Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Income Gap Is Widening  
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 797 times:

Source: www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ei+5087%0A&em+&en+311ab
I know that this has been discussed before; but some comments from the article
-Income inequality grew significantly in 2005 with the top 1% (incomes over $348,000) receiving the largest share of the national income since 1928.
-From 2005 IRS records for the bottom 90% the average income dropped slightly compared to the year before, while the top 1% saw an increase of $139,000 or 14%. Apparently the top group increase rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income.
Discussing fairness: the IRS estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99% to the wage income, but that it captures only 70% of the business and investment income, which most goes to higher income individuals.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (an advocacy group for the poor) claims that the middle class has had the basic same percentage of total income taken by taxes over the past 40 years, while the income taxes has fallen by half for those at the top although THEIR SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME TAX REVENUE HAS RISEN DESPITE THE CUTS.
Should be interesting when Congress gets around to debating whether to cancel/reversed/let expire the Bush tax cuts and whether it would slow investment and the cost to the economy.

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 765 times:

Quoting AirCop (Thread starter):
-From 2005 IRS records for the bottom 90% the average income dropped slightly compared to the year before, while the top 1% saw an increase of $139,000 or 14%.

Proving once again this "great economy" is really only great for those who already have. For most of the rest of us, it hasn't done anything.

Putting on my flame-retardant suit, waiting for the backlash from the right. But, in truth, I really don't give a damn when they start firing away.


User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 751 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
But, in truth, I really don't give a damn when they start firing away.

Then why did you say that?

Quoting AirCop (Thread starter):
-From 2005 IRS records for the bottom 90% the average income dropped slightly compared to the year before, while the top 1% saw an increase of $139,000 or 14%. Apparently the top group increase rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income.

And in a couple more months the top 1% will probably see a 28% or greater drop. So the bottom of the taxpaying barrel saw a slight drop, they will probably see a slight rise in the future. One year, or even 5 years of data really doesn't tell anyone anything. Except it is something for Falcon and a few others to whine about, and that is always important. Fact is we are still on an up trend. I wouldn't call myself rich, in fact with my income I am probably closer to poor. I don't have any complaints about my earnings that the federal government could do anything about.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1341 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
Proving once again this "great economy" is really only great for those who already have. For most of the rest of us, it hasn't done anything.

In my opinion, the "great economy" is really only for those who are willing to take the initiative and make something of it for themselves. Anyone who is relying upon the "metrics" of an economy (particularly the short/present term status of an economy) to make their own for the long term is foolish (or are in a position where they must gamble to make up for past mistakes).

Most employees who blindly followed the tech boom's lucrative "rising tide" in the late 1990s are probably a little bitter (while those who entered the field with foresight and determination are probably doing OK as a group - or at least much better than the lemmings who thought it was an easy meal ticket). This can apply to any industy but I seem to remember another user blaming the Bush economy for what he believed was mediocre compensation for a tech job.

Flame me if you like. I'll even get you started:

"You're not compassionate."

"You're only 24 - Come back when you get some life experience."



Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 726 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
Proving once again this "great economy" is really only great for those who already have. For most of the rest of us, it hasn't done anything.

Again, your response demonstrates that you lack even the most basic understanding of risk based returns that operate in a free market. The returns generated by the two income groups are incomparable at this level because they ignore the relative risks that each group takes.

If somebody asked you would you like the opportunity to double your money and you said yes without knowing more you'd be a fool because you would have no understanding of what risk you were undertaking. Similarly, to say that a group saw their income rise by X% without a discussion of what risks they assumed is simply stupid.

Why does the casino pay more when you bet on a specific number in roulette than they pay when you bet on black or red? Because the risk of loosing your money is greater when you bet on the particular number (1 in 37/38) versus when you bet on black or red (almost 50% depending on whether the wheel has just a 0 or 00 position).

You sit here and rant about the rich getting richer but you say nothing about the entreprenurial risks they take. As we've seen the stock market is very volatile. If you put your money into it, you may not get all of it back. Therefore, why shouldn't they earn a premium return for assuming greater risks?

You want your cake and to eat it too. You want the security of a regular paycheck and the return that comes with heightened risk. I'll speak for myself. Last year I earned in the mid 6 figures, but only $70,000 of that was guaranteed. The rest is purely a result of performance and the risks I took in structuring a compensation package that was based on enterprise performance. Let me tell you what, it was great last year but 3 years ago it sucked when almost everyone else at my company earned more than I did. No guts no glory.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself and go out into the world and sake your claim. This country is filled with people who started with nothing and have made themselves rich beyond their wildest dreams. If they can do it, why can't you?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Exactly Is Income Tax posted Thu Dec 9 2004 01:34:26 by Jfkaua
Is There A Testosterone Gap? posted Thu Mar 14 2002 00:19:51 by DC3Cowboy
GTA IV Is Here. Well Sort Of. posted Fri Mar 30 2007 01:30:36 by FlyKev
My Little Girl Is Done With Chemo! posted Thu Mar 29 2007 02:32:15 by GulfstreamGuy
Is Ex-wife Still An Ex-wife If She Becomes A Man? posted Wed Mar 28 2007 20:18:08 by 727LOVER
ITI Transit At LAX - Is It Possible? posted Sat Mar 24 2007 22:01:04 by JGPH1A
The Drama That Is The Life Of TedTAce (don't.. posted Fri Mar 23 2007 21:30:30 by TedTAce
Legendary Fiat 500 Is Back! posted Fri Mar 23 2007 14:46:42 by L410Turbolet
TedTAce Is Looking For A Job.....again... (KTYS) posted Fri Mar 23 2007 11:28:55 by TedTAce
Is It Time To Start Planning The Spring YYZ Meet? posted Fri Mar 23 2007 02:26:39 by Lnglive1011yyz