The top 1/100 of 1% averages 976 TIMES more income than the other 90% combined—HIGHER than 1928 before the Great Depression.
The top 10% owned 71.5% of wealth in 2007. The lowest 50% owned 2.5% of US wealth.
The top 1% owned almost 51% of US Stocks, bonds and mutual funds, but the bottom 50% owned only ½ of 1%.
CEOs’ pay was UP 298.2% in 2006 while minimum wage FELL by 9.3%. (Both adjusted for inflation.)
Income tax rates for the top group were in the 90% range since Eisenhower, until Johnson lowered them into the 70 percentiles, where they remained until 1982.
In the 1980s, the top marginal tax rate DROPPED from 70% to 38.5%. Congress is unwilling to let the rate revert to 2001 rate of 39.6%.
With the Bush Tax Cuts, 67% of the funds went to the top 20% income bracket.
After-tax income of the top 1% of income earners went up 139%.
Those from the middle class had increases of only 17%.
Wal-Mart’s CEO earns more in one hour than his employees earn in a year.
An average S&P 500’s CEO makes 319 times MORE than the average American worker. In the 1970’s that ratio was 30 to 1.
US corporations hit record high profits of $1,660,000,000,000 at the end of October 2010.
For 30+ years, US economic policies helped the rich get richer, while reducing their tax burden.
If income inequality continues at its current pace, the U.S. Dept. of Labor says the U.S. economy will look like Mexico’s by 2043.
When will Congress stand up for the middle class again?
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
THE RICH ARE NOT THE ENEMY
Warren Buffett is rich; so is Bill Gates. Each has worked hard, accomplished a lot, and profited well. Kudos to them!
Both are extremely generous, too, and have asked other fellow billionaires to do as they have both done—pledge that a minimum of 50% of their wealth go to philanthropy. Mr. Buffett, additionally, the third richest man in the world, has stated that "I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." There are at least 40 who have agreed to their request, including one Oklahoman—George B. Kaiser.
Even better, another group of millionaires has sent a letter to President Obama that states, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.”
That letter was signed by forty-five individuals or families.
The problem is NOT the rich themselves. Instead, the real problem is that there are too many politicians who cater to the rich who aren’t participating in the ideas listed above, the ones who are the greedy wealthy, the ones who will always want more, and the ones who don’t care about those who aren’t wealthy.
The problem is that 98% of Americans are NOT rich and we’re not being represented well by some legislators. 77.4% of us made less than $74,999, according to the 2000 census. One would think a larger number of our Congressional delegation would think about legislating with us in mind.
More than ever before in our lifetimes, our families and friends are desperate—unsuccessfully seeking jobs, losing their homes, facing possible bankruptcy, unsure where their next meal will come from, unable to provide necessities for their children, are inadequately insured, unskilled, under-educated, and lack adequate savings.
Shared sacrifices? These are the ones who have worked for and helped the ultra-rich make their fortunes while losing their jobs when companies closed and the work was sent overseas, sent their children, spouses, and parents to fight our wars, purchased the goods that make our economy work, had no net increase in income for ten years, endured higher and higher health care costs, rising college tuition for their children, and contributed higher percentages of tax receipts than large corporations.
The wealthy have done well, very well. The rest of us, not so much. The idea of shared sacrifice is great. The middle class and low income families have sacrificed immensely in the past decade. The richest of the rich have not suffered. In fact, they have done extremely well, so well that between 2002 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90% of households.
It’s time our legislators said, “Enough sacrificing for the poor and the middle class. They have suffered sufficiently already!”
There are plenty of ways to battle budget deficits without making things worse for the majority of us.
Both are extremely generous, too, and have asked other fellow billionaires to do as they have both done—pledge that a minimum of 50% of their wealth go to philanthropy. Mr. Buffett, additionally, the third richest man in the world, has stated that "I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." There are at least 40 who have agreed to their request, including one Oklahoman—George B. Kaiser.
Even better, another group of millionaires has sent a letter to President Obama that states, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.”
That letter was signed by forty-five individuals or families.
The problem is NOT the rich themselves. Instead, the real problem is that there are too many politicians who cater to the rich who aren’t participating in the ideas listed above, the ones who are the greedy wealthy, the ones who will always want more, and the ones who don’t care about those who aren’t wealthy.
The problem is that 98% of Americans are NOT rich and we’re not being represented well by some legislators. 77.4% of us made less than $74,999, according to the 2000 census. One would think a larger number of our Congressional delegation would think about legislating with us in mind.
More than ever before in our lifetimes, our families and friends are desperate—unsuccessfully seeking jobs, losing their homes, facing possible bankruptcy, unsure where their next meal will come from, unable to provide necessities for their children, are inadequately insured, unskilled, under-educated, and lack adequate savings.
Shared sacrifices? These are the ones who have worked for and helped the ultra-rich make their fortunes while losing their jobs when companies closed and the work was sent overseas, sent their children, spouses, and parents to fight our wars, purchased the goods that make our economy work, had no net increase in income for ten years, endured higher and higher health care costs, rising college tuition for their children, and contributed higher percentages of tax receipts than large corporations.
The wealthy have done well, very well. The rest of us, not so much. The idea of shared sacrifice is great. The middle class and low income families have sacrificed immensely in the past decade. The richest of the rich have not suffered. In fact, they have done extremely well, so well that between 2002 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90% of households.
It’s time our legislators said, “Enough sacrificing for the poor and the middle class. They have suffered sufficiently already!”
There are plenty of ways to battle budget deficits without making things worse for the majority of us.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
TRICKLE-UP ECONOMICS?
Corporations and the very wealthy have played “Robin Hood in Reverse” for years, and our collective silence encourages it to continue. We can no longer afford to naively sit back and accept it. We must communicate our discontent to our elected officials. But, we have to do it civilly and armed with incontrovertible facts. If we don’t know the facts, we must learn them.
Look at Some Taxation Facts:
Almost everyone has an opinion about the possible extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. What most people don’t understand is that the rich get the benefits of middle class tax cuts, even if theirs expire. In fact, “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit the middle class. Because of a quirk in the system, a family making more than $1 million will receive more than five times the tax cut benefit of a family making $50,000 to $75,000. And, that’s the savings they would receive if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended!
Of course, if the Bush Tax Cuts (BTCs) were extended to all income levels, including the highest ones, the wealthiest Americans would save even more.
They neglect to mention that, with the Bush Tax Cuts, the rich also received:
• reduced inheritance taxes until they got to zero for 2010, regardless of how much the inheritance was.
This tax, if the BTCs were extended, would return for those who inherit $1 M or more and be taxed at 55%. In 2010, this tax had no limitation and the tax rate was zero—which is where many of the richest want it to stay! This reduction also benefited the extremely wealthy much more than anyone else.
• reduced AMT (Adjusted Minimum Tax).
This tax was designed so that the rich pay a certain “minimum” tax since many could escape tax liability through exemptions and deductions. That amount was lowered with the Bush Tax Cuts also—another reduction that favors the richest few.
• a reduction for capital gains taxes (tax on profits from selling stocks).
Capital gains taxes are ones that are paid on profits from selling stocks, etc. Who owns most of the U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds?
The top 1% of Americans owned almost 51% of U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds in 2007.
The top 10% of Americans owned 90.3% of them.
That left only 9.7% for bottom 90% of us!
So, who benefited from this one? Yep—additional tax breaks that primarily benefit only the very, very wealthy.
From 1940 to 2001, income tax receipts dropped from 60% to 15% for corporations.
In the same time period, individual income tax receipts rose from 40% to 85%.
Ours soared, while corporations had theirs lowered—drastically.
Can you say, “trickle-up economics?”
Look at Some Taxation Facts:
Almost everyone has an opinion about the possible extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. What most people don’t understand is that the rich get the benefits of middle class tax cuts, even if theirs expire. In fact, “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit the middle class. Because of a quirk in the system, a family making more than $1 million will receive more than five times the tax cut benefit of a family making $50,000 to $75,000. And, that’s the savings they would receive if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended!
Of course, if the Bush Tax Cuts (BTCs) were extended to all income levels, including the highest ones, the wealthiest Americans would save even more.
They neglect to mention that, with the Bush Tax Cuts, the rich also received:
• reduced inheritance taxes until they got to zero for 2010, regardless of how much the inheritance was.
This tax, if the BTCs were extended, would return for those who inherit $1 M or more and be taxed at 55%. In 2010, this tax had no limitation and the tax rate was zero—which is where many of the richest want it to stay! This reduction also benefited the extremely wealthy much more than anyone else.
• reduced AMT (Adjusted Minimum Tax).
This tax was designed so that the rich pay a certain “minimum” tax since many could escape tax liability through exemptions and deductions. That amount was lowered with the Bush Tax Cuts also—another reduction that favors the richest few.
• a reduction for capital gains taxes (tax on profits from selling stocks).
Capital gains taxes are ones that are paid on profits from selling stocks, etc. Who owns most of the U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds?
The top 1% of Americans owned almost 51% of U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds in 2007.
The top 10% of Americans owned 90.3% of them.
That left only 9.7% for bottom 90% of us!
So, who benefited from this one? Yep—additional tax breaks that primarily benefit only the very, very wealthy.
From 1940 to 2001, income tax receipts dropped from 60% to 15% for corporations.
In the same time period, individual income tax receipts rose from 40% to 85%.
Ours soared, while corporations had theirs lowered—drastically.
Can you say, “trickle-up economics?”
Friday, December 3, 2010
UNNECESSARY STALEMATE
Now is not the time to play games in Congress! The START Treaty can, and should be, passed immediately. Both parties agree that it's needed, but Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has pledged to keep it from passing and is in a position to single-handedly stop it.
Kyl's first argument was that the administration didn't include additional funds for nuclear weapons modernization as part of the overall package. When the White House agreed and made his recommended changes, his argument shifted and his new excuse is a direct result of his own delays--he says there's not enough time to pass it before the end of the year. (The last treat was passed by both houses in less than five days.)
Obama went to great lengths to win the support of the nmilitary, the State Department and a broad range of Republicans and Democrats. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice supports the treaty. So do other prominent Republicans including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly backs it. The chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, has said, "I believe--and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes--that this treaty is essential to our future security."
Unchecked nuclear weaponry in unstable threatens American lives. That's the cost of this political game. Those stakes are too high to play with and America should not tolerate it!
Kyl's first argument was that the administration didn't include additional funds for nuclear weapons modernization as part of the overall package. When the White House agreed and made his recommended changes, his argument shifted and his new excuse is a direct result of his own delays--he says there's not enough time to pass it before the end of the year. (The last treat was passed by both houses in less than five days.)
Obama went to great lengths to win the support of the nmilitary, the State Department and a broad range of Republicans and Democrats. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice supports the treaty. So do other prominent Republicans including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly backs it. The chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, has said, "I believe--and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes--that this treaty is essential to our future security."
Unchecked nuclear weaponry in unstable threatens American lives. That's the cost of this political game. Those stakes are too high to play with and America should not tolerate it!
SHAME ON THE SENATE
Approximately 2 million people who are “long term” unemployed will lose unemployment benefits tomorrow.
Two million people—approximately the entire population of Kansas City—will no longer get unemployment compensation while they look for jobs and struggle to make ends meet. Through no fault of their own, their children may not only have no presents this Christmas; there may be no home or food for them.
Fact: there is only one job available for every 5 to 6 unemployed in America. Many who are currently unemployed have lost jobs from the construction and manufacturing sectors. Skills needed for those industries are not transferrable to areas in which there are jobs, namely health care and education.
Not only are we not offering a safety net for the most vulnerable citizens and their families, we are also not giving them the opportunity to upgrade their skills. Without upgraded skills, many will never be able to improve their job opportunities.
In anticipation of opposing opinions, one needs to remember that those who qualify for unemployment benefits are people who have worked previously (the only way to qualify for unemployment insurance) and want to work again. Try living on and feeding, housing, and clothing a family on an average unemployment check of $293 per week—a grand total of $7592 for half a year before you complain.
Many voting against extension are also those who are also hell bent on lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Check it out. Both Oklahoma’s Senators voted against extension of this vital lifeline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)