Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: justlurking

Key thing to keep in mind too is that the Left Liberals Democrat Communist Party speak of “percentage of income” like income is a pie. A finite number. The Left ALWAYS speaks of income this way.

They never express income as a number that can grow and be shared by all who are part of the producers.


12 posted on 10/11/2011 5:17:15 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici ("Si, se gimme!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: VeniVidiVici

They would rather destroy the world than repeal two bad laws that would turn this all around on a global scale.


13 posted on 10/11/2011 6:26:04 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (I am a Cainiac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: VeniVidiVici
They never express income as a number that can grow and be shared by all who are part of the producers.

That's a good point, and another graph from the same source illustrates it:

The numbers in this graph has have been adjusted for inflation, so that the numbers are 2007 equivalent, all the way back to 1979. The top 1% has certainly been growing through that period, with a lot of variation (because of the reliance on capital gains, which aren't consistent).

But, the scale of the graph is misleading. If you were to look at the actual numbers here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/USFederalTaxRatesAndTaxShares.1979-2007.PDF

and scroll down to page 7, the second table on that page shows that income has been rising for ALL quintiles and categories for the entire period. The lowest quintile hasn't gained much in comparison, but it has gained.

However, there's another secret that is buried in another CBO report: income mobility. Liberals like to look at income categories as static: i.e. you are destined to be in the same category your entire life. That's simply not true. See this report:

Changes in the Distribution of Workers’ Annual Earnings Between 1979 and 2007

Skip to pages 27 and 28 in the PDF (pages 17 and 18 in the document). Look at tables 4 and 5: Earnings Mobility for Men/Women, 2000 to 2005.

The tables are a bit hard to read unless you understand what you are looking at. But, I'll sum it up with a simple statistic: 50% of men and 54% of women in the lowest 20% income category back in 2000 were in a higher income category in 2005. In other words, slightly more than half of the lowest income people in the US in 2000 were no longer low-income five years later.

Want a real surprise? 2% of of men and 3% of women in the lowest 20% were in the top 1% 5 years later.

This is what so many people miss: over their lifetimes, almost everyone that puts ANY effort into themselves: either education, on the job training, or just experience -- will climb into a higher income bracket. Those that sit and complain and blame everyone but themselves will be stuck.

So, where did the other people in the lowest 20% come from in 2005? Some of them fell from higher income brackets. But, I believe that the lowest 20% are mostly new entry level workers, who move up to the next income bracket as soon as they gain experience and/or training.

15 posted on 10/11/2011 7:44:30 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson