The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Mother Jones
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5580		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Micheal [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Mother Jones
Quoting the source off the top so you know where it came from. The sources for the article are at the bottom. I'd suggest going to the link, it looks a lot more cohesive there.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... hart-graph

Plutocracy Now

It's the Inequality, Stupid

Image

Illustrations by Jason Schneider

Eleven charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.

— By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot

How Rich Are the Superrich?
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
Image

Average Income by Family, distributed by income group.

The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth

Image

Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.


Winners Take All
The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.

Image

Aevrage Household income before taxes.

Out of Balance

Image

A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

Average Income by Family, distributed by income group.

Capitol Gain

Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.

Image

median net worth of american families, median net worth for mebers of congress, your odds of being a millionaire, member of congress's odds of being a millionaire
member max. est. net worth
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $285.1 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) $231.2 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $108.1 million
combined net worth: $2.8 billion

10 Richest Members of Congress 100% Voted to extend the cuts

Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.

Who's Winning?
For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.

Image

Gains and Losses in 2007-2009, Average CEO Pay vs. Average Worker Pay

A millionaire's tax rate, now and then. Share of Federal Tax revenue

Image

YOUR LOSS,THEIR GAIN
How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?

Image

Sources

Income distribution: Emmanuel Saez (Excel)

Net worth: Edward Wolff (PDF)

Household income/income share: Congressional Budget Office

Real vs. desired distribution of wealth: Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely (PDF)

Net worth of Americans vs. Congress: Federal Reserve (average); Center for Responsive Politics (Congress)

Your chances of being a millionaire: Calculation based on data from Wolff (PDF); US Census (household and population data)

Member of Congress' chances: Center for Responsive Politics

Wealthiest members of Congress: Center for Responsive Politics

Tax cut votes: New York Times (Senate; House)

Wall street profits, 2007-2009: New York State Comptroller (PDF)

Unemployment rate, 2007-2009: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Home equity, 2007-2009: Federal Reserve, Flow of Funds data, 1995-2004 and 2005-2009 (PDFs)

CEO vs. worker pay: Economic Policy Institute

Historic tax rates: Calculations based on data from The Tax Foundation

Federal tax revenue: Joint Committee on Taxation (PDF)

Read also: Kevin Drum on the decline of Big Labor, the rise of Big Business, and why the Obama era fizzled so soon.

More Mother Jones charty goodness: How the rich get richer; how the poor get poorer; who owns Congress?

Dave Gilson is a senior editor at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. Get Dave Gilson's RSS feed.
Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
In before someone claims that the reason the rich are killing everyone is because our (extremely progressive) tax rates are too high.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Our taxes are not progressive.
Author:  NephyrS [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
I did think it was kinda funny that they put the highest bracket tax rate in without the comparison that the lower ~47% are paying 0% in taxes (or even getting a credit).
Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Khross wrote:
Our taxes are not progressive.


...I'm not even sure how to respond to that, considering I've seen you agree that the bottom half of the population does not pay taxes.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Other than the information about the members of Congress I don't see the point.

Other people have more than me, other people have less - why can't I just mind my own damn business?
Author:  Micheal [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Define progressive, I think you two are talking different meanings.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Xequecal wrote:
Khross wrote:
Our taxes are not progressive.


...I'm not even sure how to respond to that, considering I've seen you agree that the bottom half of the population does not pay taxes.
Right. That means they aren't progressive. It's quite simple. 1 part of the population pays taxes. 1 part does not. The part that does is levied with punitive taxation until extreme levels of earning.
Author:  Raltar [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Other people have more than me, other people have less - why can't I just mind my own damn business?


Pretty much this.
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Other than the information about the members of Congress I don't see the point.

Other people have more than me, other people have less - why can't I just mind my own damn business?


If your personal wealth doesn't grow at the same rate as the economy, eventually you will have nothing.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Look at the first line graph, Xeq. Now, note in the lower left where it says "2007 dollars." That graph, where even the bottom lines are steadily creeping up, is adjusted for inflation.

Allegedly, inflation covers cost of living. Factor in lifestyle, and that graph is claiming that our personal wealth is growing faster than the economy, and so eventually we'll have things we never dreamed of.
Author:  Hannibal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wow pretty graphs filled with multicolored ignorance!
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Given the fact that the vast majority of Americans, even poor Americans, live in conditions that are vastly superior to those that far greater portions of the world's population live in, and incomparably superior to those that anyone lived in for most of recorded history, I see little reason to complain about wealth distribution in this country. I'm not a whole lot higher than that $31,000 average income for the bottom 90% they're complaining about and yet it occurs to me that I'm richer than almost anyone who ever lived.

It's like complaining you're only getting one slice of pizza when your slice is the size of a coffee table.
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Look at the first line graph, Xeq. Now, note in the lower left where it says "2007 dollars." That graph, where even the bottom lines are steadily creeping up, is adjusted for inflation.

Allegedly, inflation covers cost of living. Factor in lifestyle, and that graph is claiming that our personal wealth is growing faster than the economy, and so eventually we'll have things we never dreamed of.


Of course basic logic dictates that this is impossible, everyone's wealth can't grow faster than the economy. You and I both know that the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. The solution to this problem is not to shift the tax burden downward.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wait. Do I know that? I'm not sure. You tell me. If that graph isn't what demonstrates that the poor are getting poorer, show me what does.
Author:  Khross [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Xequecal wrote:
Of course basic logic dictates that this is impossible, everyone's wealth can't grow faster than the economy. You and I both know that the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. The solution to this problem is not to shift the tax burden downward.
Then why aren't you outraged by the Obama Administration's Tax Policies? More to the point, how much more of my money do you think you're entitled to because you have the fiscal skills of a moldy turnip?
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
That is not the point. The point is that the rich are kicking everyone's asses despite high levels of "punitive" taxation, and people propose that we solve this "problem" by shifting the tax burden downwards. How can this "problem" possibly be solved by increasing the tax burden on those who are already losing and decreasing it on those who are already winning? It seems to me that your argument is that it doesn't matter that the rich are soundly kicking everyone's asses already, the "right" thing to do is to cut the taxes on the rich and let them have even more of the pie.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Xequecal wrote:
That is not the point. The point is that the rich are kicking everyone's asses despite high levels of "punitive" taxation, and people propose that we solve this "problem" by shifting the tax burden downwards. How can this "problem" possibly be solved by increasing the tax burden on those who are already losing and decreasing it on those who are already winning? It seems to me that your argument is that it doesn't matter that the rich are soundly kicking everyone's asses already, the "right" thing to do is to cut the taxes on the rich and let them have even more of the pie.

How did they get this pie? Did it magically fall into their lap? Haven't we had this discussion before.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ror they get it by being EVIL!!!!! Didn't you know that?
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
How did they get this pie? Did it magically fall into their lap? Haven't we had this discussion before.


Elmarnieh wrote:
Ror they get it by being EVIL!!!!! Didn't you know that?


You go ahead and keep demonizing me. I've said several times before that my ideal form of taxation is a flat income tax with no exceptions/deductions. It's 100% fair but interestingly enough conservatives tend to hate the idea because it would actually result in the "rich" paying more taxes than they do now
Author:  Rorinthas [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm sorry, I missed that. I'm all about the flat tax. At least that's something we can agree on. I don't see how it means the rich pay more taxes unless you're thinking about putting some kind of audacious percentage on everyone.
Author:  Taskiss [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mother Jones
Xequecal wrote:
The point is that the rich are kicking everyone's asses despite high levels of "punitive" taxation

Competition X. People that have been successful are being even more successful because there's less competition, and people that haven't quite figured out the puzzle are suffering from their ignorance.

Compassionate people want to put their thumb on the scale and even things out for those who haven't been able to do so for themselves, but the problem with that is you have to keep your thumb on the scale forever. Some folks just never get it, some do. I'm of the opinion that the rewards should go to those that contribute the most instead of tapping them to reward mediocrity.
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
I'm sorry, I missed that. I'm all about the flat tax. At least that's something we can agree on. I don't see how it means the rich pay more taxes unless you're thinking about putting some kind of audacious percentage on everyone.


The super-wealthy and politically connected set up all kinds of loopholes, shelters, deductions, etc. for themselves so they don't actually pay the top marginal 35% tax rate. Remember Warren Buffett's famous quote about how he pays less of his income percentage to taxes than his secretary does.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well screw them then. I don't care. I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes (though based on most flat tax feasibility statements few people would) in order to do away with the weaponization of the tax code
Author:  Khross [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Xequecal wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
How did they get this pie? Did it magically fall into their lap? Haven't we had this discussion before.


Elmarnieh wrote:
Ror they get it by being EVIL!!!!! Didn't you know that?


You go ahead and keep demonizing me. I've said several times before that my ideal form of taxation is a flat income tax with no exceptions/deductions. It's 100% fair but interestingly enough conservatives tend to hate the idea because it would actually result in the "rich" paying more taxes than they do now
No it wouldn't. I paid out 62% this year. So, kindly, go shut the **** up. Yes, that's right, Uncle Sam or some other government gets 62 cents of every dollar I make.

36% in income tax. 5.9% in FICA. 4.8% in Medicare. 5.2% in Social Security to Uncle Sam alone. So, please, stop talking about **** you don't understand.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/