The 1% income tripled, the 99% gained only 62%

Very sobering facts from a Bloomberg article...

The top 1 percent of taxpayers in the U.S. made at least $343,927 in 2009, the last year data is available, according to the Internal Revenue Service. While average household income increased 62 percent from 1979 through 2007, the top 1 percent’s more than tripled, an October Congressional Budget Office report showed. As a result, the U.S. had greater income inequality in 2007 than China or Iran, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-2 ... op-1-.html

This country has lost it's greatness. We need to look toward our international brothers and sisters and comrades abroad to find an answer to our economical problems. I wonder what's it going to take to turn our country around so we can have a society of equality like China or Iran?

Yeah...Here's what REALLY happened to income over the last 30 years between the 1% and the 99%...



The "67%" only appears to be true if you are in the next quintile down... Otherwise, you were even more screwed.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah...Here's what REALLY happened to income over the last 30 years between the 1% and the 99%...

The "67%" only appears to be true if you are in the next quintile down... Otherwise, you were even more screwed.

This country has lost it's greatness. We need to look toward our international brothers and sisters and comrades abroad to find an answer to our economical problems. I wonder what's it going to take to turn our country around so we can have a society of equality like China or Iran?

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah...Here's what REALLY happened to income over the last 30 years between the 1% and the 99%...

The "67%" only appears to be true if you are in the next quintile down... Otherwise, you were even more screwed.

Here's some more "material" from Lady Jazzer's source... Equity Blog...

This post is part of a series presenting equity leaders’ reactions to “America’s Tomorrow: Equity is the Superior Growth Model” — a new paper that challenges the nation to invest in our collective future. This post is written by Mitchell Silver, President of the American Planning Association. Click here to read other reflections.

http://equityblog.org/2011/12/05/mitche ... -priority/

If anyone ever wondered if Lady Jazzer was a socialist... take a look at her sources. Lady Jazzer would be delighted if our society was comprised of equality like China or Iran?

And income inequality continues to increase with people slipping below the poverty line under Obama.

And today in the Denver Post, consumer fuel costs as a percentage of income have risen to the levels of Reagan in the early 80's because of the Obama administrations anti-petrol policies like suspending drilling in the gulf and halting pipeline products.

If Obama gets another term, will the 1%'s have their income quintuple? Judging by the rich folk at his fundraisers, they are betting on Obama to push them up to the next level.

Meanwhile even more will go on food stamps, maybe Obama can start a new plan of fuel stamps so that the increasing unemployed can get to grocery stores to use their benefits.

In LJ's chart- I couldn't help but notice that everyone made gains. That's America. Over the years- all the boats have been lifted by the rising tide of Capitalism- while in socialist countries- the charts look just the opposite.

Now we have adopted many of those socialist policies- and soon those charts will reflect that mistake.

And the 1%? Would you expect their income to go down? Well- only if you're LJ I guess. The rich will always get richer from their investments- and during a downturn while people are losing their jobs- the working class will see a reduction in earnings while the investment class keep on making money- This is exactly what I would expect!

These numbers don't bother me a bit- but I can see where it would bother a socialist full of covetousness.

As soon as we get rid of the socialist policies- we can return to growth spread across all income levels again.

Stop with the class warfare already LJ and others- this obsession will get you nowhere- concentrate on the work it takes to better yourselves first!

BearMtnHIB wrote:
[snip]

These numbers don't bother me a bit- but I can see where it would bother a socialist full of covetousness.

[snip]

Stop with the class warfare already LJ and others- this obsession will get you nowhere- concentrate on the work it takes to better yourselves first!

She can't. It's like the little child who always got what they wanted for Christmas. At some point, that child needed to be told that not everyone always gets what they want, sometimes they have to go and get it for themselves. Or that child didn't listen or learn. Either way, it's embarrassing when a grown woman like Lady Jazzer whines about collective equality.

Absent from such pontification, of course, is the number of people who now occupy that top 1% compared to the number of people who occupied it in earlier times. "Progressives" love to lie to you with their statistical charts intended to convince your that their lies hold substance. How many more people are in the 1% bracket today as compared to 1979 LJ? We've seen nearly a 50% increase in the population of the union since that date. Would it be reasonable to presume that there are is also an additional 50% increase in the number of individuals who comprise that 1% bracket? There are over 3500 professional athletes earning, on average, in excess of $1.9 Million a year (NBA is highest averaging over $5 Million/year, followed by MLB at $3.3 Million, the NHL at about $2.4 with the NFL, at $1.9 Million bringing up the rear). Was this true of your time frame as well? Did every major league professional athlete occupy a spot in the top 1% back then? And, if they did, are the salaries paid those 3500+ athletes greater than or less than the percentage increase in the top 1% figures for 2009?

Liars love using figures to sustain their lies. What they will never, ever, do is explain the numbers. Much like the "progressive" use of Big Oil's "largest profits in history". Well no kidding. You take the average cost of something up 50% and keep the same margins and you are going to earn more profit than you did before - probably 50% more profit. Heck, you sell twice as much of a product at the same price as you did due to increased demand at the same margins you were earning before and you will have a profit that is twice as large as well - in total dollars that is. Combine the increased costs with the increased volumes and you would have to be incompetent to not earn a record amount of profit expressed in dollars. Common sense, right? Why do "progressives" rely on your not possessing any of it when they show you the tables composed solely to lie to you?

Those lazy ass 99% need to step it up.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Those lazy ass 99% need to step it up.

Yea they do!

Those 1% didn't get to be the top 1% earners by sitting around and complaining about how good their neighbor has it.

But if that's how LJ and the liberals want to spend their time- then C'est la vie!