Top 1% Of Earners Doubled Their Share Of The Nation's Income Over Last 30 Years, Says Government Study

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 22:58
edit
Top 1% Of Earners Doubled Their Share Of The Nation's Income Over Last 30 Years, Says Government Study

Tags: Congress | U.S. economy

The top 1% of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

In a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt, the report says  government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.

 

According to The New York Times, the CBO found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent. By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.

 

 

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


Comments (5)

...
vguettlein
I wonder if and how well this correlates with the decline of our education standards. Parents need to be more involved, and teachers more concerned about the 3 R's and less about sharing their politics? I have 4 high school and college age kids, and I'm just making an observation based on what I've seen. No skills = No jobs, and in my humble opinion, a liberal arts education is nice, but still = no skills.

I also wonder at these statistics when half of the country is receiving government transfer payments in one form or another. If we're intent on redistributing wealth, perhaps it should be in the form of job training and then requiring some form of work/service for most recipients - i.e. something for something? I'm not talking about truly disabled individuals, but rather those who are able bodied.

I dunno, what do YOU all think?
vguettlein , October 26, 2011
...
vguettlein
The headline graph is sure to cause a ruckus. What's not show is the effect of transfer payments. It would be nice if they showed THAT graph. To be fair, Table 3 and the appendices do address the fact that transfer payments change the headline story.
vguettlein , October 26, 2011
...
terallb
Could this be the result of decimating all of our resource based industries and the family wage jobs they provided In the name of environmentalism.

In my community in 1979 there were 5 operating plywood plants. Each one employing a few hundred people. Now there is one. We choose to leave the wood fiber in the woods rotting and burning in forest fires.

Yes in a service based economy the wealthy will continue to find ways to provide services that the rest of us want and will be rewarded for doing so. In my opinion it has nothing to do with re-distribution. It is simple economics. Without resource based industrial jobs the middle class loses. The plant employee, the butcher, the guy who owns the shoe store etc. etc. etc.
terallb , October 26, 2011
...
vguettlein
What I hear you saying, through admittedly biased ears, is that the Government spends a lot of time examining effect, but not cause: arguably... the Government.
vguettlein , October 26, 2011
...
terallb
I could not agree more.
terallb , October 26, 2011

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy