloc Sherman and Chad Stone June 25, 2010″
=====================================================

It should, also, be noted that ALEC has been wielding its power through stealthy legislation favorable to corporate interests, and to the interests of the most wealthy in this nation, for the last three decades.