Richest get richer

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: June 5, 2005

 

Not Since the 20's Roared

The Wealthiest Benefit More from Tax Cuts

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 America'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 by The New York Times shows. They have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Call them the hyper-rich.

They are not just a few Croesus-like 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 two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported 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 American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 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 tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that 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 over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

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

The analysis also found the following:

¶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.

¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now 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 this 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 is almost certainly much larger.

The hyper-rich have emerged in the last three decades as the biggest winners in a remarkable transformation of the American economy characterized by, among other things, the creation of a more global marketplace, new technology and investment spurred partly by tax cuts. The stock market soared; so did pay in the highest ranks of business.

One way to understand the growing gap is to compare earnings increases over time by the vast majority of taxpayers - say, everyone in the lower 90 percent - with those at the top, say, 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 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 Ronald Reagan signed tax bills that benefited the wealthiest Americans and also gave tax breaks to the working poor. President Bill Clinton raised income taxes for the wealthiest, cut taxes on investment gains, and expanded breaks for the working poor. Mr. Bush eliminated income taxes for families making under $40,000, but his tax cuts have also benefited the wealthiest Americans far more than his predecessors' did.

The Bush administration says that the tax cuts have actually made the income tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. Still, an Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national...YPER-FINAL.html

[AURaptor 1,125]

And the class warfare from the Left continues..........

[DKW 86 7,426]

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 two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

Gee Tex, Doubling their income 2.5 times over 22 years gives us a rate of increase of somewhere near 2.5-3%. Gee Tex, that is less than the rate of inflation. Wow, it must be another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy... If these guys worked on contract, they didnt even get COLAs!

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that 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 over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

Those that PAY taxes should get the CUTS, Right? Just for the record...

¶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. How in the world is this unfair? Imagine folks paying the same burden. Must be yet again some VRWC!

¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000. These folks are likely making a substantial portion of their cash from investments. I wonder how much their Corporations, businesses, investments etc. paid in taxes? Wonder how many people they are employing? Funny but I dont see this article talking about anything but a SELECTED few taxes, income, Medicare and Social Security taxes.

¶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 this tax. Again, the Libs must concentrate on one tax. So what! The Rich pay far less in sales taxes too, because they consume, as a percentage, at a lower rate than the poor. But they pay OTHER TAXES, ie Corporate and business taxes, fica taxes on employees, etc. Funny that the Libs only consider small portions of the tax code when they talk about tax cuts being unfair.

[Piglet 0]

And the class warfare from the Left continues..........

162405[/snapback]

The richest keep on taking more and more and more, and you call it class warfare from the left.

what's it going to take? How many more heartland towns should go under before you think Paris Hilton's taxes are low enough to suit you?

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Envy: one of the 7 Deadly Sins

Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's ass nor his goods: one of the 10 Commandments

Also, who is responsible for writing the tax laws ... Congress, right? Look at the makeup of the Senate from financial disclosures in 2003:

Link

Millionaires populate U.S. Senate

Kerry, Rockefeller, Kohl among the wealthiest

By Sean Loughlin and Robert Yoon

CNN Washington Bureau

Friday, June 13, 2003 Posted: 7:03 PM EDT (2303 GMT)

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, left, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are among the 100 senators who filed financial disclosure forms.

Senate millionaires

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399

Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016

John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018

Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025

Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109

Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013

Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018

Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042

John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029

Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009

Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015

Bob Graham, D-Florida:  $7,691,052

Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012

Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011

Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010

Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028

Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018

Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093

Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037

Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007

Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013

Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037

James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031

Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016

Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026

John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010

James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043

John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039

Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas:  $1,513,046

Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017

Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040

Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018

Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017

Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013

Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999

Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023

Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014

Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014

Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024

*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms. 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate showed once more why it's sometimes called the millionaires' club.

Financial disclosure forms released Friday by the nation's 100 senators show there are at least 40 millionaires among them -- 22 Republicans and 18 Democrats. All but six of them are men.

The top three wealthiest senators are Democrats: John Kerry of Massachusetts, with a net worth of at least $164 million; Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, with a net worth of at least $111 million, and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, with an estimated net worth of at least $82 million.

Kerry -- who is running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination -- is married to Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz food fortune. Kohl's family founded a retail chain and he owns the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Rockefeller comes from one of the wealthiest families in the United States.

The numbers are conservative -- base estimates required by the financial disclosure forms. While lawmakers must detail their finances, they are reported in categories with broad ranges. For example, Kerry's estimated net worth, according to the form, ranges from $164 million to $211 million.

And the statements also do not include the value of federal salaries, pensions or primary residences, meaning the financial picture is incomplete. Bank accounts worth less than $5,000 are also excluded.

Still, the forms provide a glimpse into the financial holdings of some of the most powerful and influential people in the federal government.

"These are helpful," said Steven Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which studies money in politics. "They show the public the financial stake their elected officials have."

At the same time, Weiss said the forms can be hard to decipher. His group posts the forms on its Web site, but he said some of the most helpful material on these forms comes from various news media outlets, which analyze them.

The Senate's majority leader, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee, is another of the millionaires. A heart surgeon, Frist's family founded the Healthcare Company, a large hospital chain. His net worth is estimated at between $15.1 million and $42.3 million.

In comparison, his Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, comes from more modest means. His financial disclosure form shows a net worth estimated at $416,000 to $1.2 million.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the news with the release of her memoir, reported a net worth ranging from $352,000 to $3.8 million. While that may seem modest for a woman who snared an $8 million book deal, the former first lady also reported substantial liabilities, ranging from $1.7 million to $6.5 million. Most of these were for legal fees, an apparent result of the numerous investigations into the Clinton's during her husband's presidential administration.

Other highlights:

• Among the 2004 Democratic White House hopefuls who are serving in the Senate, Kerry reported the most holdings. But Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was not hurting. He reported a net worth ranging from $12.8 million to $60 million. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida reported holdings of $7.7 million to $31.6 million, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had an estimated net worth of $482,000 to $1.8 million.

• Not all senators are millionaires. At least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000.

The numbers, however, point to a group of individuals who, in general, enjoy a level of financial comfort that exceeds most Americans.

"It shows that people of means are the ones who often jump into politics and are often the ones successful at it," Weiss said. He said that's because it also takes considerable funds to launch a Senate bid, and many candidates have to give up their jobs to run an aggressive campaign. People who come from wealthy backgrounds can afford to do so, he said.

Senators and House members are paid an annual salary of $154,700. Members of the House and Senate leadership are paid $171,900 annually.

So, about 4 out of 10 Senators are in that wealthiest of wealthy category and only 1 in 10 are below $100,000 in net worth. The overwhelming majority in the Senate must be "above average" in income/wealth. And, I have to believe that this has been the case throughout our history -- that of the wealthiest getting elected to Congress. I have a hard time believing that Sens Kerry, Rockefellar, Kennedy, et al, are going to write tax laws that actually are detrimental to their personal economies. (Talk about living in a dream world. )

[Piglet 0]

Envy: one of the 7 Deadly Sins

162443[/snapback]

Avarice: one of the 7 deadly sins. Along with sloth and gluttony.

Why is Richie Rich so special that he gets to pay lower taxes on his capital gains than the rest of us do on money we get from actually working for a living?

How come unproductive scions of wealthy families get to inherit millions tax free while the rest of us pay taxes on every dime we earn?

It's about freeloaders and taxpayers; parasites and people who actually work for a living.

And of course, the Federal Government continues to act as their handmaidens, whoring for funds and exempting themselves from the obligations they impose on the rest of us. The divide isn't "liberals and conservatives", since the representatives of both parties are up in the stratosphere. It's populists (woefully underrepresented) and elitists, who govern in all states. I see Shelby made the upper crusty list right along with Teddy.

[AURaptor 1,125]

And the class warfare from the Left continues..........

162405[/snapback]

The richest keep on taking more and more and more, and you call it class warfare from the left.

what's it going to take? How many more heartland towns should go under before you think Paris Hilton's taxes are low enough to suit you?

162429[/snapback]

Taking? Try EARNING. No one in a Rolls or Bently has come up along me and taken $ at gun point from me. The 'rich' keep doing the things which have made them rich. I'm sure Paris Hilton pays more in taxes than most of us earn.

[Auburn85 432]

Of course millionaires pay the same rate on Social Security taxes........... the cap is 90 grand

[Tiger Al 0]

So, about 4 out of 10 Senators are in that wealthiest of wealthy category and only 1 in 10 are below $100,000 in net worth.  The overwhelming majority in the Senate must be "above average" in income/wealth.  And, I have to believe that this has been the case throughout our history -- that of the wealthiest getting elected to Congress.  I have a hard time believing that Sens Kerry, Rockefellar, Kennedy, et al, are going to write tax laws that actually are detrimental to their personal economies.  (Talk about living in a dream world.  )

162443[/snapback]

You must not pay much attention to the legislative process, Loggerhead. Here's one amendment I found without really looking very hard. It's sponsored by Kennedy:

Statement of Purpose:

To eliminate the dividend and upper bracket tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthy, to provide the additional funds necessary for an adequate medicare prescription drug benefit, including assuring that the benefit is comprehensive, with no gaps or excessive cost-sharing, covers all medicare beneficiaries, provides special help for beneficiaries with low income, and does not undermine employer retirement coverage.

Let's see who voted FOR this amendment:

Akaka (D-HI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Breaux (D-LA)

Byrd (D-WV)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carper (D-DE)

Chafee (R-RI)

Clinton (D-NY)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corzine (D-NJ)

Daschle (D-SD)

Dayton (D-MN)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL)

Edwards (D-NC)

Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Graham (D-FL)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hollings (D-SC)

Inouye (D-HI)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Schumer (D-NY)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Wyden (D-OR)

The highlighted names were from your "Richest" list. Notice only one rich republican, Lincoln Chaffee, had the stones to vote in favor of the amendment. It was, by the way, voted down by the republicans and Zell Miller.

[Piglet 0]

Taking? Try EARNING.  No one in a Rolls or Bently has come up along me and taken $ at gun point from me. The 'rich' keep doing the things which have made them rich. I'm sure Paris Hilton pays more in taxes than most of us earn.

162457[/snapback]

Some earn money by giving value for value; some get huge compensation packages while losing their companies millions; some just collect dividends on money their parents made; and some others are just plain thieves. Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it--just look at those Hollywood elites you're always complaining about.

When the income is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, those few should expect to pay much more. In this economy, they're getting away with paying less. Should America have an infrastructure we can be proud of, or should the richest get to keep living ever higher on the hog while others can't even pay for their prescription medicines?

I say, people who work hard for a living in the greatest country in the world should have a decent living. We owe it to each other. And the ones who make out big pay a toll as the price for living in the greatest country in the world.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Taking? Try EARNING.  No one in a Rolls or Bently has come up along me and taken $ at gun point from me. The 'rich' keep doing the things which have made them rich. I'm sure Paris Hilton pays more in taxes than most of us earn.

162457[/snapback]

Some earn money by giving value for value; some get huge compensation packages while losing their companies millions; some just collect dividends on money their parents made; and some others are just plain thieves. Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it--just look at those Hollywood elites you're always complaining about.

When the income is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, those few should expect to pay much more. In this economy, they're getting away with paying less. Should America have an infrastructure we can be proud of, or should the richest get to keep living ever higher on the hog while others can't even pay for their prescription medicines?

I say, people who work hard for a living in the greatest country in the world should have a decent living. We owe it to each other. And the ones who make out big pay a toll as the price for living in the greatest country in the world.

162477[/snapback]

Are you confusing income with wealth? If the income was concentrated in 'fewer and fewer hands', then we've have a much higher jobless rate.

'Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it ' - And who elected you of arbiter on such matters? Since when did 'worth' come into the picture ? Prescription drugs are higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. That's a fact, but that hardly is the line of demarcation between the haves and the have nots. The logical course of action is to lower the cost of drugs, and let folks earn what they can.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Taking? Try EARNING.  No one in a Rolls or Bently has come up along me and taken $ at gun point from me. The 'rich' keep doing the things which have made them rich. I'm sure Paris Hilton pays more in taxes than most of us earn.

162457[/snapback]

Some earn money by giving value for value; some get huge compensation packages while losing their companies millions; some just collect dividends on money their parents made; and some others are just plain thieves. Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it--just look at those Hollywood elites you're always complaining about.

When the income is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, those few should expect to pay much more. In this economy, they're getting away with paying less. Should America have an infrastructure we can be proud of, or should the richest get to keep living ever higher on the hog while others can't even pay for their prescription medicines?

I say, people who work hard for a living in the greatest country in the world should have a decent living. We owe it to each other. And the ones who make out big pay a toll as the price for living in the greatest country in the world.

162477[/snapback]

Are you confusing income with wealth? If the income was concentrated in 'fewer and fewer hands', then we've have a much higher jobless rate.

'Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it ' - And who elected you of arbiter on such matters? Since when did 'worth' come into the picture ? Prescription drugs are higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. That's a fact, but that hardly is the line of demarcation between the haves and the have nots. The logical course of action is to lower the cost of drugs, and let folks earn what they can.

162494[/snapback]

Are you a full-time student?

[Piglet 0]

Are you confusing income with wealth? If the income was concentrated in 'fewer and fewer hands', then we've have a much higher jobless rate.

'Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it ' - And who elected you of arbiter on such matters? Since when did 'worth' come into the picture ?

162494[/snapback]

As you can see from the original posted article, the have-mores are having staggering increases in annual income, while the rest of us work harder for less money. That is how income becomes more concentrated regardless of the jobless rate--although, thanks to outsourcing, illegal alien hires, etc., the jobless rate is pretty nasty, too.

and 'worth' came into the picture when you suggested that the have-mores EARNED what they take home. That's a bunch of road apples. Some earn, some just acquire.

[Auburn85 432]

so people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth should expect to pay more taxes?

the jobless rate is 5.1%

Yes, the illegal alien problem is hurting the country and neither side is wanting to fix the problem.

And the McCain- Kennedy thing is just crap

one thing that ought to be stopped is giving incentives for companies that move overseas.

Then if incomes are worse off, people need to quit inflating the truth about all the great gains in house sales

And who should make more? A person with a GED or high school diploma or someone who has a college education.

People who continue to work at Mcdonalds are never going to make what a businessman makes.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Are you confusing income with wealth? If the income was concentrated in 'fewer and fewer hands', then we've have a much higher jobless rate.

'Simply having a lot is not a guarantee that you're worth it ' - And who elected you of arbiter on such matters? Since when did 'worth' come into the picture ?

162494[/snapback]

As you can see from the original posted article, the have-mores are having staggering increases in annual income, while the rest of us work harder for less money. That is how income becomes more concentrated regardless of the jobless rate--although, thanks to outsourcing, illegal alien hires, etc., the jobless rate is pretty nasty, too.

and 'worth' came into the picture when you suggested that the have-mores EARNED what they take home. That's a bunch of road apples. Some earn, some just acquire.

162544[/snapback]

piglet, the fact of the matter is that there are more folks making more $ now than in 1980. The NUMBER of those who are wealthy have increased, not just how much they have made. This entire thread is fallacious. America is good for those who want to EARN a better living and beocme part of the 'filthy rich'. Like it or not.

[Piglet 0]

piglet, the fact of the matter is that there are more folks making more $ now than in 1980. The NUMBER of those who are wealthy have increased, not just how much they have made. This entire thread is fallacious. America is good for those who want to EARN a better living and beocme part of the 'filthy rich'. Like it or not.

162641[/snapback]

The fact of the matter is there are more FOLKS than in 1980. What percent of Americans now are wealthy compared to 1980, and by what standard of wealth?

Seems to me there's a greater percentage struggling to get by than there used to be. I get this not just from reading the papers, but from observations of my neighborhood and what I hear from real people all over.

America is supposed to be good for everybody, not just the rich. To create broad prosperity, we need a decent infrastructure, which means having an adequate tax base to fund it. And yes, the government should be efficient and accountable for what it spends.

[Auburn85 432]

piglet, the fact of the matter is that there are more folks making more $ now than in 1980. The NUMBER of those who are wealthy have increased, not just how much they have made. This entire thread is fallacious. America is good for those who want to EARN a better living and beocme part of the 'filthy rich'. Like it or not.

162641[/snapback]

The fact of the matter is there are more FOLKS than in 1980. What percent of Americans now are wealthy compared to 1980, and by what standard of wealth?

Seems to me there's a greater percentage struggling to get by than there used to be. I get this not just from reading the papers, but from observations of my neighborhood and what I hear from real people all over.

America is supposed to be good for everybody, not just the rich. To create broad prosperity, we need a decent infrastructure, which means having an adequate tax base to fund it. And yes, the government should be efficient and accountable for what it spends.

162666[/snapback]

yet at the same time, government tends to pay for more..... for example, when I was born, my family had no health insurance. We had to have a portion of the costs paid before my mother reached the 7th month of the pregnancy. To make up the difference my folks borrowed the rest. They like to kid around and say that I wasn't paid for until I was almost 2 .

My father was making around minimum wadge. Did my parents just sit back and wait for the government to bail them out? No.

Now today, hospitals are closing left and right because people aren't paying for the services. Illegal aliens are hurting the situation also. Gang members who get into fights are brought to ER'S with injuries, ect...

And I understand that some p[rocedures are more expensive than the birth of a child.

[Piglet 0]

yet at the same time, government tends to pay for more..... for example, when I was born, my family had no health insurance. We had to have a portion of the costs paid before my mother reached the 7th month of the pregnancy. To make up the difference my folks borrowed the rest. They like to kid around and say that I wasn't paid for until I was almost 2 .

My father was making around minimum wage. Did my parents just sit back and wait for the government to bail them out? No.

Now today, hospitals are closing left and right because people aren't paying for the services. Illegal aliens are hurting the situation also. Gang members who get into fights are brought to ER'S with injuries, ect...

And I understand that some procedures are more expensive than the birth of a child.

162667[/snapback]

You know, parents should not have to be in debt for years due to just a childbirth. I'm sure you were worth every penny to them, but they got screwed nevertheless. If we want family values in our country, how about some help for new parents in need?

Hospitals closing. HMOs interfering. Aliens and gangs clogging resources. Patients unable to pay. Somehow, the countries with universal health care never seem to have these problems. We ought to ask ourselves why.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Seems to me there's a greater percentage struggling to get by than there used to be. I get this not just from reading the papers, but from observations of my neighborhood and what I hear from real people all over.

Gee, I guess you're the end all, be all to what's going on in the USA, huh? Could it be that the neighborhood you live in today isn't as upscale as it use to be 5, 10, 20 yrs ago ? Could it be that those making a better living have moved out, and up....and those left behind are moving THEIR way up from a lower economic class ?

[CCTAU 3,327]

Of course millionaires pay the same rate on Social Security taxes........... the cap is 90 grand

162463[/snapback]

They are basically paying money that you and I will use but they probably never will.

There is ove 280 million people in the US and this article is all about 400 of them. You guys who are on the left need to grow up and stop worrying about the other kid's Tonka and play with your little matchbox in silence.

[Auburn85 432]

Of course millionaires pay the same rate on Social Security taxes........... the cap is 90 grand

162463[/snapback]

They are basically paying money that you and I will use but they probably never will.

There is ove 280 million people in the US and this article is all about 400 of them. You guys who are on the left need to grow up and stop worrying about the other kid's Tonka and play with your little matchbox in silence.

162761[/snapback]

[BamaGrad03 0]

Wow...where to start?

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 two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

Wow. The AVERAGE per capita income across the board has nearly quadrupled since 1980. So big deal. EVERYONE is making more money. But things cost more. It is also easier to make more money with your money. So this doesnt indicate governmental policies...it reflects sound economic principles.

Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 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.

So. The AVERAGE home has more than tripled in value since 1980. So not only are people going to own more expensive mansions...but people will own more expensive regular homes as well. Percentage wise, there are FEWER people below the poverty level than that of 1980.

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that 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 over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

Lets see...if 53 percent goes to the group that pays 64% of the taxes...id say thats a good thing. 47% of the tax break goes to people who pay COLLECTIVELY 36% of the taxes.

If you dont pay taxes...you dont get a tax break...why is that such a tough concept?

These are my favorite:

Why is Richie Rich so special that he gets to pay lower taxes on his capital gains than the rest of us do on money we get from actually working for a living?

Because capital gains arent EARNED income. Richie Rich ALREADY paid his taxes with the money he EARNED...So if Richie Rich earns 100k...he only sees like 60k. Then he turns around and puts the 60k in stocks (RISKS HIS OWN MONEY AND HELPS THE ECONOMY)...and the company does well...so they pay dividends. Well those dividends are based on PROFITS that have already been TAXED...so why should richie rich have to pay taxes on that money a THIRD time?

How come unproductive scions of wealthy families get to inherit millions tax free while the rest of us pay taxes on every dime we earn?

I'll pose a different question...why are YOU entitled to the money that I give my kids when I die? Youre making it sound like you work hard for your money, and kids who inherit are stealing. And its the other way around. If I work all my life and pay 40% taxes on everything I EARN...then that money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. I should be able to give it to my kid if i want. You didnt EARN my money when I died. You didnt earn 1 red cent of it. So why should you benefit from it? Oh oh...i know...because its a lot of money. "You got five, I got none, give me one"...hello socialism.

Why punish the ONLY people who help the economy? Yeah thats smart...make people shove their money under a mattress instead of investing it in american companies. Better yet, they can burn it all on disposable goods like low income people do.

[Tiger Al 0]

The ONLY people who help the economy???

[BamaGrad03 0]

Sorry for the broad stroke.

But it warms the heart to see that you agree with everything else I said.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

How come unproductive scions of wealthy families get to inherit millions tax free while the rest of us pay taxes on every dime we earn?

I'll pose a different question...why are YOU entitled to the money that I give my kids when I die? Youre making it sound like you work hard for your money, and kids who inherit are stealing. And its the other way around. If I work all my life and pay 40% taxes on everything I EARN...then that money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. I should be able to give it to my kid if i want. You didnt EARN my money when I died. You didnt earn 1 red cent of it. So why should you benefit from it? Oh oh...i know...because its a lot of money. "You got five, I got none, give me one"...hello socialism.

Why punish the ONLY people who help the economy? Yeah thats smart...make people shove their money under a mattress instead of investing it in american companies. Better yet, they can burn it all on disposable goods like low income people do.

162835[/snapback]

Spoil your future trust fund babies rotten if you want to, but for someone who repeatedly speaks so authoritatively on the subject of taxes, you need to learn more about how they work:

Myth 7:  The estate tax constitutes "double taxation" because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.

Reality:  Large estates have substantial amounts of "unrealized" capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold.  Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies.  These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value, especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax. 

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax.  That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.