No Suprise Here......

[Diego in Seattle]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... cation=rss


Super-rich widen lead over rest of Americans

By David Cay Johnston
The New York Times

Previously in this series: On the surface, lines have blurred, but Americans still divided by class

Previously in this series: Whatever your level, we're all about class

When F. Scott Fitzgerald pronounced that the very rich "are different from you and me," Ernest Hemingway's famously dismissive response was: "Yes, they have more money." Today he might well add: much, much, much more money.

The people at the top of the U.S. money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data shows. They've even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Call them the hyper-rich.

They are not just a few Croesuslike rarities. Draw a line under the top 0.1 percent of income earners: the top one-thousandth. Above that line are about 145,000 taxpayers, each with at least $1.6 million in income and often much more.

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is 2-½ times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that the group made in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002.

The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.

Next, examine the net worth of U.S. households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million consisted of 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27 percent.

The Bush administration's tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of the nation. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

During the third presidential debate in October, President Bush said most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most — 53 percent — will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent of all Americans during the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and will need reauthorization in 2010. More than 15 percent of the cuts will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.




The New York Times set out to create a financial portrait of the very richest Americans, how their incomes have changed over the decades and how the tax cuts will affect them. It is no secret the gap between the rich and the poor has grown, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everyone else behind is not widely known.

The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent.

To determine those differences, The New York Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury's. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, the libertarian Cato Institute and liberal Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable. The Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable.

The analysis also found:

• Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes — a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data — now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.


Lesser tax burden


• Those earning more than $10 million a year pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.

• The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million, thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by the tax.

The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else likely is much larger.

The hyper-rich have emerged in the last 30 years as the biggest winners in a remarkable transformation of the U.S. economy characterized by, among other things, the creation of a more global marketplace, new technology and investment spurred partly by tax cuts.

One way to understand the growing gap is to compare earnings increases over time by the vast majority of taxpayers — everyone in the lower 90 percent — with those at the top, in the uppermost 0.01 percent (now about 14,000 households, each with $5.5 million or more in income last year).

From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to The New York Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000.

President Reagan signed tax bills that benefited the wealthiest Americans and gave tax breaks to the working poor.

President Clinton raised income taxes for the wealthiest, cut taxes on investment gains and expanded breaks for the working poor.

Bush eliminated income taxes for families making less than $40,000, but his tax cuts also have benefited the wealthiest Americans far more than his predecessors' did.

The Bush administration says the cuts have made the tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. An IRS study found the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.

But Treasury Department spokesman Taylor Griffin said the tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent.

The analysis also shows that during the next decade, the tax cuts Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid.

One reason the merely rich will fare much less well than the very richest is the alternative minimum tax. This tax was the successor to one enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthiest Americans could not use legal loopholes to live tax-free.

But it has never been adjusted for inflation. As a result, it stings Americans whose incomes have crept above $75,000.

The analysis shows that by 2010, the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts.

For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.

But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about one-third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.

Another reason the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts in the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.

While most economists recognize the richest are pulling away, they disagree on what this means. Those who contend the extraordinary accumulation of wealth is good say that while the rich are getting richer, so are most people who work hard and save.

They say the tax cuts encourage investment and innovation that will make everyone better off.

"In this income data, I see a snapshot of a very innovative society," said Tim Kane, an economist at the Heritage Foundation. "Lower taxes and lower marginal tax rates are leading to more growth. There's an explosion of wealth."


Concentration bad sign


But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and stifle economic growth by putting too much capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the growing concentration of wealth in congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."

Others say most Americans have no problem with this trend. The central question is mobility, said Bruce Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush.

"As long as people think they have a chance of getting to the top, they just don't care how rich the rich are," he said.

But in fact, economic mobility — moving from one income group to another over a lifetime — has stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has declined in the past generation.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

==============================

That putz Bartlett doesn't know what he's talking about. People don't care how rich the rich are as long as they can pay their own bills. And the number of working people who can't is growing.

One can bet the farm that these trends won't change anytime in the near future. :roll:

[DrDetroit]

No surprise about what? The widening gap between rich and poor? You're right...that is no surprise. It's only been happening for centuries.

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is 2-½ times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that the group made in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

Notice that the author fails to tell us how the other groups fared over that same time period. The author is attempting to make the comparison but fails to provide the comparative context.

Notice, too, that the author fails to tell us whether the size of the hyper-rich has grown or not. Bartlett, I think, in a subtle way, is getting at that idea. The pie is not static. As I have posted here in the past, the pie is growing. This is not a zero-sum game. By not telling us whether the income groups have grown/expanded, the author does a disservice as the reader walks away with the impression that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That is simply false, as I have demonstrated here before.

That concept is reinforced with the brief discussion re: concentration. Which, btw, was worthless. Wealth is not income. Big difference.

During the third presidential debate in October, President Bush said most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most — 53 percent — will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent of all Americans during the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and will need reauthorization in 2010. More than 15 percent of the cuts will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

I hate this type of analysis where the author fails to tell you what variables he is using. Is the author citing increase/decrease in tax rates? Is the author citing increase/decrease in anticipated income tax savings?

Bush was right and still is. Most of the tax cut went to the low and middle income Americans. Their rates were cut more than the rates of those at the top. In fact, nearly 4 million Americans saw their income tax liability eliminated. And the 15% bracket was split with a new 10% bracket being created.

On the other hand, as we all know, those who earn the most also pay the most in taxes. This nominal measure, I think, is what he is using. Hence, the author is correct that, nominally, most of the anticipated savings theoretically went to the richest. That makes sense given the huge amount of taxes they pay. A 5% rate cut for some making $50,000/yr will result in less savings, nominally, than a 1% rate cut for someone making $1.5 million.

The author does a disservice to the reader by failing to consider both approaches to measuring the effect of tax cuts.

I also found this interesting:

The Bush administration says the cuts have made the tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. An IRS study found the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.

The reason for that...as I have posted here...is that their incomes decreased. I can't imagine why the author failed to cite that data. In fact, he fails to even attempt to explain why the decrease occurred, instead leaving the impression that the share declined because of the Bush tax cuts.

Now this is just pathetic. Despite having contacted three separate research institutions to discuss the model he employs, he fails to cite the studies he's referring to nor the even one bit of data.

But in fact, economic mobility — moving from one income group to another over a lifetime — has stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has declined in the past generation.

And yet, we still don't know what any of this means. To quote the author, "While most economists recognize the richest are pulling away, they disagree on what this means."

RACK!!!

So, Diego...what does this mean?

[Tom In VA]

As long as there are human beings here on earth, there will be humans that have more than other humans.

What's your point ?


There will never be such a thing as complete economic equality, as a birthright.


Do we still have a class system ? Yes. But how many of these "hyper-rich" are agressive investors, entreprenuers, and "New Money" vs. how many are old money ?

Throughout history mankind has displayed tendencies to limit the possibility that people can move up or down economic classes based on arbitrary "rules". In the U.S., people have the opportunity to do this. Regardless of your name, religion, political affiliation, etc.. etc...

[DrDetroit]

Point I forgot to mention that Tom reminded of...

Isn't this rich at the top of the article:
Previously in this series: On the surface, lines have blurred, but Americans still divided by class

LMAO!!

Gee, I wonder why Americans are still divided by class? Perhaps because of articles like these which only serve to create and instill class envy??

pssst...I'm reading in an assumption that the Times is suggesting that Americans feel divided rather than this division being a mere statistical matter.

[BSmack]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of guys who wouldn't be allowed in the same room with anybody from the Forbes 400 try so desperately to suck up to them.

Check out this interesting stat.

The U.S. economy's recovery may be a little shaky, but you wouldn't know it from looking at this year's Forbes 400. The combined net worth of the nation's wealthiest climbed to $1 trillion, up $45 billion in 12 months

Yep, 400 people control about 1 TRILLION dollars. Sounds fair to me.

[DrDetroit]

What is unfair about people controlling their wealth??

Envious, bitch?

And that is what is driving you lefties to complain...envy and jealousy.

BTW - who is sucking up to anyone in this thread??

[Hapday]

Yep, 400 people control about 1 TRILLION dollars. Sounds fair to me.

Who gives a rats ass? Just because you are too stupid and/or lazy to get up off your ass and make a fortune, doesn't mean people with amibition should be prevented from doing so. Nobody is kissing these guys asses.

Who the hell do you think provides a majority of the DemocRats funding? It sure as hell isn't poor people passing the hat.

[Tom In VA]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of guys who wouldn't be allowed in the same room with anybody from the Forbes 400 try so desperately to suck up to them.

Check out this interesting stat.

The U.S. economy's recovery may be a little shaky, but you wouldn't know it from looking at this year's Forbes 400. The combined net worth of the nation's wealthiest climbed to $1 trillion, up $45 billion in 12 months

Yep, 400 people control about 1 TRILLION dollars. Sounds fair to me.

Why yes, you just displayed the funnier thing. That would be your inability to refute the facts I stated.

Do we still have a class system ? Yes. But how many of these "hyper-rich" are agressive investors, entreprenuers, and "New Money" vs. how many are old money ?

Throughout history mankind has displayed tendencies to limit the possibility that people can move up or down economic classes based on arbitrary "rules". In the U.S., people have the opportunity to do this. Regardless of your name, religion, political affiliation, etc.. etc...

Refute that please. You go ahead and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only rich people in the U.S. come from royalty or some priveleged, pre-determined class.

As for life being "fair" ? It's not. The only notion of "fairness" in life depends on the choice of individuals to be merciful or not.

[BSmack]

Tom, you must be one of those people who think Bill Gates was "self made" because his parents were only multimillionares. Keep dreaming the Horatio Alger bullshit you've been force fed your whole life.

[DrDetroit]

Tom, you must be one of those people who think Bill Gates was "self made" because his parents were only multimillionares. Keep dreaming the Horatio Alger bullshit you've been force fed your whole life.

Are you one of those people who have failed to move up the economic ladder??

Do you disagree with the theory that people move between different income classes?

Since I started working after college I've moved from a 30-hr/wk consulting job making $300/wk to a full-time HR position making $27K/yr to a promotion making $35,000/yr to a full-time HR position in a new organization making $55,000/yr to another consulting job now making over $70,000/yr.

I've been moving up the ladder just as everyone else does.

So, wtf are you blathering about you envious, douche.

[BSmack]

Tom, you must be one of those people who think Bill Gates was "self made" because his parents were only multimillionares. Keep dreaming the Horatio Alger bullshit you've been force fed your whole life.

Are you one of those people who have failed to move up the economic ladder??

Do you disagree with the theory that people move between different income classes?

Since I started working after college I've moved from a 30-hr/wk consulting job making $300/wk to a full-time HR position making $27K/yr to a promotion making $35,000/yr to a full-time HR position in a new organization making $55,000/yr to another consulting job now making over $70,000/yr.

I've been moving up the ladder just as everyone else does.

No, you're running on a treadmill. You will NEVER, EVER be in Paris Hilton's shoes. The people we're talking about can afford to spend your yearly salary on pedicures. So just stop pretending you are "movin on up" George.

[Tom In VA]

My previous boss, grew up in the inner city of B'More.

Coming home from school, it wasn't uncommon she'd have to walk by or over a dead addict that od'd.

Mom, worked two or three jobs to make due and feed the family of several children.

My boss, just purchased a million dollar home on an island in the Chesapeake Bay.

While she's not "filthy rich", she has improved her lot in life.

I work with several other similiar stories. Inspirational men and women who instead of dwelling on how unfair life can be and bitching and moaning about it. Siezed the opportunities their efforts made available to them. It is a testament to their mettle and character.

Again. Compose a list of people you consider "filthy rich". If Bill Gates, is not one, then what about Dan Snyder ? What about Jack Kent Cooke ?

You cannot refute the truth, that in America, these things happen.

[DrDetroit]

Tom, you must be one of those people who think Bill Gates was "self made" because his parents were only multimillionares. Keep dreaming the Horatio Alger bullshit you've been force fed your whole life.

Are you one of those people who have failed to move up the economic ladder??

Do you disagree with the theory that people move between different income classes?

Since I started working after college I've moved from a 30-hr/wk consulting job making $300/wk to a full-time HR position making $27K/yr to a promotion making $35,000/yr to a full-time HR position in a new organization making $55,000/yr to another consulting job now making over $70,000/yr.

I've been moving up the ladder just as everyone else does.

No, you're running on a treadmill. You will NEVER, EVER be in Paris Hilton's shoes. The people we're talking about can afford to spend your yearly salary on pedicures. So just stop pretending you are "movin on up" George.

I am moving on up. I'm 30 making $70,000/yr with a $200,000 home, dipshit. I am happy as hell.

I don't want to be in Paris Hilton's shoes. I am happy doing what I am doing.

Lose the envy, dope.

[Hapday]

I am moving on up. I'm 30 making $70,000/yr with a $200,000 home, dipshit. I am happy as hell.

I don't want to be in Paris Hilton's shoes. I am happy doing what I am doing.

At the end of the day that's all that should matter.

[DrDetroit]

Not for envious bitches like the Democrats.

They don't care for equal opportunity so much as they demand equal outcomes.

Huge distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcome that the Democrats just don't get.

[DrDetroit]

President Reagan signed tax bills that benefited the wealthiest Americans and gave tax breaks to the working poor.

President Clinton raised income taxes for the wealthiest, cut taxes on investment gains and expanded breaks for the working poor.

Bush eliminated income taxes for families making less than $40,000, but his tax cuts also have benefited the wealthiest Americans far more than his predecessors' did.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to write:

President Reagan proposed and got tax bills passed that benefitted all Americans and gave tax breaks to the poor?

Lets not subtly take credit away from Reagan by writing that he merely signed the bills. He ran on that policy and got it through Congress despite the strident objections of liberals.

President Clinton raised taxes on all Americans, cut taxes on investment gains (gains that benefit mostly the rich, as the article notes already), and expanded tax cuts for the poor (working poor is a misnomer).

President Bush eliminated income taxes for millions of Americans and reduced investment gains taxes (gains that primarily benefit the rich).

????

This article is becoming more of a joke as I read it more closely.

[DrDetroit]

The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

This is humorous...

Why doesn't the author provide the actual numbers here. You know, something like "these people earn x% of the national income, but are paying x% of national income taxes."???

Further, why doesn't the author provide the information all classes?

This article is a joke.

Without the editorializing and anonymous (yet selective) data, this article has nothing important to it.

Of course Americans are getting richer. It's been happening for decades and decades and decades. Yet the NY Times is suprirsed??

Pathetic.

[BSmack]

I am moving on up. I'm 30 making $70,000/yr with a $200,000 home, dipshit. I am happy as hell. I don't want to be in Paris Hilton's shoes. I am happy doing what I am doing. Lose the envy, dope.

If your board personality is anything like your real life personality, I suspect HR work is right up your alley. How does it feel when your soul is surgically removed?

Your workplace happiness aside, you still aren't getting the point that the eventual consolidation of extreme wealth in the hands of so few is inherently dangerous.

[DrDetroit]

you still aren't getting the point that the eventual consolidation of extreme wealth in the hands of so few is inherently dangerous

I haven't seen an argument to even consider this assertion...

And the point of the article is not consolidation of wealth, but the income gap wherein the discussion of wealth is wholly irrelevant.

Wealth is different from income.

[BSmack]

I haven't seen an argument to even consider this assertion... And the point of the article is not consolidation of wealth, but the income gap wherein the discussion of wealth is wholly irrelevant. Wealth is different from income.

Without income there is no wealth.

[DrDetroit]

I haven't seen an argument to even consider this assertion... And the point of the article is not consolidation of wealth, but the income gap wherein the discussion of wealth is wholly irrelevant. Wealth is different from income.

Without income there is no wealth.

What's your point?

The wealth argument is irrelevant to the income gap discussion. It was a cheap way to get billionaires to seemingly bash Bush's tax cuts.

So...do you have an argument why wealth consolidation is so dangerous?

[DrDetroit]

Rush is echoing my comment earlier re: the economy not being a zero-sum game.

Guess that blows my argument to hell, eh??

LOL!!

[BSmack]

Rush is echoing my comment earlier re: the economy not being a zero-sum game.

Guess that blows my argument to hell, eh??

LOL!!

You mean you are echoing Rush. I'm really surprised that greedly little fuck is all a tizzy about this. More red meat for the trogs.

Meanwhile, that 70k you live on is the same as 50k 10 years ago.

[DrDetroit]

Rush is echoing my comment earlier re: the economy not being a zero-sum game.

Guess that blows my argument to hell, eh??

LOL!!

You mean you are echoing Rush. I'm really surprised that greedly little fuck is all a tizzy about this. More red meat for the trogs.

How so when I ran the point hours ago???

Well?

Meanwhile, that 70k you live on is the same as 50k 10 years ago.

Sorry, but your envy is yours alone. Enjoy it.

[BSmack]

Rush is echoing my comment earlier re: the economy not being a zero-sum game.

Guess that blows my argument to hell, eh??

LOL!!

You mean you are echoing Rush. I'm really surprised that greedly little fuck is all a tizzy about this. More red meat for the trogs.

How so when I ran the point hours ago???

Well?

Well nothing. Rush has been spewing that "its not a zero sum game" bullshit since you were jacking off to your Debbie Gibson records. Stop pretending you invented that argument.

[Mister Bushice]

Meanwhile, that 70k you live on is the same as 50k 10 years ago.

That's true. If you were making 50K 10 years ago and are at 70 K now, you aren't moving up anything. You're on an economic treadmill.

[Variable]

...since you were jacking off to your Debbie Gibson records.

I can't wait to get home so I can pour some bleach in my earhole to try to eat away the vision of Detroit pulling it to "Electric Youth." Thanks for that.

My income has increased by about 50% while Bush has been in office and my wife's has more than doubled. Additionally, we've done so well on real estate that we paid off one of our cars and bought an RV last year. Some of that has been offset by supplemental taxes that have gone to pay for illegal alien crap, increased security costs due to phantom terror alerts and other shortcomings of the Bush (and previous) administration, but it's a drop in the bucket comparatively.

I have no complaints. :D

[DrDetroit]

You mean you are echoing Rush. I'm really surprised that greedly little fuck is all a tizzy about this. More red meat for the trogs.

How so when I ran the point hours ago???

Well?

Well nothing. Rush has been spewing that "its not a zero sum game" bullshit since you were jacking off to your Debbie Gibson records. Stop pretending you invented that argument.

I didn't assert that I had invented, dumbshit. Read, much?

[BSmack]

...since you were jacking off to your Debbie Gibson records.

I can't wait to get home so I can pour some bleach in my earhole to try to eat away the vision of Detroit pulling it to "Electric Youth." Thanks for that.

I try to help. ;)

My income has increased by about 50% while Bush has been in office and my wife's has more than doubled. Additionally, we've done so well on real estate that we paid off one of our cars and bought an RV last year. Some of that has been offset by supplemental taxes that have gone to pay for illegal alien crap, increased security costs due to phantom terror alerts and other shortcomings of the Bush (and previous) administration, but it's a drop in the bucket comparatively.

I have no complaints. :D

I'm sure you don't. I'm glad you've done well. It sounds like your taxes alone might be enough to support Cuda as he seeks the therapy he desperately needs. And, as I told Detard, you're hardly the super rich oligarchical type I'm worried about. The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so. These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives. It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

[Hapday]

And, as I told Detard, you're hardly the super rich oligarchical type I'm worried about. The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so. These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives. It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

These ultra-rich people controlling so much wealth didn't stop Variable and his wife from making a comfortable living and they are 'working people'. So what the fuck are you bitching about?

[Mister Bushice]

You don't pay very close attention to things, do you?

That much wealth in the hands of so few people is not a good thing:

But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and stifle economic growth by putting too much capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the growing concentration of wealth in congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."

Others say most Americans have no problem with this trend. The central question is mobility, said Bruce Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush.

"As long as people think they have a chance of getting to the top, they just don't care how rich the rich are," he said.

But in fact, economic mobility — moving from one income group to another over a lifetime — has stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has declined in the past generation.

[Diego in Seattle]

And, as I told Detard, you're hardly the super rich oligarchical type I'm worried about. The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so. These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives. It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

These ultra-rich people controlling so much wealth didn't stop Variable and his wife from making a comfortable living and they are 'working people'. So what the fuck are you bitching about?

Right off the bat one can point to the example of Wal-Fart. Included in that group of the top .1% is the Walton siblings who own Wal-Fart. Their income wealth has greatly increased while their store slaves errrrrr "associates" can't make ends meet or afford to get sick or injured.

Try reading news material other than National Review or American Spectator and you might learn about things like this.

[DrDetroit]

The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so.

Look at this rubbish. So what? What is the practical implication of this?

You people still cannot explain why this is so tragic and terrible and devastating and dangerous.

These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives.

Envy sucks, doesn't it?? Who cares??

It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

At the expense of working people?

You Marxist, cunt...please explain this. Please demonstrate this with something other than you Marxist bullshit.

[DrDetroit]

And, as I told Detard, you're hardly the super rich oligarchical type I'm worried about. The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so. These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives. It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

These ultra-rich people controlling so much wealth didn't stop Variable and his wife from making a comfortable living and they are 'working people'. So what the fuck are you bitching about?

It's called "anvy" and it has B by the balls...

[DrDetroit]

You don't pay very close attention to things, do you?

That much wealth in the hands of so few people is not a good thing:

But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and stifle economic growth by putting too much capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the growing concentration of wealth in congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."

Others say most Americans have no problem with this trend. The central question is mobility, said Bruce Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush.

"As long as people think they have a chance of getting to the top, they just don't care how rich the rich are," he said.

But in fact, economic mobility — moving from one income group to another over a lifetime — has stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has declined in the past generation.

1) I addressed this post in one of my first posts, idiot.

2) It's an unsubstantiated assertion on his part.

3) You'd think with such an important economic concept this author would have taken the same time that he did bashing Bush to at least cite one study specifically or cite some data to demonstrate this.

Come on, Bushice, you should also be demanding that this author actually provide something tangible to illustrate this decline...

[DrDetroit]

Right off the bat one can point to the example of Wal-Fart. Included in that group of the top .1% is the Walton siblings who own Wal-Fart. Their income wealth has greatly increased while their store slaves errrrrr "associates" can't make ends meet or afford to get sick or injured.

Try reading news material other than National Review or American Spectator and you might learn about things like this.

Learn things like what? That the Walton family members are among the richest Americans?? Who doesn't know that, dolt?

Also, these "slaves" as you characterize them...who the hell are you to tell them what their working lives are like? Are you so much better than them that you are in a position to characterize their employment as "slavery?" Sorry, but Wal-Mart employees, while having similar complaints to nearly every working person, are content with their employment, that's why they are still working there. If conditions were as such as you describe them why is Wal-Mart the nation's largest employer???

Well??

[DrDetroit]

BTW - I notice that no one could address the substantive criticism of this pathetic article...I wonder why?

Perhaps because Diego and the other lefties here aren't interested in anything more than bashing Bush...pathetic bitches.

[BSmack]

Detard, please let us know when you are finished talking to yourself. Ever heard of the EDIT button?

[Hapday]

And, as I told Detard, you're hardly the super rich oligarchical type I'm worried about. The people who control the lions share of the wealth and means of production in this country number about 1000 or so. These are the type of people who could lose 90% of their fortunes and STILL have enough money to never again have to work in their lives. It is they who are gaining in both wealth and income at the expense of working people.

These ultra-rich people controlling so much wealth didn't stop Variable and his wife from making a comfortable living and they are 'working people'. So what the fuck are you bitching about?

Right off the bat one can point to the example of Wal-Fart. Included in that group of the top .1% is the Walton siblings who own Wal-Fart. Their income wealth has greatly increased while their store slaves errrrrr "associates" can't make ends meet or afford to get sick or injured.

Try reading news material other than National Review or American Spectator and you might learn about things like this.

I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.

[Diogenes]

You don't pay very close attention to things, do you?

That much wealth in the hands of so few people is not a good thing:

But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and stifle economic growth by putting too much capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the growing concentration of wealth in congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."

Having money in the hands of people who create jobs and invest in the economy sucks.


Much better we should keep it in the government's hands.


They'll know what to do with it.