Are the Rich Really Getting Richer?

[stebo0728]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/264296

Ok so we've had this rhetoric floating around America, even here in this forum, that the rich just keep on getting richer. Is this true? Have a peek at the above article, and lets discuss. Could it be that the "evil rich" maybe arent quite as "evil" as some would think?

[szh]

Good reading here in this US Dept of Treasure report: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... revise.pdf on the actual income mobility of people over 15 years (the period from 1996 to 2005).

The rest of this post here is from the Summary page (I have listed ALL the key findings from that page - with only my bolded highlighting here) so that there is no accusation of selective commenting/reading!

The key findings of this study include:

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

The degree of mobility in the overall population and movement out of the bottom quintile in this study are similar to the findings of prior research on income mobility.[/color]

Z

[IBCoupe]

About to read the article, but I'd like to start by saying: benefitting from a wealth gap doesn't make you evil, so let's just take that strawman down.

[IBCoupe]

So, let me sum up those 5 points in another way.

From 1996 to 2005...
More than half of the country got richer or poorer.
Half of the people in the bottom 20% managed to claw their way up to at least the bottom 40%.
Three quarters of the top 0.01% were surpassed by people coming up from somewhere below (somewhere under the bottom 99.99%).
People didn't rise or fall any more frequently than they used to.
Everybody's doing better in 2005 than everybody's 1996 economic counterpart (though you might not be the same person).

When you cut through the spin, this isn't terribly convincing.

[stebo0728]

About to read the article, but I'd like to start by saying: benefitting from a wealth gap doesn't make you evil, so let's just take that strawman down.

Who ever said that? In fact I believe thats essentially the accusation being made against the wealthy.

[IBCoupe]

You just said it, Stebo. Just now. Did you do it on purpose?

[stebo0728]

You just said it, Stebo. Just now. Did you do it on purpose?

Did you mean to say that YOU arent making that claim? Fair enough, but you cant speak for the proggies, that rhetoric is all too common and cant be dismissed as "straw-man". If you say YOU arent making that claim, I can believe you, if you say "the claim isnt being made" then I call BS.

[heliochrome85]

i wonder if the reticence to raise taxes on the rich is in part because all of us want to believe that someday we will strike it rich? I mean, if you ask most anyone what their income is, they tend to wildly overestimate what they make. so in effect, we dont want to raise taxes on the rich because we are only one promotion from that top tier tax rate.


also, just look at ceo pay and tell me that the rich arent getting richer.


on a side note,
Gastroenterology in the area where we live, used to (1995) as a medical specialty range in incomes from 250-350k a year. the hospital this past year put up wanted ads for Gastroenterologists in the trade publications. they offered 700k plus benefits. they got no takers.


someone is getting rich in this country. its definately not those who are watching their benefits from social security, medicaid, welfare, and VA being whittled away.

[IBCoupe]

You just said it, Stebo. Just now. Did you do it on purpose?

Did you mean to say that YOU arent making that claim? Fair enough, but you cant speak for the proggies, that rhetoric is all too common and cant be dismissed as "straw-man". If you say YOU arent making that claim, I can believe you, if you say "the claim isnt being made" then I call BS.

Then quote somebody worth responding to and show that you're not constructing a strawman. Go ahead. Find me someone that matters who's saying "Rich people are evil."

I'm not going to take it as a given that people are seriously arguing it, dude, and until you show some evidence, it really just looks like you're belittling people you disagree with, without actually addressing their arguments.

Not to mention that the article doesn't seem to provide any reason why "rich people aren't evil," only that, "if rich people are evil, there are more of them than you think."

[stebo0728]

I never said that the argument is "rich people are evil". Thats too direct, the argument is "rich people keep getting richer, at the expense of the middle class, or at the the expense of the poor". The "at the expense of" angle is what introduces the "evil" aspect.

Im not trying to belittle anyone, Im just tired of the rhetoric that seeks to plunder the productive of this nation. Frederic Bastiat said, paraphrasing, "when a society engages in plunder, it will devise both a system of law, and a system of morals, that condone a society of plunder". Rhetoric such as this creates this false morality which excuses plunder as "for the greater good".

Your right, the article doesnt engage in rhetoric, it points out that the wealthy that supposedly "keep getting wealthier" in fact for the most part DONT.

[AppleBonker]

Im just tired of the rhetoric that seeks to plunder the productive of this nation

The middle and lower classes are unproductive? Roger that.

[stebo0728]

Im just tired of the rhetoric that seeks to plunder the productive of this nation

The middle and lower classes are unproductive? Roger that.

They are unproductive as to the extent of producing jobs. Thats what we're talking about right? Thats whats at the heart of the argument, is where are our jobs. Ever met a poor man handing out jobs? Perhaps some of the middle class does produce a few jobs, but I'd wager not many.

[stebo0728]

Wait were you guy trolling me? Howd we even get on to rhetoric? The point of the post is sheer data, that rich people dont really just keep getting richer, not as generally as believed. The people that get rich are richer than the people that were rich, but its not an issue of class abuse as some would suggest.

[AppleBonker]

So because the wealthiest people in the US today were likely not among the wealthiest people in the US ten years ago we should not consider raising their taxes? This is your argument?

[IBCoupe]

The data doesn't even show that they weren't among the wealthiest before. At the very most, they weren't among the most wealthy of the wealthy ten years ago. They could have been only slightly more wealthy 10 years ago, and the talking point would still be true. But whether millionaires used to be billionaires is entirely beside the point of the criticism, and the article does its damndest to avoid actually saying exactly what happened to those people, aside from "last decade's richest individuals aren't this decade's richest people."

That's what I mean about removing the spin. There's nothing convincing in that entire article.

[bigbadberry3]

Has it ever been proven that decreasing taxes leads DIRECTLY to an increase in jobs?

[szh]

Then quote somebody worth responding to and show that you're not constructing a strawman. Go ahead. Find me someone that matters who's saying "Rich people are evil."

I'm not going to take it as a given that people are seriously arguing it, dude, and until you show some evidence, it really just looks like you're belittling people you disagree with, without actually addressing their arguments.

Not to mention that the article doesn't seem to provide any reason why "rich people aren't evil," only that, "if rich people are evil, there are more of them than you think."

I suppose they are not using the word "evil". That is somewhat rhetorical, so please don't get hung up on that phrase/word.

But here is the answer to your "find me someone that matters". One person with significant influence (since he is working on tax laws!), who lambasts: "richest people are getting richer. They have not contributed one nickel to deficit reduction." : http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2011/ ... reduction/ ... Really, Mr. Sanders? Not even one nickel?

The problem is that class warfare rhetoric could have some repercussions: see http://www.theblaze.com/stories/f-the-r ... e-wealthy/ and http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... etts-arson. Yikes!

And, here is why Sanders "matters" ... he can do things like this to stall work in the US government: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... x-cut-deal and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... r-tax-cuts.

Does that meet your request?

Z

[heliochrome85]

Then quote somebody worth responding to and show that you're not constructing a strawman. Go ahead. Find me someone that matters who's saying "Rich people are evil."

I'm not going to take it as a given that people are seriously arguing it, dude, and until you show some evidence, it really just looks like you're belittling people you disagree with, without actually addressing their arguments.

Not to mention that the article doesn't seem to provide any reason why "rich people aren't evil," only that, "if rich people are evil, there are more of them than you think."

I suppose they are not using the word "evil". That is somewhat rhetorical, so please don't get hung up on that phrase/word.

But here is the answer to your "find me someone that matters". One person with significant influence (since he is working on tax laws!), who lambasts: "richest people are getting richer. They have not contributed one nickel to deficit reduction." : http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2011/ ... reduction/ ... Really, Mr. Sanders? Not even one nickel?

The problem is that class warfare rhetoric could have some repercussions: see http://www.theblaze.com/stories/f-the-r ... e-wealthy/ and http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... etts-arson. Yikes!

And, here is why Sanders "matters" ... he can do things like this to stall work in the US government: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... x-cut-deal and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... r-tax-cuts.

Does that meet your request?

Z

the blaze is glenn becks newspaper. your post are disappoint.

see i made an error and thought the blaze was pretty bad. then i clicked on your other links. JFC son. seriously. YOUR POST ARE DISAPPOINT.

[szh]

Helio, helio! You need to stop the drugs and alcohol! You are almost a doctor now and need to stay on the wagon!

Seriously, where did I post information that was not accurate? Bernie Sanders said exactly what he said. And the person who torched the house left the note that he did.

(Are NPR and The Guardian also part of Beck's empire?)

Is that not accurate? If not, please point me to the source of the truth! !

Z

[heliochrome85]

im saying that ultimately you posted a story from the blaze. then you posted links pointing to the blaze as their source of information. furthermore you posted a link to a page where the headline is "stopping the leftist propaganda machine"

i dont read trash like that. and just like the video of shirley sherrod showed "the facts" i dont trust them when they come from a source so blatantly biased as the ones you referenced. the only sources you used that were legit were the guardian and NPR which had no bearing what so ever on the actual charges you were making.

[szh]

im saying that ultimately you posted a story from the blaze. then you posted links pointing to the blaze as their source of information. furthermore you posted a link to a page where the headline is "stopping the leftist propaganda machine"

i dont read trash like that. and just like the video of shirley sherrod showed "the facts" i dont trust them when they come from a source so blatantly biased as the ones you referenced. the only sources you used that were legit were the guardian and NPR which had no bearing what so ever on the actual charges you were making.

Not unlike the leftist trash sites you and telco often post as links, eh?

Oh, well ... I will look to see if I can find ones that meet your criterion.

Did you even watch the video or did you arbitrarily reject it as not something to be viewed?

Z

[szh]

How about the class warfare rhetoric on his own web site: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news ... 01CB067AD5.

"Meanwhile, while the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations are doing extremely well, the Republicans want more giant tax breaks for the very rich as they move to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and by cutting environmental protection and infrastructure. This is morally unacceptable and very bad economics."

Yeah, he was slamming the Republicans above, but in an anti-rich tirade, no? Does his own web site meet your criterion of a reliable place to get info from?

And, how about this source for the video (listen to it!): http://www.breitbart.tv/socialist-sande ... reduction/ or is Brietbart a bad site too?

There are plenty of other sites that have it available ... how about Youtube as a source of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjPXnNHuK3E? They are, hopefully, apolitical!

Anyway, please watch the video before you comment further and tell me what you hear in it ... in my case, I hear clear class warfare rhetoric. And, don't forget: Sanders is on the Senate Budget committee where he has significant influence!

Z

[szh]

Here he is claiming that the rich are "waging a war" against the non-rich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcLWDGb0RqA ...

His facts on the income are correct (I think - I did not verify them), but he conveniently ignores all the taxes they pay.

Here it is a "moral outrage for the Republicans to be holding hostages ...": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWWEgv63qJ8 ... wow!

This was on NPR, by the way.

Z

[stebo0728]

Way to go Z!!

No proof will ever do, though, you know that right? Unless maybe you find some on MediaMatters, or Huffington Post, but I doubt you would.

The whole point of this post is that you CANT say the rich are getting richer, even as a generalized statement, unless you can show that for the most part, the same people are retaining the same wealth. Sure the class gap may be widening, but the members of each class are swirling around from one to the other, which to me says, maybe the middle class doesnt have it quite so bad, if they have such upward mobility.

[szh]

Well ... here is the Huffington Post article on his stalling tactics: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/1 ... 95087.html.

With the following class warfare rhetoric reported: "How can I get by on one house?" Sanders said. "I need five houses, ten houses! I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We've got the money, we've got the power, we've got the lobbyists here and on Wall Street. Tough luck. That's the world, get used to it. Rich get richer. Middle class shrinks."

Z

[C-Kwik]

[*]Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.

When in doubt, go to the source of the information. They link to the Department of Treasury report in the article. The analysis of the top 1% of earners starts on page 10. A more comprehensive look at the data shows the article has questionable intent. For example, with respect to the line you quoted above, while what they say is accurate per the report, what they leave out is that only 18% of those top 0.01% of people actually end up dropping below even the top 1% of taxpayers. Moreover, only 6% of them dropped below the top 20% mark. Meanwhile, most of the people able to move out of the lowest quintile only get to the second quintile. That is, 28.6% of the lowest quintile went from earning (up to) about $15,000 (1996 dollars) to (up to) about $33,000 (2005 dollars). To be fair, even these numbers aren't fully meaningful without a more detailed analysis of the numbers and perhaps other data as well. But the same is true of numbers on the other end of the scale. And the conclusions made in the article are far from forthcoming and unbiased.

[IBCoupe]

Fantastic, Z, you've consistently conflated criticism of "pro-rich people" policy with criticism if rich people. The one video link you offered is taking forever to load, so maybe you're not doing it completely.

And then you guys gang up on Tariq when he calls you on it, and proceed to continue to prove him right.

[IBCoupe]

C-Kwik,
That's exactly my point. Once you cut through the spin, the information is pretty unconvincing for the point they're trying to make. I didn't even have to look at the numbers to realize the article was full of crap. The phrasing of their five datapoints was enough to indicate a high level of s***.

It's possible to have a meaningful discussion about taxes, income inequality, and the wealth gap, but it doesn't begin by lying.

[szh]

So ... now a formal report from the "US Department of the Treasury" is something you will not believe?

In that case, maybe we should stop worrying about the deficit at all ... maybe they have it all wrong in the first place!

Z

[IBCoupe]

What? Try again.