Skip to comments.Wealthiest Americans prospered most since 1979, according to government study (AP barf alert)
Posted on 10/27/2011 4:39:22 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
WASHINGTON - The richest 1 percent of Americans have been getting far richer over the last three decades while the middle class and poor have seen their after-tax household income only crawl up in comparison, according to a government study.
After-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost tripled, up 275 percent, from 1979 to 2007, the Congressional Budget Office found. For people in the middle of the economic scale, after-tax income grew by just 40 percent. Those at the bottom experienced an 18 percent increase.
"The distribution of after-tax income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979," CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said in a blog post. "The share of income accruing to higher-income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined."
The top 1 percent made $165,000 or more in 1979; that jumped to $347,000 in 2007, the study said. The income for the top fifth started at $51,289 in 1979 and rose to $70,578 in 2007. On the other end of the spectrum, those in the 20th percentile went from $12,823 in 1979 to $14,851 in 2007.
The report, based on IRS and Census Bureau data, comes as the Occupy Wall Street movement protests corporate bailouts and the gap between the haves and have-nots. Demonstrators call themselves "the 99 percent."
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
The article is accurate.
Let’s see how many corporate pimps show up to refute it.
How bout a study of congressional net worth over the same period.
As I understand it, Nancy Pelosi has increased her net worth some 2600% since becoming a congressman. Think about what that means. If she entered congress with a net worth of $100,000, she’s worth $26,000,000 today. (As I understand it, she was worth considerably more when she started)
In other news, fat people have a tendency to gain more weight than thin people, poor people make less money, and pretty girls get more dates.
I would actually presume it’s true.
Realize that this also implies that the middle and lower classes do worse under socialized society.
The degree of socialism has only increased in this country since 1979.
Even though socialism and communism tout that they improve the lives of lower classes by making things “financially fair”, that is just a b.s. marketing plan.
What really happens is that gov’t gets more and more of the public’s money and that money is doled out as the gov’t sees fit, not the people.
The corruption that ensues actually makes things economically worse for the lower class, in stark contrast to the stated purpose of the collectivist.
-——I would actually presume its true.——
wealth is a function of effort ...... laziness yields poverty or at best lower income.
Failure to be educated is a result of laziness and yields low wealth. A choice made to be lazy is hard to overcome and compounds with time
Umm, the wealthiest prosper because they’re wealthy.
Rather than envy what the rich have why don’t you aspire to be one of them. Assuming you’re reasonably bright and ambitious what’s stopping you? You do understand the money bucket has no bottom don’t you?
I agree. It is accurate. And it is as it should be.
The wealthy risk their capital and they reap the rewards. The poor spend theirs on big screen tvs, high top sneakers, bling for the car and other useless stuff (drugs, alcohol etc) that they don’t need and that doesn’t pay a return.
The rising tide has lifted the boats of even those who don’t contribute. Why should they be complaining that the people who do the economic heavy lifting are getting the reward?
When I was a kid every gas station was full service. That tells me that there must have been a much greater profit in owning a gas station prior to 1970.
Gas station owners didn’t suddenly become greedy and decide to pocket the money they were paying guys to pump gas. The gas station attendant disappeared because the profit was choked out of the industry. These days, gas stations make virtually no profit off gas and the only reason they have it is to draw customers into the store part of the business.
Lets see how many corporate pimps show up to refute it.
What is there to refute? Why would anyone want to refute it! Its a cause for celebration!
Those in the 20% percentile, that is high-school drop-outs, illegal aliens, sloven drug addicts and other no-achievers saw their incomes rise 18% despite the fact that most can easily be replaced by a robot! That is downright amazing that people who throw their lives away also see after-tax income rise. A rising tide raises all ships.
I am intrigued by your "corporate pimps" slur. Why are wasting your time in Free Republic when you should be browsing Mother Jones, HuffPo, Daily Kos and DU?
So you are sitting in front of a flat screen TV, stuffing your face with convenience foods and beer watching a Charles Schwab 'vert that has interrupted your daily dose of American Pole Dancer. Pause for a moment from hating your fellow American and ask yourself this question. If investing didn't produce any better results than shooting drugs in your arm and waiting for a welfare check, why would anyone risk their money?
If those who applied themselves since grade-school, struggled for their prestigious college degree, networked, built alliances, saved and worked eighty hour weeks, carefully studied the markets and trends and invested accordingly didn't see any benefit that couldn't have been gotten dropping out of high school punching a clock down at the mill and expecting the union to take of all of your life planning needs, why go through all the hassle?
Lets say Aaron and Bob both work down at the plant doing the exact same job at the exact same pay. Every day there is opportunity to work overtime which Aaron does, but Bob punches out and heads to the liquor store to buy booze and lottery tickets. Aaron, instead of taking vacations to Disney or upgrading his depreciating assets every time a new model comes out, plows his money into a REIT or risks it by lending it to a relative who begins what ends up a profitable business. According to you, we should ignore the different inputs and be egalitarian about the results. That is, Bob whose liver cirrhosis keeps him from enjoying much of a pension should have the same multi-million dollar nest egg as his far more productive co-worker Aaron.
If all you are concerned about is a desk job in an air-conditioned office with no stress, physical labor or hassles then become an unarmed security guard. That is the closest thing to a sinecure. But the pay sucks because everyone on the planet can do that gig, but how many people can cut open a stranger's head, pull out a tumor and have the patient wandering around on their own soon after?
The rich get richer because they keep making smart investment decisions. The poor aren't getting poorer no matter what serial F'd-up decisions they make.
That is the bottom line, so why are you bitching? Are you really that well programed by the Communists to Covet your neighbor's goods that you view success as a vice and sloth as noble?
This growing disparity is not good for the country. Its bad for small businesses and bad for main street.
Additionally the govt is killing the middle class w inflation, taxes, etc.
Can I see the “hours worked per year” numbers for the top 1% and the poor ... that will shed light on the premise underlying this BS article.
How does this study define “income”?
Do those receiving government aid from the myriad of programs have to declare that as income, or is all that ignored?
What is the expected outcome in a meritocracy?
Don’t we want the most productive to be the wealthiest and for them to continue to do better?
No one bothers to mention the explosion of initial public offerings on the varius stock exchanges. That phenomenon has made many individuals who have led startup corporations very very rich. It has also created millions of new job opportunities.