The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

[Elixir]

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillio...Gv0wFbcb1bt_K8Qwfz8pz9TLEBJegJXMqUHYcJ3Z2MbBw

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Enough to double the median income...
It's sheer stupidity compounded by greedy indulgence.

 

[Rhea]

Yes it is. Thanks for highlighting. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops annd corrected.

 

[Metaphor]

In what sense has something been 'taken'?

The article repeatedly says 'if inequality had held constant' (as it was at 1975). There's a step missing: how does increasing inequality mean one group has taken from another?

The article says:

the top 1 percent’s share of total taxable income has more than doubled, from 9 percent in 1975, to 22 percent in 2018, while the bottom 90 percent have seen their income share fall, from 67 percent to 50 percent. This represents a direct transfer of income—and over time, wealth—from the vast majority of working Americans to a handful at the very top.

In what way is that a transfer, let alone a direct transfer?

 

[DBT]

Unlike water, wealth flows rapidly upwards.....

 

[prideandfall]

In what sense has something been 'taken'?

you have two choices, and two choices only:
1. "fuck you, i got mine" - aggressive predatory capitalism that states morality doesn't exist and that the ability to horde means the justification to horde.
2. we became herd animals for a reason and civilization has an evolutionary purpose in terms of protecting all members of herd and improving their life over what they would be capable of living singly if we weren't herd animals.

you simply either decide that the opportunity to take everything morally justifies taking everything at the expense of others, or you don't.
if you agree that there's no problem with the existence of society and yet also the existence of egregious resource distribution in such a way that a tiny minority have more than they could ever use in 10 lifetimes while the majority don't have enough to comfortably exist within the technological standards of modern civilization, then yeah... nobody has 'taken' anything from anyone.

predatory capitalism (ie: capitalism that is set up specifically to benefit a few to ridiculous degrees while actively destroying the many) isn't a natural system, it's been implemented over time by those with an agenda.
and every time this kind of system has existed at every other point in human history (which is many) it's ended in violent revolution and the mass deaths of the upper class.

it's going to happen sooner or later - the way western civilization is going right now the rich are becoming more greedy, more insular, and the poor are becoming more fucked over and more desperate. there's going to be a critical mass point where adhering to the social contract simply won't be appealing anymore, and then we'll start seeing wealthy people's heads rolling in the street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is assuming we have accurate income numbers from back then.

Strangely enough there was a period in which the tax code was brutal to high personal income--during which personal income was a lot lower than either before or after. This was a period where there were a lot of legal tax avoidance schemes and little ability to detect tax evasion by the rich.

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

 

[prideandfall]

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

does it matter?
the specific numbers don't really matter when you have the existence of mansions and the existence of tenement housing in the same society.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

does it matter?
the specific numbers don't really matter when you have the existence of mansions and the existence of tenement housing in the same society.

Regardless what the exact numbers are, what's necessary is:

Increase property taxes, and make property taxes graduated.

Assess a tax on Wall Street (tax on all stock sales) (the one good Bernie Sanders idea)

Maybe increase the top income tax rate a little, but also eliminate or reduce the rates on the middle- and lower-level brackets. Eliminate the need for anyone in the bottom half to submit income tax forms.

 

[DBT]

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

does it matter?
the specific numbers don't really matter when you have the existence of mansions and the existence of tenement housing in the same society.

Even worse, homeless people living on the streets of the richest nations on earth.

 

[SimpleDon]

In what sense has something been 'taken'?

The article repeatedly says 'if inequality had held constant' (as it was at 1975). There's a step missing: how does increasing inequality mean one group has taken from another?

The article says:

the top 1 percent’s share of total taxable income has more than doubled, from 9 percent in 1975, to 22 percent in 2018, while the bottom 90 percent have seen their income share fall, from 67 percent to 50 percent. This represents a direct transfer of income—and over time, wealth—from the vast majority of working Americans to a handful at the very top.

In what way is that a transfer, let alone a direct transfer?

What don't you understand about it?

It is a pretty straightforward proposition. If the income distribution that existed in 1975 in the US existed today the average family income today would be more than 100,000 dollars a year instead of 60,000 dollars a year.

This means that the total income generated by the economy has gone more to the upper earners instead of being distributed more equably as it was in 1975. Over the 45 years, this has totaled 50 trillion dollars in wealth that would have been more equally distributed to the 99% went instead to the 1%.

This is the largest threat to capitalism in the US. It is a much larger threat than socialism, what American conservatives call any social democract proposals like universal health care not run by Wall Street for their benefit. It is the reason that so many people are dissatisfied with the government and a large reason that so many of them voted for the pseudo-fascist Donald Trump and the party that is ironically responsible for the economic policies that created the income inequality, the Republican party.

 

[barbos]

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

does it matter?
the specific numbers don't really matter when you have the existence of mansions and the existence of tenement housing in the same society.

Even worse, homeless mentally sick/substance abusing people living on the streets of the richest nations on earth.

Fixed your tautology.

 

[SimpleDon]

This is assuming we have accurate income numbers from back then.

Strangely enough there was a period in which the tax code was brutal to high personal income--during which personal income was a lot lower than either before or after. This was a period where there were a lot of legal tax avoidance schemes and little ability to detect tax evasion by the rich.

Why do I think the income numbers weren't accurate during that period?

Do you think that there is less tax avoidance now than there was in 1975?

Certainly, income tax avoidance due to the capital gains scam is higher today than in 1975. Tieing CEO bonuses to the corporation's stock price and thereby encouraging them to convert corporate income into higher stock prices by buying their own stock was unheard of in 1975.

Do you agree that there is a much worse income and wealth inequality today than there was in 1975?

 

[Metaphor]

What don't you understand about it?

I don't understand how the counterfactual means one group 'took' from another group.

It is a pretty straightforward proposition. If the income distribution that existed in 1975 in the US existed today the average family income today would be more than 100,000 dollars a year instead of 60,000 dollars a year.

This means that the total income generated by the economy has gone more to the upper earners instead of being distributed more equably as it was in 1975. Over the 45 years, this has totaled 50 trillion dollars in wealth that would have been more equally distributed to the 99% went instead to the 1%.

I understand that. It is arithmetic. I am asking a question about the narrative. In what sense did the top 1% 'take' the wealth from the bottom 90%?

If the Gini coefficient between 1975 and today were exactly the same, does that imply that no money was 'taken' by the top 1%? Or what if inequality had become smaller? Would that imply that the top 1% had 'given' wealth to the bottom 90%? Would it imply that the bottom 90% had 'taken' the wealth from the top 1%?

This is the largest threat to capitalism in the US. It is a much larger threat than socialism, what American conservatives call any social democract proposals like universal health care not run by Wall Street for their benefit. It is the reason that so many people are dissatisfied with the government and a large reason that so many of them voted for the pseudo-fascist Donald Trump and the party that is ironically responsible for the economic policies that created the income inequality, the Republican party.

You mean: created the additional inequality, over and above the inequality that existed in 1975? It's worth noting that the summary itself does not attribute it to Democrats or Republicans. Indeed, it could hardly be said that Republicans have had a monopoly on power from 1975.

My problem with the article (and the research underpinning the article) is the unexamined assumption that changes in inequality mean some group has 'taken' from another group. The article also implies, indeed is built on the idea, that the total economic output right now would be the same if the (unnamed) policy changes that helped created further inequality had not been implemented since 1975, and presumably alternative policies that kept inequality at the same level had been implemented instead.

But why should I, or you, believe that to be true? Indeed, what if the worsening inequality decreased total economic output? What if it increased it?

 

[scombrid]

Yes, they looted the treasury with the Bush tax cuts. Then they did a big sell off in 2008 and put the stock market money in their pockets followed by buying up the real estate and banking wrecked at fire sale prices. 2017 they really looted the treasury with the McConnell/Ryan/Trump cuts. That 2 trillion went to stock price inflation. They are cashing that out soon.

Somehow though they have figured out how to convinced higher income earners that their high taxes are due to brown people/moochers etc... I know in our D.I.N.K house we have about 200k per year gross and get fucked fucked and fucked again on income tax. Yeah, our tiny stock holdings are doing great. But guess what, when you start at ZERO and pay your own way through advanced education then your wealth is tied to wage income for a long time until you build up assets. The oligarchs know this. They are simultaneously us people with decent income into submission and breeding resentment between us and lower income people that pay less tax than we do. It is fucked. Yeah I want my stocks to do okay but for fuck's sake people need to look at the big picture. The king is trying to make the merchant class pay for all their shit just like in 1750 Europe. And here in America the higher end of the plebes put on their fucking red hats and party to own the libs.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Someone fact check this on me, but I remember hearing this on a talking head show:
Bush/Cheney twice converted the Social Security surplus into a tax cut that heavily favored the wealthy (as all Bush tax cuts did.) Absolutely shot the surplus for those tax years out to their buddies.
If I'm stating that correctly, that's about the biggest example of income redistribution you can find. Again, if my assertion holds, they did it with a total and cynical awareness of the demographics of Social Security, the aging Boomer generation, the coming stresses on the SSA, all of it.

 

[barbos]

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillio...Gv0wFbcb1bt_K8Qwfz8pz9TLEBJegJXMqUHYcJ3Z2MbBw

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Enough to double the median income...
It's sheer stupidity compounded by greedy indulgence.

Utter nonsense. GDP is completely independent on amount of "wealth" accumulated/stolen by rich 1%.
You can tax the shit out of them and it will not make your life any better, you would still have the same GDP.
Yes, rich consume somewhat dis-proportionally larger part of the GDP when they fly private planes and have larger houses but most of their expenses really going toward providing unnecessary jobs for servants/guards/etc, in other words it goes back to 90%.

 

[Elixir]

In what sense has something been 'taken'?

We can add that to the list of things by which you are willfully addled, like my assertion that Donald will contest the election results regardless of the vote count. (I notice you've been really silent about that lately, and left the threads where you were trying to ridicule me for saying it.)
It is very difficult to educate a person who has inoculated himself against facts that run counter to their preconceptions.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes, rich consume somewhat dis-proportionally larger part of the GDP when they fly private planes and have larger houses but most of their expenses really going toward providing unnecessary jobs for servants/guards/etc, in other words it goes back to 90%.

well that's just about the most enormous load of horse shit i've ever seen another human being pretend have the gall to say out loud.

 

[Elixir]

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillio...Gv0wFbcb1bt_K8Qwfz8pz9TLEBJegJXMqUHYcJ3Z2MbBw

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Enough to double the median income...
It's sheer stupidity compounded by greedy indulgence.

Utter nonsense. GDP is completely independent on amount of "wealth" accumulated/stolen by rich 1%.

You obviously failed to understand the article. Get someone to translate it for you. GDP total is not at issue. Even Metaphor gets that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Someone fact check this on me, but I remember hearing this on a talking head show:
Bush/Cheney twice converted the Social Security surplus into a tax cut that heavily favored the wealthy (as all Bush tax cuts did.) Absolutely shot the surplus for those tax years out to their buddies.
If I'm stating that correctly, that's about the biggest example of income redistribution you can find. Again, if my assertion holds, they did it with a total and cynical awareness of the demographics of Social Security, the aging Boomer generation, the coming stresses on the SSA, all of it.

I just tried to fact check this for myself, and ran into a huge rabbit hole of ideological arguments. Politifact rates it as "largely false", because they are commenting on the claim that Bush took 1.37 trillion of the SS trust fund and used it for tax cuts and war. But in their discussion, they say he did borrow over $700 billion. But they go on to argue over the terms of borrowing, repayment, government funding & reallocating. I got a bit lost in it. And more than likely, we've seen multiple administrations using the payroll tax collections as a major source of borrowing. (Footnote: SS stopped running a surplus as of 2010.) I have not found a clear discussion of which President borrowed the most from SS, not that there is going to be a consensus that all sides will agree on.