Rich: Deal with it and pass me the grey poupon!

[printdust]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/numbers-income-top-one-percent-skyrocketed-over-last-153005722.html

Shocking news. Shocking.

 

[mustangj17]

Shouldn't you be occupying Wall Street?

 

[poindexter]

That data's four years old.

I bet the last four years have been even better.

 

[Care Bear]

I recall this exact same conversation occurring on page 4 or 5 of the Wall Street protestors thread. I remember Ragu making some economic points that I actually understood (my fault, not his).

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I recall this exact same conversation occurring on page 4 or 5 of the Wall Street protestors thread. I remember Ragu making some economic points that I actually understood (my fault, not his).

Yeah, something about how there are more pies, and that the 99 percent has been receiving an additional piece in addition to what they were receiving, and should be happy with that while the 1 percent is eating the rest of the pies.

 

[Azrael]

That data's four years old.

The pop culture reference in the subject line is nearly 25 years old*. Antique performance art? Throwback thread?

*Unless he's referencing 50 Cent on Beanie Sigel's 'Go Off.'

 

[silvercharm]

The Occupy (pick a city) outfit seems fixated on the country's top one percent in wealth, but complete silence on the 49 percent of this country that pay no federal tax.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The Occupy (pick a city) outfit seems fixated on the country's top one percent in wealth, but complete silence on the 49 percent of this country that pay no federal tax.

And again, if the 1 percent would pay the 49 percent more money to do their jobs instead of shipping them to China, the 49 percent would have money available to pay taxes.

 

[Brian]

The Occupy (pick a city) outfit seems fixated on the country's top one percent in wealth, but complete silence on the 49 percent of this country that pay no federal tax.

Louis CK rather succinctly tells us why that is while talking about bank fees. Taxing someone with so little money that it literally makes them worse than broke is not a system we should be aiming for.

"I had five dollars that I couldn’t have for three days until they charged me another 15. Leaving me with -10. What does that mean? I don’t even have no money any more. I wish I had nothing. But I don’t have it. I don’t have that much. I have not ten. Negative ten. I can’t afford to buy something that doesn’t cost anything. I can only afford to get something that costs you give me ten dollars."

 

[Azrael]

The Occupy (pick a city) outfit seems fixated on the country's top one percent in wealth, but complete silence on the 49 percent of this country that pay no federal tax.

You mean tax the poor?

Or tax Exxon and GE?

 

[Starman]

The Occupy (pick a city) outfit seems fixated on the country's top one percent in wealth, but complete silence on the 49 percent of this country that pay no federal tax.

You mean tax the poor?

Or tax Exxon and GE?

Tax the poor so they have some skin in the game.

 

[Azrael]

Makes more sense just to use them as a renewable source of cheap protein.

 

[The Big Ragu]

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-household-demographics/

Interesting look at demographic differences between the top quintile income households relative to the bottom quintile income households, from Census data.

The short: Households that earn the most have more than 4.5 earners per household than the lowest-income households. Married-couple households reprsent a much greater share of the top income quintile (78.4 percent) than for the bottom income quintile (17 percent). Single-parent and single households represent a much greater share of the bottom quintile (83 percent) than the top quintile (21.6 percent). Roughly 75 percent households in the top income quinitile included people in their prime earning years (35-64) compared to only 43.5 percent of households in the bottom fifth. Household members in the bottom income quintile were 1.6 times more likely than the top income quintile to be in the youngest age group (under 35), and three times more likely to be in the oldest age group (65 and older). And family members of households in the top income quintile were five times more likely to have a college degree (60.3 percent) than members of households in the bottom income quintile (only 12.1 percent). Family members in the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely st, family members of the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely than those in the top income quintile to have less than a high school degree in 2010 (26.7 percent vs. 2.2 percent).

Also, these income groups are not static, which is a point I have made often. There is plenty of evidence that individuals are not stuck forever in a single income quintile, but intsead move up and down over their lifetimes. As the post said, "It’s very likely that many high-income individuals who were in their peak earning years in 2010 were in a lower income quintile in prior years, before they acquired education and job experience, and they’ll move again to a lower quintile in the future when they retire."

 

[Starman]

Makes more sense just to use them as a renewable source of cheap protein.

 

[Alma]

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-household-demographics/

Interesting look at demographic differences between the top quintile income households relative to the bottom quintile income households, from Census data.

The short: Households that earn the most have more than 4.5 earners per household than the lowest-income households. Married-couple households reprsent a much greater share of the top income quintile (78.4 percent) than for the bottom income quintile (17 percent). Single-parent and single households represent a much greater share of the bottom quintile (83 percent) than the top quintile (21.6 percent). Roughly 75 percent households in the top income quinitile included people in their prime earning years (35-64) compared to only 43.5 percent of households in the bottom fifth. Household members in the bottom income quintile were 1.6 times more likely than the top income quintile to be in the youngest age group (under 35), and three times more likely to be in the oldest age group (65 and older). And family members of households in the top income quintile were five times more likely to have a college degree (60.3 percent) than members of households in the bottom income quintile (only 12.1 percent). Family members in the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely st, family members of the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely than those in the top income quintile to have less than a high school degree in 2010 (26.7 percent vs. 2.2 percent).

Also, these income groups are not static, which is a point I have made often. There is plenty of evidence that individuals are not stuck forever in a single income quintile, but intsead move up and down over their lifetimes. As the post said, "It’s very likely that many high-income individuals who were in their peak earning years in 2010 were in a lower income quintile in prior years, before they acquired education and job experience, and they’ll move again to a lower quintile in the future when they retire."

This study, while mildly interesting, changes nothing about the eventual reality: The people with more will have to deal with having a little less. The pendulum's swung too far. At this point, it's merely a question about whether it happens the easy way - or the ugly way.

 

[cranberry]

The Top 5 percent also includes tons of people like me. Again, not rich. The Top 1 percent is where the wealth is ridiculously concentrated.

 

[Alma]

The Top 5 percent also includes tons of people like me. Again, not rich. The Top 1 percent is where the wealth is ridiculously concentrated.

You are rich. By any useful worldly standard, you are fabulously, terrifically wealthy. Just because you don't feel rich doesn't mean you're not.

 

[LongTimeListener]

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-household-demographics/

Interesting look at demographic differences between the top quintile income households relative to the bottom quintile income households, from Census data.

The short: Households that earn the most have more than 4.5 earners per household than the lowest-income households. Married-couple households reprsent a much greater share of the top income quintile (78.4 percent) than for the bottom income quintile (17 percent). Single-parent and single households represent a much greater share of the bottom quintile (83 percent) than the top quintile (21.6 percent). Roughly 75 percent households in the top income quinitile included people in their prime earning years (35-64) compared to only 43.5 percent of households in the bottom fifth. Household members in the bottom income quintile were 1.6 times more likely than the top income quintile to be in the youngest age group (under 35), and three times more likely to be in the oldest age group (65 and older). And family members of households in the top income quintile were five times more likely to have a college degree (60.3 percent) than members of households in the bottom income quintile (only 12.1 percent). Family members in the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely st, family members of the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely than those in the top income quintile to have less than a high school degree in 2010 (26.7 percent vs. 2.2 percent).

Also, these income groups are not static, which is a point I have made often. There is plenty of evidence that individuals are not stuck forever in a single income quintile, but intsead move up and down over their lifetimes. As the post said, "It’s very likely that many high-income individuals who were in their peak earning years in 2010 were in a lower income quintile in prior years, before they acquired education and job experience, and they’ll move again to a lower quintile in the future when they retire."

According to the OECD, the United States has a low rate of social mobility compared with other countries.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/are-you-better-off-than-your-parents-were/

 

[The Big Ragu]

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-household-demographics/

Interesting look at demographic differences between the top quintile income households relative to the bottom quintile income households, from Census data.

The short: Households that earn the most have more than 4.5 earners per household than the lowest-income households. Married-couple households reprsent a much greater share of the top income quintile (78.4 percent) than for the bottom income quintile (17 percent). Single-parent and single households represent a much greater share of the bottom quintile (83 percent) than the top quintile (21.6 percent). Roughly 75 percent households in the top income quinitile included people in their prime earning years (35-64) compared to only 43.5 percent of households in the bottom fifth. Household members in the bottom income quintile were 1.6 times more likely than the top income quintile to be in the youngest age group (under 35), and three times more likely to be in the oldest age group (65 and older). And family members of households in the top income quintile were five times more likely to have a college degree (60.3 percent) than members of households in the bottom income quintile (only 12.1 percent). Family members in the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely st, family members of the lowest income quintile were 12 times more likely than those in the top income quintile to have less than a high school degree in 2010 (26.7 percent vs. 2.2 percent).

Also, these income groups are not static, which is a point I have made often. There is plenty of evidence that individuals are not stuck forever in a single income quintile, but intsead move up and down over their lifetimes. As the post said, "It’s very likely that many high-income individuals who were in their peak earning years in 2010 were in a lower income quintile in prior years, before they acquired education and job experience, and they’ll move again to a lower quintile in the future when they retire."

According to the OECD, the United States has a low rate of social mobility compared with other countries.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/are-you-better-off-than-your-parents-were/

Compared with some countries, not all countries.

According to that OECD report, the main cause of social immobility is educational opportunity. The report was, among other things, an indictment of America's public school system, which holds down poor kids rather than lifting them.

In 2007, the United States spent $10,768 per student on elementary and secondary education, which was 45 percent higher than the OECD average of $7,401.

Clearly, we are spending. Clearly we are not getting much bang for that buck from our government.

 

[Magic In The Night]

Ragu, given the information you posted about marriage putting one in the top group, why does our government continue to give a tax credit for marriage? Seems like that's adding a cherry on their sundaes.