how fast are the rich gettin' richer in America? REAL FAST.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

CLASS WAR!

Report Says That the Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.

The budget office report takes into account a broader definition of income than tax returns that is known as comprehensive income. It includes untaxed Social Security benefits, welfare, food stamps and part of the value of Medicare benefits, giving a fuller picture of incomes at the bottom than tax data.

Much of the increase at the top reflected the rebound of the stock market after its sharp drop in 2000, economists from across the political spectrum said. About half of the income going to the top 1 percent comes from investments and business.

In addition, Congress in 2003 cut taxes on long-term capital gains and most dividends, which advocates said would encourage people to turn untaxed wealth into taxable income. Some economists have said that the increase in incomes at the top is illusory and is in good part simply converting untaxed assets into taxed income to take advantage of reduced tax rates.

The Congressional Budget Office report made no attempt to explain the increases in income in its annual report on effective federal tax rates paid by people at different income levels.

Asked how much of the increase at the top was from the tax cuts rather than market gains, Peter R. Orszag, the budget office director, said, “I can’t give you an answer to that because we just don’t know.”

Chris Frenze, Republican staff director for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, said the increase in top incomes is much more modest if viewed over longer time periods. Since 2000, he said, the average income of the top 1 percent has risen $97,900, or 6.7 percent, the same percentage increase this group had from 1992 to 1997.

Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington who characterizes the Bush administration’s policies as YOYO economics, based on You (Are) On Your Own, said the differences in income growth explained why so many Americans have told pollsters that they are feeling squeezed.

“A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”

At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.

On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.

The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, but only slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes because of the tax rate cuts. The top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, up from 22.9 percent in 2003, while the share paid by the middle fifth of taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 10 percent in 2003.

The share of their income that the top 1 percent paid in all federal taxes and in income taxes fell. The total tax rate dropped 1.8 percentage points, to 31.2 percent, from 2003 to 2005 while their average income tax rate declined one percentage point, to 19.4 percent, largely because of the cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

let me know when the peasants grow a pair and revolt

El Tomboto, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:39 (eighteen years ago)

mount up!

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:40 (eighteen years ago)

Heard on NPR today that effective 1/08 your IRA/401k can only invest a fraction of the amount into t-bills and bonds as you can now. Presumable to push your money into equities and funds and the vermin that broker them.

wanko ergo sum, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:42 (eighteen years ago)

I will follow you anywhere.

xpost

brownie, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:43 (eighteen years ago)

"let me know when the peasants grow a pair and revolt"

if they knew how to find their way to the end of the couch, i might be worried.

scott seward, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:43 (eighteen years ago)

When the peasants can't afford cable anymore then we'll see revolt.

Euler, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:52 (eighteen years ago)

The
masses
respond
!!!

Z S, Saturday, 15 December 2007 22:58 (eighteen years ago)

Anyone know what it takes these days to be in, say, the top 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% of annual incomes? I didn't see it in the article. Numbers like that would put the story into a more immediately-understandable context.

Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:09 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html

El Tomboto, Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:21 (eighteen years ago)

$200,000 a year puts a household in the top 2% according to that thing.
$100,000 is near the bottom of the top 10%

El Tomboto, Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:25 (eighteen years ago)

That individual income, yeah?

Kerm, Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

Like me, for example: I've moved from a four-figure to a five-figure income in just six years!

Abbott, Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:51 (eighteen years ago)

$11,000 a year means my dog only has to eat moldy corn tortillas stolen from the Nueva Casitas dumpster only 1/3 of the time instead of 1/2! He's rolling in the money, too, and the fallen tree leaves he's coated in his own piss!

Abbott, Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:53 (eighteen years ago)

Wow. Well, if a 200k/year household gets you into the top 2%, then the difference between being in the top 2% and being in the very highest levels -- say, the top 0.3% -- must be astonishing.

Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 15 December 2007 23:59 (eighteen years ago)

now, if a democratic presidential candidate (other than john edwards) would actually take this issue SERIOUSLY ... are you listening, mr. obama?!?

Eisbaer, Sunday, 16 December 2007 00:01 (eighteen years ago)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/Itzlzha/VoteFromRooftops.jpg

milo z, Sunday, 16 December 2007 00:43 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/statusainthood/archives/images/50%20Cent%20G-Unit!.jpg

Eisbaer, Sunday, 16 December 2007 00:52 (eighteen years ago)

edwards' emphasis on this issue is the main reason he's light-years ahead of the other dem contenders in my book.

J.D., Sunday, 16 December 2007 03:30 (eighteen years ago)

http://johnnyr.com/images/kkk2007-11-12.gif

pc user, Sunday, 16 December 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

I really don't know what in the fuck the executive branch is authorized to do about this, but hey, meddle in whatever, go right ahead, can't be worse than the last guy.

I could give a shit less that the top one half of one percent keep making leaps and bounds more money all the time. It would just be nice if they would be honest about inflation, instead of twisting the report figures so that "middle class" (e.g. the bottom 98% of households) incomes don't appear to be as stagnant (or, honestly, dropping) - that shit is pathetic.

And yeah 100% tax on inheritance.

El Tomboto, Sunday, 16 December 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

Okay having done that class exercise, I have realized it is actually in my best interests to become a Republican. Sorry guys. ;_;

HI DERE, Sunday, 16 December 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

This story was buried in Saturday biz section, BTW

Dr Morbius, Monday, 17 December 2007 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

the real story isn't the top 1% (the bottom threshold of which isn't actually all that ridiculous), it's the top 1% of that top 1% which has made out like absolute bandits

Tracer Hand, Monday, 17 December 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

That individual income, yeah?

Household.

rogermexico., Monday, 17 December 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

mount up!

-- Dr Morbius, Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:40 PM

when was the last time you regulated?

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 17 December 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno what Dad makes but Mom pulls down about 100 grand these days. Never thought of myself as being upper class growing up. Seems like it should be nicer. I feel cheated.

DustinR, Monday, 17 December 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

What, like ermine toilet paper and diamond butt plugs?

100% tax on inheritence is not the answer. This would SEVERELY discourage saving and long-term investment.

B.L.A.M., Monday, 17 December 2007 22:14 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.