According to a new report by The New York Times, the rich aren’t just getting richer under the presidency of George W. Bush.
They’re getting hyper-rich.
The people at the top of America's money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows.
While Bush and partisan Republicans have long argued that the long series of tax cuts enacted by the current administration have benefited the poor and middle class – or at least benefited all levels of income earners equally – it’s becoming increasingly clear that this simply isn’t the case.
President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.
In fact, by analyzing income and tax data, it appears that the higher up the income ladder you climb, the less subject you are to paying taxes in the United States.
Perhaps this phenomenon should be dubbed reverse-progressivism.
And while the top income earners in the United States are paying less in taxes, their wealth is accumulating in a manner that boggles the mind.
From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000.
One of the chief virtues of living in a capitalistic society is the promise of economic mobility. Among the dangers of rapid wealth accumulation of a tiny percentage of society is the transition from meritocracy to aristocracy as well as the loss of mobility for those born without great fortunes.
But in fact, economic mobility - moving from one income group to another over a lifetime - has actually stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation.
What will the eight years of the Bush Administration look like from the vantage point of the future? What kind of society are we creating today that future generations will be left to contend with?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
This is no surprise; I've been trying to tell Nalle this since I found this blogsite. This kind of thing makes me wonder why it is the poor & middle class don't pick up and start something to make 1917 Russia look like a picnic. We should, just out of principle.
2 - alethinos59
Excellent post! I agree with Nancy - I am shocked at how easily the poor and middle class roll over on this! I can see the middle class being complacent - we're still under the delusion that we CAN make it up the ladder...
I think Jefferson would be very disappointed in us. He always said a little revolution once in awhile was a good thing...
3 - bhw
Apparently, the poor and middle class were sufficiently a-scared of homosexual marriage to vote for the "moral values" president, even though his economic policies will keep them in their lower economic place.
4 - Dave Nalle
And you both just don't understand the basic fundamentals of the economy. It makes no difference at all to you as an average person whether the richest tiny fraction of Americans are super-rich or ultra-rich, whether their fortunes are measured in 100s of millions or billions. Once the gap between their income and yours is measured in orders of magnitude, how rich they are in specific becomes completely irrelevant.
While the guy who owns a small business may make his fortune to some small degree by controlling the pay of his workers, the person who has moved into the realm of the ultra rich makes his money off of market forces which don't require the specific exploitation of any worker. Entire companies are the equivalent of employees to people in that income bracket, and unless the person is a corporate raider like Donald Trump (who's not really ultra-rich), their efforts to increase their wealth will not cost you a red cent.
Dave
5 - Mark Saleski
all together now....
"Yeeeesssss Professor Naaaaallleee!"
6 - andy marsh
bhw - I personally voted against JK because he refused/refuses to sign the SF-180. That and the fact that he's a commie pinko!
7 - Dave Nalle
Here's the key thing to remember. What you need to worry about isn't the rich getting richer, it's the rest of us getting poorer
If the rich are getting richer at the same time the rest of the population is also moving forward in the economy - which seems to be the current trend - then things are just fine.
Dave
8 - bhw
In that now-infamous post-election poll, 22% of voters cited "moral values" as the most important issue they voted on. Something like 80+% of that group voted for Bush.
9 - Maurice
If the rich don't become richer they are mishandling their money.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>In that now-infamous post-election poll, 22% of voters cited "moral values" as the most important issue they voted on. Something like 80+% of that group voted for Bush.<<
Yes, but for the independents 'moral values' means not having sex with interns or testifying against the US military in the wake of Vietnam, not anything more sophisticated than that.
Dave
11 - bhw
Maurice, please don't post long urls in the comments. Use html formatting for them. Otherwise, they skew the whole page.
I fixed the one above. Should take effect momentarily.
12 - bhw
Well, since Bush didn't serve in Vietnam, he didn't have the chance to testify to what happened there, as Kerry did. Some of us actually think Kerry did the moral thing.
And I'm not so sure W's personal history is so pure, either. But that's not a jab at him, just at politicians in general.
13 - Maurice
bhw - sorry, won't happen again
I can't believe that what started out as a fine discussion of economics is now going to deteriorate into "Bush didn't go to war" and "Clinton slept with an Intern".
If you guys can't stay on topic I will have to post the longest links I can find and really screw up this page - and break my promise above....
14 - bhw
Sadly, Maurice, the Clenis is still on the mind of many, many Americans. They just can't forget it, even in a discussion about the tax policies of a president who never ran against Clinton.
Godwin's law ought to be revised to include the Clenis.
15 - Nancy
No, Dave, maybe not, but there's something awfully attractive to a worker bee like myself about fantasies of trashing some of these insanely overpaid CEOs who screw thousands out of their (pick one: jobs/pensions/benefits/savings) and then walk away richer than ever; or the 'universally corrupt' (I'm sure some must not be, but you get tarred by the company you keep, lol) politicians who vote themselves such outrageous perks, privileges, & forever-after bennies; or others of their ilk. And then there's always Paris Hilton, who some feel deserves it 'just because'.
16 - Maurice
Nancy,
I don't share your view. I am a worker bee and I am very proud of a billionaire that we have here in Idaho. His name is J. R. Simplot. He has done more to create jobs in Idaho than any blow hard politician. He even donated his personal resisdence to the state to be used as the Governors Mansion. He is a very interesting person that has worked hard all his life. He is now in his 90's. Rather than resent him I thank God (or who ever) that he had what ever it takes to create and grow businesses in Idaho.
17 - MCH
Re comment #6;
"bhw, I personally voted against JK because he refused/refuses to sign the SF-180. That and the fact that he's a commie pinko."
Personally, I voted against GW because he skipped out on his last two years of National Guard obligation, constituting desertion. That and the fact that he's a chickenhawk coward.
18 - Eric Berlin
I'll quote my own post to refute most of Mr. Nalle's argument:
19 - Nancy
Maurice, if you read my 'specifications' of villains to be trashed, I would say Mr. Simplot can in no way be considered one of that group. I was talking about people like Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, et al.
20 - Nancy
Or the kind of executives that run a company into the ground and then walk away with bonuses and golden parachutes worth more than the economy of some 3rd-world countries; like the guy that just left Fannie Mae, or the clown that retired from the NYSE.
21 - Maurice
Nancy, I did make assumptions about your post. Would you say that 50% of CEOs are good guys? How about 80%? Would you go so far to say 90% of CEOs are hard working honest people? I personally believe 99.9% of CEOs are sincere hard working individuals that have their companies best interest at heart. We hear about the bad guys because it makes for great news.
I was guessing that you might be thinking the opposite.
22 - Nancy
Well, I should have been more specific. It all has to do with greed levels, which seem to go with the major corporations, altho not always. When I was talking about trashing CEOs, I meant these guys that have gotten away with fiscal murder, and no one's going after them, or at most, they'll get a slap on the wrist. Why should they live out their lives fat, rich, and happy, while thousands or hundreds of thousands are ruined?
23 - jarboy
it's hilter's fault.
24 - Eric Berlin
I haven't heard a good "Hilter" reference since back in the Monty Python days -- good one.
25 - Nancy
LOL, I'm inclined to get Dave Nalle annoyed and blame it all on W. & GH.