National income, 2000: $8795.2 billion
National income, 2005, in constant 2000 dollars: $9697.2 billion
Increase in national income, real: $902 billion
Top 1% of Americans, share of national income, 2000: 9%
Top 1% of Americans, share of national income, 2005: 14%
Top 1% of Americans, total income, 2000: $791.6 billion
Top 1% of Americans, total income, 2005: $1357.7 billion
Increase in total income of top 1% of Americans, real: $566.1 billion
Percent increase in total real income of top 1% of Americans, 2000-2005: 71%
Percentage of total increase in real national income going to top 1%: 63%.
Discuss.
U.S. population, 2000: 281,421,906
U.S. population, 2005: 295,734,134
Average increase in income, top 1% of Americans, 2000-2005: $177,809.
Average increase in income, bottom 99% of Americans, 2000-2005: -$241.72.
That's right, individual real income for the bottom 99% declined.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 04-28-2006 at 09:38 AM.
some leftists would blame Bush
Are you saying that the top one percent only got more by taking it
from the bottom percentage? I don't think so. It just doesn't work
that way.
We need to repeal the estate tax so they can make it to 100% and beyond.
^^Someone is stirring the pot, me thinks!
Many in the bottom 99% are so busy wringing their hands about the stolen 2000 election that they won't get back to work.
In order to answer your question, I need to ask one of my own. Do you think that only the top few percent of Americans, i.e., the investor class, the controllers of capital, contribute in any significant way to economic growth?
Or do you think that a broad swath of the work force, aggregately, contributes to economic growth?
great contribution.
I think it is both. You must have investment to promote growth and create
jobs and you
must have a work force to sustain growth.
But one thing you and many overlook. Many in the so called "working class"
are also millionaires, did you know that. You don't have to be in the
first group mentioned to obtain that distinction. And many do. And
most stay in their middle class homes and live a middle class live style,
which is not wrong.
The growth going primarily to companies and top individuals is why so many Americans aren't feeliing good about the economy. They aren't seeing their household income go up.
Where in the world are you getting your information? Most everyone
is feeling good about the economy. Well I know you aren't, but you
will if mid-terms turn out like you want and then you will want to take
all the credit for the good economy. Want you?
Then don't you think both groups should reap the benefits of economic growth? And if they aren't, would it not be fair to say that one group is benefitting at the expense of the other?
According to the World Wealth Report, there are less than 3 million people in the United States with liquid financial-asset wealth exceeding $1 million.* How can "many" in a working class exceeding 200 million be millionaires?But one thing you and many overlook. Many in the so called "working class" are also millionaires, did you know that. You don't have to be in the
first group mentioned to obtain that distinction. And many do. And
most stay in their middle class homes and live a middle class live style,
which is not wrong.
86% of the financial-asset millionaires in the United States come from inherited wealth. Most of them are not just idle rich idiots like Paris Hilton, but rather, are actively using their wealth to create more wealth. Nevertheless, there aren't many "rags to riches" stories in America 2006. Fewer than 500,000 people in the entire United States have started life as poor or middle-class and become genuinely wealthy.
*This definition excludes "net worth" millionaires with low incomes, such as family farmers and fixed-income retirees.
Actually, my belief is people's feeling about the economy have very little to do with statistics, government reports and charts. All those numbers and news reports are abstract to the average person.Where in the world are you getting your information? Most everyone
is feeling good about the economy. Well I know you aren't, but you
will if mid-terms turn out like you want and then you will want to take
all the credit for the good economy. Want you?
What people base their belief on how the economy is doing is more personal. Credit card debt, gas prices, did a neighbor or loved one lose a job (or did you?), cost of food, personal raises or lack thereof.
I think the general mood is uncertainy about the economic future at this time due to increased fuel costs. Mix that in with wages are somewhat stagnant and you have the basis for the gloom.
The reports are generally favorable about the economy which I think is attributed to the investor class is doing so well these days. Regular people are treading water these days and that is why gas prices send them over the edge.
One of the problems, IMO, is that it is much easier for the wealthy to become more wealthy than it is for the poor/middle class to become wealthy. In my young idealistic point of view, it seems like as one moves up the food chain, each step should be more difficult than the last.
One would think so, but it isnt true. Every step up is easier than the last.
I come from a very affluent area, lots of richy-rich types. Trust me, they keep getting a whoooole lot more rich.
you never hear about rich people losing it all (lottery winners excluded), yet middle-class folks regularly slip in and out of poverty all the time.
What's your source? Because Dr. Tom Stanley in the book the Millionaire Next Door argues that 80% of millionaires are 1st generation.
It depends how you define millionaire.
There are a lot of statistical "millionaires" with their "wealth" tied up in illiquid assets.
The switch from defined-benefit retirement plans to defined-contribution retirement plans by itself will create a lot of paper "millionaires."
First, wealth is wealth whether your assets are illiquid or liquid.
Second, money in 401ks are usually invested in Stocks, Bonds, and or Cash. Those three assets are more liquid than real estate. I can cash in my stock portfolio and get a check tomorrow if I want.
So again I ask where you get your information because it directly contradicts Dr. Tom Stanley's research on Millionaires.
Oh, I profoundly disagree with that.
In the context of retirement accounts, that money is taking the place of earnings potential. Right now, I earn X dollars per year. I don't add up the next thirty years of anticipated salary at X dollars/year and calculate that as part of my net worth, but the money I squirrel away to support myself once I stop working does count as net worth. This is just an accounting distinction.Second, money in 401ks are usually invested in Stocks, Bonds, and or Cash. Those three assets are more liquid than real estate. I can cash in my stock portfolio and get a check tomorrow if I want.
Also, in past decades, companies were the ones doing the saving and investing. They were the ones with the assets. Now, the companies are contributing money to people's individual accounts. In the past, when determining whether somebody was a millionaire, you wouldn't look at the NPV of their vested pension. But now that people have personal investment portfolios for the same purpose, it counts as net worth. But the people aren't actually any richer. Their income is essentially the same as it would have been had they been getting a pension check from the company rather than the interest from an annuity or perpetuity. But now, suddenly, they're "millionaires." It's all on paper.
And you can't get at that money until the age of 59 1/2 without major penalties. And, it hasn't been taxed yet. So there's an enormous a gap between the value on the quarterly statement (which would be used to calculate "net worth") and its actual liquid value.
My data on the wealthy comes from the World Wealth Report. My insight on how the proliferation of personal retirement investment creates millions of new "millionaires" that are nothing more than an accounting artifact is my own.So again I ask where you get your information because it directly contradicts Dr. Tom Stanley's research on Millionaires.
I just realized I made an obvious error in my above reasoning.
The switch to personal retirement accounts from defined pensions, for those who manage their retirements wisely, is a HUGE transfer of wealth from corporations to individuals.
If a have a pension, once I die, the flow of income is gone.
If a have a nest egg saved up in a 401(k), and just live off the interest, unless medical costs wipe out my savings, my heirs will have a substantial estate.
You got to be kidding me. Middle-class folks regularly slip in and out of
poverty. Do you have a middle class education or what? First, how
would you know. Are you from the rich "class" or the middle "class" or
just from the "no" class. I think from the later. Naw, just a loser. That
is more you class.
Have you been on loop 410 of 1604 lately. I don't think all those drivers
are from the rich. I felt like it was rush hour at 1 pm yesterday.
Welll let me give you an example here in town. I have a friend who is in sales like I am. He makes close to six figures but he is debt up to his eyebrows. He lives paycheck to paycheck and is worried about whether he will keep his job because if it goes, for whatever reason, he is in a world of sh*t with a wife and two kids. He is conservative Republican and he is nervous about the economy because he can't afford inflation (perhaps triggered by rising energy costs) or a lay off.
So, he is making a good living, the local economy is generally considered good but he is nervous.
His situation has nothing to do with what the GDP is or the latest unemployment numbers, whatever economic statistic you can dig up. His situation is his own fault but his perception of what is around him is colored by it.
That's all I am saying.
(And I bet you lots of those people on 1604 and 410 are carrying too much debt at this time and living beyond their means)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
