An American Anti-Magnificat
Source: Progressive Christians Uniting
The Working Poor: The IRS says that the bottom fifth of U.S. taxpayers–some 26 million–made under $11,000 in 2004 and had an average income of $5,743–up 2.4 percent from 2000. A “taxpayer” can be a single individual or a couple with children, meaning that the poorest 60 million Americans–everyone covered by these 25 million tax returns–enjoyed an average income of less than $7 per day per person. (The official poverty line in 2004 was $27 for a single adult below retirement age.)
The Very Wealthy: Incomes at the very top–some 300,000 households–also slipped a bit between 2000 and 2004, but this group still reported significantly more income than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004. The elite group increased its share of national income substantially over the period from 1979–the oldest year studied by the IRS. (In 1979 the top households received “only” about a third of the income of the big group at the bottom.)
A Disturbing Pattern: We often hear consoling numbers about overall income growth in the U.S., but this aggregate growth masks a horrendously uneven distribution. For example…
*the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers made 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they made ini 1979: that is, over a period of 25 years their real income actually fell
*the next best off group–those between the 60th and 80th rungs on the ladder–moved upward over the period, but only by two cents, earning $1.02 in 2004 for every dollar they had earned in 1979
*only those in the top 5 percent had significant gains: those between the 95 and 99th rungs on the ladder saw their income rise by 53 percent over the period
*a full third of the aggregate growth in national income went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers–and more than half of that to the top tenth of 1 percent. Members of this super-elite group were making $3.48 in 2004 for every dollar they made in 2000. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts for the superrich meant that for each inflation-adjusted dollar they had after taxes in 1979, their 2004 equivalent was $3.94.
Mind you, this changes reflect income distribution in the United States, not wealth distribution, which is even more grotesquely unequal.
8 comments:
Actually, economically speaking, everything will workout. However, in the long run we're all dead -- the casue of death will most likely be from flooding caused be global warming.
Cato's been reading Steve Milloy again. And I thought Cato had a brain. Someone stop him before gives us a "scientific" lecture on negative feedboack loops and quotes a 200 B.C. Greek scientist.
Cato:
Rush Limbaugh compares the ice cap melting to a drink in glass mixed with ice and, say, Kool-Aid. Rush points out that, if you let the ice melt, that glass doesn't overflow. So wants the big worry?
CATO:
I too thought you had a brain. At least
a big enough one to not have to sift your info through Steve Miloy's Climatic Coffee Filter.
Tell me you understand those assinine equations in the Miloy challenge? Better yet tell me they mean something.
Both Milloy and the Algorites are propaganda machines. But at least the algorites point out that their studies are peer reviewed. Steve Milloy is without peer.
Also, if Miloy ever found evidence arthropogenic effects on global warming, Exxon would soak up his funding faster that a Texas Oil well.
I think a lot of people just don't want to move to Florida when they retire. They may not have to.
With Global warming the South will rise again.
Geez Cato, take a pill and calm down. All that pent up pressure causing steam to come out of your ears and methane to come out of your ass will just lead to more anthropogenic global warming. I think you need to use more exclamation points to get your point across. Let me try that (!!!!!!!!!). Hey that works.
You're so smart, Cato. Read me another bedtime story about macroscopic ecosystem regulation. You must be as good a scientist as Steve Milloy.
Our grandkids will look back on your writings and thank you for your insight.
CATO:
Just when I think you're catching on to the light hearted spirit around here(or to you perhaps you think it dim witted) you go and get all serious.
If you missed my other Holiday message of good cheer, I'll repeat it here.
Happy Holidays.
I don't suppose anybody noticed the article used meaningless statistics comparisons to make its point. It was so obvious that the numbers were rigged that the article is worthles.
Cato stopped using exclamation points and switched to italics to start making his points. I'd do that too, except I'm such a COMPLETE IDIOT (his words, not mine), that I can't figure out how to do italics on this dang blog.
I'M DONE HERE!!
(Actually, I'm not done here. I'll be back here a lot. I just wanted to say that - just like Cato does when he wants to bloggily stomp off with a huff. What a weenie.)
Post a Comment