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

Skip to comments.

Wealthiest Americans prospered most since 1979, according to government study (AP barf alert)
pioneer pressed ^ | 10-27-11 | ap

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 53; ap; boohoo; cbo; envy; income; inequality; nofair; ows; rich; taxes; wealthy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
AP presstitutes pimpin for their OWS pals again...
1 posted on 10/27/2011 4:39:23 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

The article is accurate.

Let’s see how many corporate pimps show up to refute it.


2 posted on 10/27/2011 4:48:48 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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)


3 posted on 10/27/2011 4:48:51 AM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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.


4 posted on 10/27/2011 4:53:19 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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.


5 posted on 10/27/2011 4:53:39 AM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/good-news-from-the-congressional-budget-office.php


6 posted on 10/27/2011 4:57:44 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fruser1

-——I would actually presume it’s 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


7 posted on 10/27/2011 5:04:53 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..posted from the great river road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KDD
The article is accurate. Let’s see how many corporate pimps show up to refute it. What is there to refute? Looks like everyone is getting richer. Would you be happier if the rich didn't get richer? Does that somehow help the poor?
8 posted on 10/27/2011 5:05:53 AM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD

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?


9 posted on 10/27/2011 5:07:19 AM PDT by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD

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?


10 posted on 10/27/2011 5:09:13 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fruser1

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.


11 posted on 10/27/2011 5:09:33 AM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB
A substantial portion of the bottom 20% are dependent on government for supplying their needs. Since the government does, they don't work regular jobs. Thus they have less income. This is clear to anyone willing to look beneath the first level of numbers, which AP isn't.
12 posted on 10/27/2011 5:12:09 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB
Peter Ferrara did an excellent job of debunking this type of analysis:

"The Equality Of Reaganomics, And Fallacious Leftist Dissent"

13 posted on 10/27/2011 5:16:54 AM PDT by Vide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Let’s 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?

14 posted on 10/27/2011 5:16:59 AM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD

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.


15 posted on 10/27/2011 5:19:00 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
A substantial portion of the bottom 20% are dependent on government for supplying their needs.

Unfortunately its not just their "needs" that we're supplying. The so called poor have a lot more extraneous crap than I have. My real luxuries are a $500 camera and high speed internet and I use both to earn money to pay for them.

What I don't have is an Iphone, Ipad, MP3 player, video games, new car, constant supply of new clothes, a couple vacations per year......

Just last night my cousin posted on facebook that she doesn't have money for health care. She posted it from her hotel room in California where she's playing dress up at a gamers convention of some type. She doesn't have money for health care but she has money for elaborate costumes and cross country trips a couple times per year.

I'm really getting disgusted with the selfish greed of the so called poor.
16 posted on 10/27/2011 5:25:48 AM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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.


17 posted on 10/27/2011 5:34:05 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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?


18 posted on 10/27/2011 5:38:55 AM PDT by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

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?


19 posted on 10/27/2011 5:40:05 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

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.


20 posted on 10/27/2011 5:40:59 AM PDT by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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