General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrom The NY Times: The Rich Get Even Richer
A great Op/Ed piece: The Rich Get Even Richer.
New statistics show an ever-more-startling divergence between the fortunes of the wealthy and everybody else and the desperate need to address this wrenching problem. Even in a country that sometimes seems inured to income inequality, these takeaways are truly stunning.
In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 $288 billion went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.
More at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html
Leftist Agitator
(2,759 posts)This state of affairs will not continue indefinitely...
longship
(40,416 posts)How can people keep voting these ass hats into office. What is it going to take turn this around?
I am more afraid this election cycle than I've ever been before in my nearly 64 years. The outcome in Nov could literally determine the planet's future.
What really worries me is the possibility that losses for the Dems in Nov could provide the Reps a chance to make such drastic changes that opposition would be a "Mug's game".
That's a scary thought.
Julian Englis
(2,309 posts)And every election for the next few generations
Kablooie
(18,612 posts)The only ones with money that is, so the only ones you'll hear about.
Vote either Democrat or Republican and you'll get someone that works for the 1%, not for you.
It's a monopoly and the trust busters are part of it.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)firehorse
(755 posts)IMO
tblue37
(65,227 posts)Since the end of absolute monarchies, we in the West acknowledge that power should not be inherited, although the relatively recent tendency for people to get elected because of their last name suggests that we are moving toward political dynasties.
However, money is power, so the ability of the super-wealthy to pass gigantic fortunes to their offspring is so close to the ability to transfer similar political power to their offspring that it is amazing so many people consider such generational transfers of power by way of enormous wealth to be so uncontroversial.
More reasonable tax policies would at least force the super-wealthy to pay their fare share to support a society that has benefited them so much, and it would also help to mitigate their ability to pass on power to subsequent generations, since such wealth creates dynasties with political as well as financial power.
I forget which DUer said it, but one of my favorite DU posts was the comment that no one should be so rich that he has nothing left to buy but the government.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)HA. I tried to email the NYT article to myself, (to more easily email to friends/relatives) 3 times and it went into the spam folder! I found out they file any title with the words GET RICH FAST RICHER QUICK etc to the spam file!.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)This will not stand. This aggression from Wall St. against Main St.
Line in the sand, Dude! Over this line, you do not...
Oh... wait.
Kablooie
(18,612 posts)Just the way it was always meant to be.