15 Stunning Facts and Charts About Wealth & Inequality in the USA

[Facial_King]

Read 'em and weep, folks...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...t-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL

For example... "In 1962, the wealthiest 1% of households averaged 125 times (think about that, even - 125 TIMES!!) the wealth of the median household." In 2004, it was 190 times.

Conservatives have a policy for redistributing wealth. They - including the useful idiots of the middle and lower classes who vote GOP - want to redistribute wealth UPWARDS.

 

[Facetious]

Now that the complaint is registered (even though I believe that it's full o holes), let's hear how you would remedy this ''social problem'' (?)


and why would a ''lower class'' vote gop ?

 

[Ace Bandage]

When do we start blaming poor people for being poor? Or is that a faux pas?

Get a job, Mr. Lebowski!

 

[meesterperfect]

i don't feel sorry for most so called poor people.
Most are poor because they are lazy.
I do feel sorry for the working person who is only working their ass off trying to survive but can't mainly due to high taxes ( its basically about 50% of total income when you add it up for single people with no kids).
Think of what you could do with that money, buy a house, save for the future, ect.
The problem isn't the republicans, its the whole system regardless of who's in office.
For almost 50 years now the GOV has paid people for having kids they can't afford and support.
Most of those kids grow up to do the same, so now we have what we have 2010.
Does anyone realize the anual cost of that??
The results, more poor people.
But also during this time the working, responsible people have not reproduced as much as before, they are simply working to much to raise a family let alone meet a partner.
plus the stress of all that work and financial worry destroys a lot of couples.
The results, more burden for the middle class to bear.

It seems to me that this is a long term plan of something bigger than we realize, to choke out the middle class and create a country where very few have the bulk of the cash, while the others 99% are in the poorhouse and dependent on the GOV.

 

[meesterperfect]

Read 'em and weep, folks...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...t-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL

For example... "In 1962, the wealthiest 1% of households averaged 125 times (think about that, even - 125 TIMES!!) the wealth of the median household." In 2004, it was 190 times.

Conservatives have a policy for redistributing wealth. They - including the useful idiots of the middle and lower classes who vote GOP - want to redistribute wealth UPWARDS.

Where do you want it redistributed fk?
downwards? as if thats not been happening since the 60's?
as if a poor person can give you a job?

How about just letting the people who worked for it keep it.
Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

we agree and disagree on this fk.

 

[Trident1]

Facial there's still time for you to defect to North Korea. But make it quick, that relic of communism is going soon.

 

[PlumpRump]

For example... "In 1962, the wealthiest 1% of households averaged 125 times (think about that, even - 125 TIMES!!) the wealth of the median household." In 2004, it was 190 times.

I think its interesting, first off, how the article fails to mention how that same top 1% also pays more than 1/3 of the total personal income taxes in the country as well, and secondly how 1/3 of the graphs and charts in that article don't even have a source citation for them. Also, I think its interesting how people fail to recognize that these numbers themselves are skewed to begin with. The 5 wealthiest Americans make so much money that if you remove these people from the equation, the numbers would look completely different. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg and the Walton family (Of WalMart fame) combined are worth approximately $230 billion dollars. So in essence, people may complain about disparity in earnings/wealth/etc. but in reality its not all rich people that drag these numbers up. There may very well be a pronounced wealth disparity in the country, but when one percent of the population is accountable for greater than one-third of the personal income tax revenue, I would personally refer to that as a tax disparity that seems similarly outrageous, and of that 1/3 a collection of 8 people pay probably 50% of that total. Consider this: In 2004 the top 1% of earners accounted for a 19% share of total income, yet were responsible for a 37% share of the total US federal income tax bill. Look even further down the line; in the same year, the top 10% of earners were accountable for a 44% share of total income, and footed nearly 70% of the total federal income. Conversely, the bottom 50% of earners were accountable for 13% of the total share of income, yet paid only 3% of ferdal taxes. If the tax cuts were to benefit the rich, I really am not seeing it in these statistics.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/united-states-richest-people-warren-buffett-michael-bloomberg-billionaires-2010-gates_slide_2.html

Conservatives have a policy for redistributing wealth. They - including the useful idiots of the middle and lower classes who vote GOP - want to redistribute wealth UPWARDS.

As a matter of fact, the supposed Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't really end up benefiting wealthy individuals as much as certain media outlets might want you to believe. Actually, the Bush tax cuts imposed a greater tax burden on the wealthy. In a study done by the US Treasury, without the Bush tax cuts the top 1% of earners were projected to be responsible for 31% of total federal taxes, in acutality, with the Bush tax cuts, that were alleged to benefit the rich, the top 1% paid 37% of the total federal taxes. I don't really see an upward trend here, as far as redistribution is concerned. I see the wealthy individuals being taxed more and everyone else alleging that they are/were being taxed less. Nonsensical.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

 

[Red Spyder]

Yeah, let's overthrow this whole damn capitalist system and replace it with......

Communism? Has it ever worked? Has it even been achieved? If it's such a great system, why hasn't it worked already somewhere else? Would it work here in the U.S.? And if so, why? Oh, I know the answer to that one, "because we progressives in this country are smarter and better and more intellectually superior and more philosophical and more sophisticated and more caring and more humble (sorry, I just had to add that one) than any of the other mongrel races that have tried it. And did I mention that we're smarter?"

European style socialism? As Margaret Thatcher once put it "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". Which is what's happening in Europe. Americans are considered to be dumber than Europeans anyway, and looking at the economic situation in Europe, particularly Greece as a view into the future of what that (idiotic) economic system will bring to the countries that try it, it seems that not even the smart kids over there can make it work, so if my "progressive" friends here actually succeed in implementing a system like that in this country, their contribution will be seen by the rest of the world, not as a sophisticated European economic model, but as nothing more than TRAILER PARK SOCIALISM!!

Fascism? That's what I think our "progressive" friends would most likely end up supporting, as long as it's not called that. Think about it, fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. [Source: rčić, Joseph. Ethics and political theory. Lanham, Maryland, USA: University of America, Inc, 2000. p. 120] Take away the violent elements, at least at the begining (they will have to be implemented later on in order for this to "work"), and it's what they would like to see implemented here, a strong centralized government with the authority to tell employers (i.e. those "evil money grubbing corporations) how to run their business, from what to produce to how to produce it, to how much to pay employees to who to employ.

So, the alternatives are worse than what we have here, unless some new economic model were to show up, but I guess I'm not as intellectually superior as my progressive friends around here to come up with a new economic model other than to let people keep what they earn, keeping taxes low for everyone, hell, institute a flat tax since 10% of $1,000,000 is still a lot more than 10% of $10,000 (for my progressive friends here, just in case they haven't learned their math, 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000 and 10% of $10,000 is only $1,000, so the guy who earns a million pays a lot more than the guy who earns 10 grand) and just keep the government from meddling too much into the private sector, other than to enforce the laws against fraud, waste, abuse and other crimes.

 

[drf]

I blame all this; the disappearence of the middle class, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the de-regulation of large corporations and the like on Ronnie"The Union Buster" Reagan. That man and his policies has weakened not only the political voice of the working class but has forever stained the reputation of The Republican Party which was the party of Abe Lincoln; a progressive President to say the least. Oh yeah, Nancy was a moron too.

 

[Trident1]

I blame all this; the disappearence of the middle class, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the de-regulation of large corporations and the like on Ronnie"The Union Buster" Reagan. That man and his policies has weakened not only the political voice of the working class but has forever stained the reputation of The Republican Party which was the party of Abe Lincoln; a progressive President to say the least. Oh yeah, Nancy was a moron too.

I live in the US and from where I sitting the middle class is humming along.

This isn't Equatorial Guinea where 99 percent of the people live in abject poverty while the 1% live like kings.


As for Communism, notice how every former commie state had a ruling elite who had special stores, summer homes, travel etc while the majority had to live with crap..............yeop communism was sooooo great.
I saw it first hand while travelling through East Europe in the 70s and 80s. They wanted what we have, they could care less about the "brotherhood and unity" commie baloney.

 

[PlumpRump]

I blame all this; the disappearence of the middle class, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the de-regulation of large corporations and the like on Ronnie"The Union Buster" Reagan. That man and his policies has weakened not only the political voice of the working class but has forever stained the reputation of The Republican Party which was the party of Abe Lincoln; a progressive President to say the least. Oh yeah, Nancy was a moron too.

To say that Reagan weakend the economy is simply wrong. In his two terms he made major advances regarding the economy, especially for the middle class, fixing Jimmy Carter's failed presidency: During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988). As well, over the eight years Reagan was in office, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.3%. Eighteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased. Some economists, such as Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell, argue that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s. Accordingly, he appointed Alan Greenspan to chair the Federal Reserve, and Greenspan, who was subsequently appointed to an unprecedented 5 straight terms in that office presided over one of the most economically prosperous times in the country's modern history. Not to mention that according to a 1996 study from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute with regards to Reaganomics:
-On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
-Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
-Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan


Also, in today's terms, Lincoln would have been a democrat for sure. As a matter of fact, if you take a look at both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the time of Lincoln, they actually hold values that the opposite hold today. Look at a few historical facts: The Republican Party of the 1860s was completeley different than today's conservative GOP. Even though Lincoln was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs (of which Lincoln was, before joining what was then considered the Republican Party), - which favored economic protectionism, and were against western expansion - Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists i.e. America's first "bleeding-heart liberals." The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights," wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements. The parties now look nothing like they did when Lincoln was in office. My point, is that correlating Lincoln to Reagan is obscene.

 

[meesterperfect]

Lets throw these rich a party.
Have a parade for them down ol times square.
Name a street or two after them for their huge contribution to the Tax system.

Gore Street, Edwards Boulevard , Pelosi Lane, Kerry Way, these are good.

 

[ballzano]

Read 'em and weep, folks...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...t-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL

For example... "In 1962, the wealthiest 1% of households averaged 125 times (think about that, even - 125 TIMES!!) the wealth of the median household." In 2004, it was 190 times.

Conservatives have a policy for redistributing wealth. They - including the useful idiots of the middle and lower classes who vote GOP - want to redistribute wealth UPWARDS.

This is al B.S., that america is to be blaimed for poor people. People around the world after Katrina were amazed that our poor had cell phones and where grossly obese, but thats another story. You simply have to understand the fact that if say ten thousand dollars were distributed to you and your co-workers, three quarters of them would have pissed it away in less than a year. people simply don't save anymore they spend it on things they don't really need. exercise self control don't blame ice cream because your fat

 

[PlumpRump]

As for Communism, notice how every former commie state had a ruling elite who had special stores, summer homes, travel etc while the majority had to live with crap..............yeop communism was sooooo great.
I saw it first hand while travelling through East Europe in the 70s and 80s. They wanted what we have, they could care less about the "brotherhood and unity" commie baloney.

Even in socialist countries there is a humongous wealth disparity. Everyone is so quick to point out the disparity in wealth in the US, when places like communist China and the whole socialist EU have member disparities that are just as widespread. And redistribution of wealth for the sake of "humanitarianism, brotherhood and national unity," simply serves to make everyone less well off IMO.

According to a survey by the State Statistics Bureau, less than five percent of China's wealthiest hold nearly a half of the country's savings deposits worth more than 6 trillion yuan.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200007/12/eng20000712_45330.html

The great unsung success story of the EU over the decades has been its social democratic exercise in redistributing wealth between and within countries, narrowing the wealth gap and hugely benefiting states such as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. In essence this meant that big, wealthy Germany kept the chequebook open.

But those days are over. United Germany is a relatively poorer Germany. Having poured hundreds of billions of euros into ex-communist eastern Germany to fund unification over the past 15 years, the burghers of Munich, Cologne, or Hamburg are less keen to stump up for Bulgarians or Poles.

The result is that in an EU of 500 million people, the wealth gap is greater than ever. The richest corner, inner London, generates more than three times the wealth of the EU average, while north-eastern Romania manages barely a quarter. The rich regions are clamouring for a new dispensation, arguing that they only want a square deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/11/business.spain

 

[Facetious]

i don't feel sorry for most so called poor people.
Most are poor because they are lazy.

and many are poor because they we're duped into becoming ethnic studies majors in college and as a result, they don't have the skills necessary to get a job in the real private sector world, I know, I have relatives as such and they're not very proud people.

I do feel sorry for the working person who is only working their ass off trying to survive but can't mainly due to high taxes ( its basically about 50% of total income when you add it up for single people with no kids).
Think of what you could do with that money, buy a house, save for the future, ect.

Buying a house and saving money is absolutely forbidden unless everybody can do the exact same, equality for all, remember? -> 600 sq' living quarters and a daily bus fare is about the extent of it, but hey, it's 'free' right?

The problem isn't the republicans, its the whole system regardless of who's in office.

THIS! :hatsoff:

For almost 50 years now the GOV has paid people for having kids they can't afford and support.
Most of those kids grow up to do the same, so now we have what we have 2010.

precisely and it's sad too

Does anyone realize the anual cost of that??

Hey, to them it's all a part of breaking us down into their imaginary idealistic world of equality for all by any and all means necessary. If it takes the destruction of Wall Street then they'll destroy Wall St. If it takes a scorching of the earth then they'll scorch the earth.

But also during this time the working, responsible people have not reproduced as much as before, they are simply working to much to raise a family let alone meet a partner.
plus the stress of all that work and financial worry destroys a lot of couples.
The results, more burden for the middle class to bear.

It seems to me that this is a long term plan of something bigger than we realize, to choke out the middle class and create a country where very few have the bulk of the cash, while the others 99% are in the poorhouse and dependent on the GOV.

Great post! Once the evil system breaks them down into a dead end socialist mindset, it's difficult if not impossible for them to admit that they've been betrayed. There will be no joy.

 

[Trident1]

Even in socialist countries there is a humongous wealth disparity. Everyone is so quick to point out the disparity in wealth in the US, when places like communist China and the whole socialist EU have member disparities that are just as widespread. And redistribution of wealth for the sake of "humanitarianism, brotherhood and national unity," simply serves to make everyone less well off IMO.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200007/12/eng20000712_45330.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/11/business.spain

I always get a kick out of the "communism good" people. They've never been anywhere near a Communist country, never lived in one, can't list all the ones belonging to the former Warsaw Pact, etc etc.
Yet they moan and whine about how great everything is in a Communist society.:1orglaugh

 

[Red Spyder]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/united-states-richest-people-warren-buffett-michael-bloomberg-billionaires-2010-gates_slide_2.html


http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

How dare you quote Forbes and American.com! Those are just biased anti-Obama publications. You know the only honest and unbiased journalists you're allowed to quote are Michael Moore, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.

(I can't help being sarcastic)

:rofl:

 

[Facial_King]

...why would a ''lower class'' vote gop ?

That's what I'd like to know! :dunno:

I think its interesting, first off, how the article fails to mention how that same top 1% also pays more than 1/3 of the total personal income taxes in the country as well, and secondly how 1/3 of the graphs and charts in that article don't even have a source citation for them. Also, I think its interesting how people fail to recognize that these numbers themselves are skewed to begin with. The 5 wealthiest Americans make so much money that if you remove these people from the equation, the numbers would look completely different. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg and the Walton family (Of WalMart fame) combined are worth approximately $230 billion dollars. So in essence, people may complain about disparity in earnings/wealth/etc. but in reality its not all rich people that drag these numbers up. There may very well be a pronounced wealth disparity in the country, but when one percent of the population is accountable for greater than one-third of the personal income tax revenue, I would personally refer to that as a tax disparity that seems similarly outrageous, and of that 1/3 a collection of 8 people pay probably 50% of that total. Consider this: In 2004 the top 1% of earners accounted for a 19% share of total income, yet were responsible for a 37% share of the total US federal income tax bill. Look even further down the line; in the same year, the top 10% of earners were accountable for a 44% share of total income, and footed nearly 70% of the total federal income. Conversely, the bottom 50% of earners were accountable for 13% of the total share of income, yet paid only 3% of ferdal taxes. If the tax cuts were to benefit the rich, I really am not seeing it in these statistics.

If you make more you pay more taxes, both by percentage and, thus, in absolute numbers. Guess what the rich are after they pay their oh-so-exorbitant taxes? Still rich. They get by with 2 or 3 yachts, rather than 4 or 5.

Most of the charts do have sources provided, although the text is cut off in the SFGate piece. Try this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...nt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

 

[Lust]

When do we start blaming poor people for being poor? Or is that a faux pas?

Get a job, Mr. Lebowski!

great reference!!



The Big Lebowski: You don't go out looking for a job dressed like that? On a weekday?

The Dude: Is this a... what day is this?

 

[calpoon]

i don't feel sorry for most so called poor people.
Most are poor because they are lazy.
I do feel sorry for the working person who is only working their ass off trying to survive but can't mainly due to high taxes ( its basically about 50% of total income when you add it up for single people with no kids).
Think of what you could do with that money, buy a house, save for the future, ect.
The problem isn't the republicans, its the whole system regardless of who's in office.
For almost 50 years now the GOV has paid people for having kids they can't afford and support.
Most of those kids grow up to do the same, so now we have what we have 2010.
Does anyone realize the anual cost of that??
The results, more poor people.
But also during this time the working, responsible people have not reproduced as much as before, they are simply working to much to raise a family let alone meet a partner.
plus the stress of all that work and financial worry destroys a lot of couples.
The results, more burden for the middle class to bear.

It seems to me that this is a long term plan of something bigger than we realize, to choke out the middle class and create a country where very few have the bulk of the cash, while the others 99% are in the poorhouse and dependent on the GOV.

I agree with you. Although I do not oppose the idea of public welfare, I think that it's a significant problem that so many people are reproducing that do not have the capabilities to support their children and that poor working people are penalized for it.

I believe that it is entirely possible to raise everyone's standard of living to that of a well off person in America, but that most of this resistance does come from the wealthy that are afraid a dwindling class divide will lose them their positions of power and prestige. There really is no other way to account for why anyone would knowingly hinder methods to improve quality of life for others if it did not hinder your own. I think that some people have a mental complex where they have to be better than anyone else, even if it is absurd.

Why in the world would anyone want or rather need to have 100 billion dollars? Aside from some nation states (and others actually are within his means) Bill Gates could buy anything that he wanted.