Between the rich and the poor

[welsh]

The divide seems to be growing-

Oh yeah, at least W knows who his core is-

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P143548.asp?GT1=7824&Rating=10&PageID=143548#Rating

Rich getting richer faster

New studies spotlight a growing gap between top and bottom. The divide is widest in Arizona, narrowest in Wyoming.

By MSN Money Staff

Two new studies find the rich are getting richer at a faster pace.

A study released in late January, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, found that the gap between the highest- and lowest-income families is significantly wider than it was 25 years ago.

Hey John, is this good for democracy?
Are you still buying that trickle down nonsense?

And an analysis of income-tax data by Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of households own nearly twice as much of the nation’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

The studies come among a growing push to increase the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour for the first time in nine years. Public advocacy groups have successfully lobbied for “living wage” reforms in 18 states and a number of cities, raising the minimum wage in some places as high as $12 an hour.

An employee working full-time at the federal minimum wage makes $10,712 a year. About 7% of the workforce earns a minimum wage.

No one can live on 10K a year. That's just silly.

“Growing income inequality harms this nation in a number of ways,” stated Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and co-author of the income report. “When income growth is concentrated at the top of the income scale, the people at the bottom have a much harder time lifting themselves out of poverty and giving their children a decent start in life.”

America- the land of opportunity- where a hard working guy can get a break...... Old news.

Market rebound favors well-off
The five states with the largest income gap between the top and bottom fifths of families are New York, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida. Generally, income gaps are larger in the Southeast and Southwest and smaller in the Midwest, Great Plains and Mountain states. (To see the state-by-state list, ranked, click here.)

Isn't Texas then both one of the richest and dumbest states?

Income inequality declined somewhat, the report found, following the bursting of the stock and high-tech bubbles in 2000, which were costly to the highest-income families. But incomes at the top have rebounded, while the negative effects of the recent recession on low and moderate-income families have lasted longer than usual.

In 38 states where the incomes of the bottom fifth of families grew more slowly than those at the top, incomes at the top rose by an average of $45,800 (62%), while the incomes of the poorest grew by $3,000 (21%).

The only state in which incomes of the poor grew faster than those of the rich was Alaska.

The study is based on Census income data that have been adjusted to account for inflation, the impact of federal taxes and the cash value of food stamps, subsidized school lunches and housing vouchers. Income from capital gains is also included. The study compares combined data from 2001-2003 with data from the early 1980s and early 1990s, time periods chosen because they stand as comparable low points of their respective business cycles.

Possible steps to stem the disparity, the report offers, include raising state minimum wages, strengthening supports for low-income working families and reforming the unemployment insurance system. In addition, states can pursue tax policies that partially offset the growing inequality of pre-tax incomes.

Corporate wealth concentrates further
The richest 1% of households -- those with incomes above $237,000 for 2003, the latest year analyzed -- owned 57.5% of all income from capital gains, dividends, interest and rents in 2003, the CBO analysis found. That was up from 53.4% the year before and 38.7% in 1991.

Long-term capital gains were taxed at 28% until 1997, and at 20% until 2003, when rates were cut to 15%. The top rate on stock dividends was cut to 15% from 35% that year.

The poorest fifth of Americans owned 0.6% of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4 percent in 1991.

The CBO analysis excludes the stock held in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs, which isn’t subject to taxation and was thus unaffected by the tax cuts.

Although these tax cuts are slated to expire in 2008, Congress is already debating whether to extend them through 2010. The Bush administration has been calling for the cuts to be extended or made permanent.

And thus sustain class divisions in the US, allow the rich to perpetuate and the poor and lower class to remain little more than an exploitable pool of labor. Woot!

Ah.. this is what a more compassionate, Christian America is all about.

An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that an extension of the tax cuts would save households with incomes under $50,000 about $11 in 2009. Those with incomes above $1 million would save about $32,000.

$11 probably won't get you into a movie by 2009.

so what about where you live?

The growing gap in family incomes
Rank State Top 5% Bottom 20% Ratio
14 Alabama $172,029 $14,765 11.7
45 Alaska $180,148 $20,533 8.8
1 Arizona $223,081 $15,719 14.2
13 Arkansas $163,908 $13,888 11.8
8 California $207,363 $16,773 12.4
19 Colorado $215,109 $18,983 11.3
24 Connecticut $231,928 $21,003 11.0
41 Delaware $188,435 $20,225 9.3
7 Florida $199,892 $15,396 13.0
36 Georgia $158,382 $16,345 9.7
26 Hawaii $208,340 $19,294 10.8
43 Idaho $162,923 $17,847 9.1
20 Illinois $203,876 $18,032 11.3
30 Indiana $195,217 $18,590 10.5
48 Iowa $155,722 $18,503 8.4
17 Kansas $209,125 $18,284 11.4
5 Kentucky $193,766 $14,814 13.1
16 Louisiana $153,334 $13,347 11.5
31 Maine $164,232 $15,975 10.3
12 Maryland $253,923 $21,480 11.8
11 Massachusetts $233,108 $19,690 11.8
21 Michigan $200,814 $17,927 11.2
33 Minnesota $223,411 $22,608 9.9
25 Mississippi $145,342 $13,456 10.8
38 Missouri $176,320 $18,482 9.5
42 Montana $135,164 $14,788 9.1
49 Nebraska $160,862 $19,242 8.4
39 Nevada $180,521 $19,143 9.4
35 New Hampshire $226,178 $23,128 9.8
4 New Jersey $268,889 $20,391 13.2
18 New Mexico $157,011 $13,748 11.3
3 New York $216,061 $16,076 13.4
9 North Carolina $183,253 $14,884 12.3
44 North Dakota $147,519 $16,805 8.8
27 Ohio $195,175 $18,216 10.7
37 Oklahoma $150,011 $15,483 9.7
32 Oregon $175,976 $17,367 10.1
10 Pennsylvania $223,152 $18,548 12.0
28 Rhode Island $200,859 $18,916 10.6
29 South Carolina $157,634 $14,957 10.5
47 South Dakota $155,427 $18,353 8.5
6 Tennessee $187,026 $14,303 13.1
2 Texas $203,174 $14,724 13.8
34 Utah $192,142 $19,594 9.8
40 Vermont $176,291 $18,846 9.4
23 Virginia $200,191 $18,110 11.1
15 Washington $195,170 $16,911 11.5
22 West Virginia $147,434 $13,208 11.2
46 Wisconsin $174,919 $20,197 8.7
50 Wyoming $145,587 $18,171 8.0

[/quote]

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

No one can live on 10K a year. That's just silly.

No, it isn't, you can't live with 1$ a month, but you can live a glorious life with 10K$ in a year, in Russian .

 

[Lord 342]

So What?
The top 5% and the bottom 20% are only a quarter of all the people! I also don't understand the preocupation with the "gap" between rich and poor. So long as the "poor" can survive, then who cares? It is not the duty of the state to see that they do anything more than survive in good health and reasonable comfort; and it's especially not the duty of the state to say "No no, you're too rich, bad bad!" So long as the basic needs of the poor are met, leave the "rich" alone.

I don't believe in tax brackets; they make people easy to device and conquer. Everyone should pay the same tax percentage no matter the income; thereby we would all be inclined to vote for one-another's good as opposed to our own, because we couldn't help but. As it is people who don't pay taxes get to vote about tax rates for those who do; this just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

So What?

The thing is, the rich get more benefits if the poor are rich.
A farmer can't grow a good crop, if he doesn't have afford to the machines, the land owner gets the benefits, even if it's a municipality, thought we "own" the land, the municipality(or state) owns the land as well cause, well it covers the landscape(it's the authority). We have to pay taxes to it, it keeps the peace, etc.

So are you really sure that you own what you "own".
Can you do what ever you want with it, can you build an atomic reactor without a permission from anyone, even if you "own" the land you will be building it on, cause if you can, you own the land and not just "own" the land.

So how rich you really are and how much do you really own?

 

[Lord 342]

So What?

The thing is, the rich get more benefits if the poor are rich.
A farmer can't grow a good crop, if he doesn't have afford to the machines, the land owner gets the benefits, even if it's a municipality, thought we "own" the land, the municipality(or state) owns the land as well cause, well it covers the landscape(it's the authority). We have to pay taxes to it, it keeps the peace, etc.

So are you really sure that you own what you "own".
Can you do what ever you want with it, can you build an atomic reactor without a permission from anyone, even if you "own" the land you will be building it on, cause if you can, you own the land and not just "own" the land.

So how rich you really are and how much do you really own?

I'm not sure I understand how the parts beyond the first sentence relate, but I'll agree that it's true that everyone does better when everyone has more money; but I don't think it's the government's job to see to that to happen; the rich should recognize it and make sure their employees are well paid, etc; it should not be the state's task to do anything but make sure people survive. But this is why I think everyone should pay the same tax; therefor when people vote for a lower tax everyone gets a lower tax, rich and poor alike.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

To my mind, it is the job of the state to support the growth and prosperity of it's citizens, not just the rich or the poor, but to all. That's why the only(or the worst thing) thing bad about the system is the income traps(or whatever the hell they are called), that lock the less fortuned to less income jobs cause they won't get the same benefits as when they get the higher income. So in other words the system cripples the progress of the poor.

 

[keyser Soeze]

The total wealth of the worlds 358 billionaires is equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the worlds population

- John Baylis 2001:227

Dont know if i shall laugh or cry...

and it's especially not the duty of the state to say "No no, you're too rich, bad bad!"

I would love to se a maximum income. And all that goes over that should return to the state/people.

What amount this should be is the hard question.

 

[Lord 342]

Except maximum income doesn't work. When tax time comes around, everyone has donated it to charity or done something with it. The state doesn't see it. In the UK there is (was?) a 99% tax bracket, where everything above a certain level was taxed at 99%. The Rolling stones were going to do a concert that would have reaced that level and when they found out they did it for charity rather than pay it to the government. When the government says you shouldn't earn a lot of money, nobody will want to. Capitalism then grinds to a halt, and that is bad for everybody. The state's only responsibility should be to see that everyone is able to survive. What they do over and above that is their choice and/or problem as the case may be.

 

[Ashmo]

Except capitalism doesn't come to a halt, instead all the wealthy leave the country to avoid the taxes.

Simple as that.

Lower maximum tax = less tax money
Higher maximum tax = less tax payers

Doesn't work either way.

 

[Lord 342]

Basically capitalism over a cerain point comes to a halt. The rich will leave or find a way around it, but all it means is that the government gets no money above the highest reasonable tax bracket. Better to have reasonable taxes across the board so that very rich people want to be in the country. Which is better; 60% of 10,000,000, or 10% of 1,000,000,000?