George II's record actually reeks, these numbers only slightly reflect the bias, the top 0.1% are not addressed and the actual bias in these numbers is striking. The problem is that data on this piece is sketchy at best outside a narrow range of time. The NYT report concerning 2005 is only a snapshot:
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
***
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
Moving from there to numbers concerning the more ordinary taxpayers and covering current Bush years we'll use 2000-2006 the last year available. I'll use the US Census method of 20% of income tables and bottom of top 5% in constant '06 dollars. So per Census:
(Bottom) '06/ 20,035 '00/ 20,981 change/ -946 or -4.5%
(2nd) '06/ 37,774 '00/ 38,637 change/ -863 or -2.2%
(3rd) '06/ 60,000 '00/61,086 change/ -1086 or -1.7%
(4th) '06/ 97,032 '00/95,773 change/ +1259 or +1.3%
(-5%) '06/ 174,012 '00/170,026 change/ +3986 or +2.3%
(1%) '04-'05 note that is a single year change/ +14% versus six years above
George II wants to tout his prosperity, by percentages of income 60% of American taxpayers have lost ground under BushCo. His definition of prosperity leave something lacking and he's telling the CPAC that we need more of it and apparently more or the lack.
Enter Hillary and Bill, she's taken experience credentials from Bill and evidently that experience foreshadows her policies and their outcomes:
(Bottom) '00/20,981 '92/17,741 change/ +3240 or +18.3%
(2nd) '00/37,774 '92/33,989 change/ + 3785 or +11.1%
(3rd) '00/60,000 '92/53,363 change/ +6637 or +12.4%
(4th) '00/95,773 '92/81,673 change/ +14,100 or +17.3%
(-5%) '00/170,026 '92/139,419 change/ +30,607 or +22%
(avg 1%) '00/313,469 '92/181,904 change/ + 131,565 or +73.3% Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
I will note again that once the bottom of the top 5% is reached the different taxable income rules and reporting rules mask the size of the gains, capital gains are not paid until realized, meaning paper income is not measured until "cashed in." Please also note that if you are trying to measure Clinton growth versus BushCo growth that the Clinton years measure 8 years of growth versus 6 years for BushCo. The point of the exercise is internal growth and where it occurred and while measuring growth the growth is Adjusted Gross from tax tables which have changed over time meaning that if a larger portion of income is measured against taxes "growth" is shown where reality is something different.
Now if you'd like a snapshot of the bottom of the top 5% here is 1967 to 1992, a quarter century:
(1967) 98,012 (1992) 139,419 change +41,407 or +42.2%,
(1967) 98,012 (1975) 107,102 change +9,090 or +9.3% which is an 8 year span.
What you need to understand about gains and prosperity that has been claimed by either Clinton or BushCo is that it has had much more to do with the wealthy than anyone else. The bottom threshold of the top 5% is obviously well-t0-do but it does not equate to wealth, once 1% figures are reached one does begin to see actual wealth although it is the top 0.1% that controls the wealth of the country in a meaningful way. It should be obvious to anyone with a smattering of political awareness that Republican focus is on that group, what is not so obvious due to rhetorical masking and Party perceptions is that under some Democratic administrations the emphasis is also on the wealthy. Dare I mention the Clinton name?
6 comments:
The economic woes did not take place until after the nation got a Democrat controlled Congress.
Also, do some basic reading on how government operates. Although the President can submit a budget only Congress can spend money or allocate money to be spent.
So if you have issues with anything regarding money you'd better address them to the Democrat Congress.
Also, you can blame illegal aliens for tipping the economic balance. Somehow I'd bet you're in favor of illegals, right?
Since the days of Mollie Orshansky the definition of poverty has a taint of deceit. A family of 2 this day, by ss standards and HHS standard is $13,690.00. If this is a true believable status of bottom line poverty than you are the most callous DUM shit in the universe.
SS figure recipients should receive a 2.3% increase for inflation...more government make-believe. Over 80% on social security have only that money to subside on and they are not doing very well. But the 1% that controls all the wealth of Amerika are doing quite well. And they bitch because of entitlement programs.
In a revolution isn't the rich that are targets?
Madame DeFarge keep knitting.
I came across this today from one of my heroes David Sirota, who can see the dark side of dimmos as well as the repugs.
As politics are Obama does not dare to tell of class differences less the corporate structure will annihilate him with blitzkrieg advertising emphasizing race. So by limiting his husking's to mundane entities he receives money from corporate and no impediments. On the other hand big labor supports Hillary, who championed the downfall of labor with her husband Bubba.
From David's latest column: "Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds.
Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge fund managers. But Clinton, business's favorite, is being endorsed by the United Farm Workers — the union that Chavez created.
Obama, the candidate from Chicago's impoverished South Side, is finding support on Connecticut's gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing Big Money, is finding support from those with relatively little money."
Like Mexico, the courts and politicians always side with the wealth.
Gee dog, there's an entire tag section below to find out exactly what you can credit/blame me with. Must be Republican lazy attackt mode if you don't actually know.
I gave you accurate links, no need to guess about economic problems. You guess wrong, mostly.
An update on Obama's new bill being championed by Biden: "Obama Pushes Bill That Would Mandate Global Tax
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child"
If this doesn't scare you and you want " One World Order" You're taking way too much Prozac
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5595
Post a Comment