Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

Who [are] the 1%?


[You mean the super rich?  Well, according to the evidence just presented by USA Today (hardly a right-wing shill), they’re mostly Democrats.]


Who Are the Rich and How Do We Know?



Adjusting for the increase in the Consumer Price Index, it would take a net worth of about $25 million today to be the economic equivalent of a millionaire in 1900.  Clearly, being a millionaire today does not support the lifestyle that it did a century ago.”



If they extend the life-extending treatment into next year, they could jeopardize their family’s ability to inherit the life’s labor of a person who is now terminally ill.”


[Rich   people  (i.e.  Republicans  and  conservatives )  suck .    All   they   ever   do  is  think   about   themselves.]


“… a portion of the funds are set aside for an educational fund for ‘[redneck] youth.’


[What?  Why can’t we just tax rich folk to pay for that?  Everyone knows rich people get all the  tax   breaks   anyway.   Besides,   who   wants   rich   people   around   anyway ?   All their tax-dodging does is  keep   increasing  the  national   debt.   And  we should   increase  taxes   on   corporations  too so that these rural children get the   college educations  they need.]





Soak Rich, Bust The Budget



As a 1982 Congressional Joint Economic Committee  study found :  similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the John Kennedy tax cuts.  In both cases, the reduction of high marginal rates actually increased tax payments by the ‘rich,’ also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.”


[For those who don’t know, whenever the word “joint” is used in government lexicography it means “all sides in the debate.”  That means both Democrats and Republicans participated in the production of that study — at a time, btw, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.]


Deconstructing the Left’s Argument for Increasing Tax Rates on the Rich



There aren’t enough rich people


[Dr. Walter Williams, in case you didn’t bother to read the article, is a black American and a professor of Economics at George Mason University.]


Top Marginal Income Tax Rate vs. Share of Income Taxes Paid by Top 1% of Taxpayers (1979-2007)



According to  data  from the National Taxpayers Union and the IRS, the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay about 60 percent of the federal income revenues…  The bottom half of American taxpayers fork over less than 3 percent of the taxes collected.



Wealth is health, and human health should be at the core of environmentalism.”



“… high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.”



The Golden Rule of Economics: People Want Stuff



Income Inequality:

This metric suggests that economic inequality has diminished slightly, rather than increased [over the last 25 years].



… the big point here… is that [U.S. income] inequality hasn’t exploded.  The top 1 percent aren’t doing abnormally well by U.S. historical standards.  And that if you want to go back to the Gilded Era of equality, you need to time travel to the 1930s and 1970s—two of the worst decades ever for the U.S. economy.”



… [U.S.] income inequality has increased somewhat in recent decades, but not exploded; b) that increase is natural given technology and globalization…



The federal government has emerged as one of the most potent factors driving income inequality in the United States – especially in the nation’s capital.



“... [tax] policies aimed at making America more equal by targeting ‘the rich’ are likely to be ineffective, not only because they are aiming at a moving target, but also because so many of these common traits stand outside the bounds of tax policy.



… consumption inequality has increased only marginally since the 1980s.  Further, consumption inequality narrows in periods of recessions, such as during the 2007–2009 recession.


… the [income] inequality has [in fact] not widened significantly.


Even in a statistical sense, there is a trend toward narrowing the consumption gap between low-income and other households.



The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich.  First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs.  Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us.



We will show that much of what has been reported about income inequality is misleading, factually incorrect, or of little or no consequence to our economic well-being.  We will also show that middle-class incomes are not stagnating; in fact, middle-class incomes have risen significantly over the 29 years covered by the [recent] CBO study.



The Inequality Fetish



It has become commonplace to use top 1 percent shares of market income as a shorthand measure of inequality, and as an argument for greater taxes on higher incomes and/or larger transfer payments to the bottom 90 percent.  This paper finds the data inappropriate for such purposes for several reasons.



… an average of 87% of letters dropped in the wealthier neighbourhoods [were] returned compared to only an average 37% return rate in poorer neighbourhoods.




Want to Leave a Reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s