Billy wrote:
In article T0wqj.4181$lr3.3988@trndny06,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:
Billy wrote:
In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for
inflation. The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and
the poorest fifth rose by 1.3 percent.
And that has to do with what I wrote how? Try to stay with the flow
of the conversation and try to say something even REMOTELY relevant.
But moving on to this next subject, I suppose you think that the
poor always remain static and never move up in the income bracket?
They never go from a job at 7-11 while in college to an entry level
accountant or engineer or teacher? All your statistic quoted was the
relative definition of income increase within a category, it did
nothing to demonstrate that people remain static and stuck within
that category. Here's a clue..... there will always be a category
labeled 'poor'. But people continually move in and out of that
category, just as people move in and out of every other income
category. Can you tell me just how many who were considered 'poor' 5
years ago are still poor.
jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/08.29.07Poverty.pdf
The National Picture
Since 2000, 4.9 million more Americans are living
in poverty. The number of Americans living in poverty
increased in five of the last six years, reaching
36.5 million people in 2006 (Chart 1). Since 2000,
the number of people in poverty has increased by 4.9
million. The official poverty line for a family of four
is now $20,614 per year.
Gee, and how many of that is from illegal and other migrants that have
created new households during that period of time? As I said, and which you
cannot dispute, is that very few people stay within any specific earnings
category.
The poverty rate is a full percentage point higher
than in 2000. The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent,
declining slightly from its level of 12.6 percent
in 2005. Before 2005, the poverty rate had increased
for four straight years. While the poverty rate decreased
slightly in 2006, it remains a full percentage
point higher than it was in 2000 (Chart 1). The Census
Bureau defines the poverty rate as the percent of
the population with incomes below the poverty line.
More than one in six children lives in poverty. The
poverty rate for all children under 18 years of age was
17.4 percent in 2006, declining slightly from its level
in 2005. Between 2000 and 2006, the number of children
living in poverty increased by 1.2 million, or 11
percent, to 12.8 million children. The poverty rate for
children rose from 16.2 to 17.4 over the same period.
Is that what you were looking for?
There was no question. Just trying to help you out. Apparently, you still
don't get it.
-------
In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.
Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1%
increased by 176%, compared to an increased of 69% for the top
quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle
quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.
In 1965, corporate taxes amounted to 4% of the GNP. By 2000, it was
2.5 %.
-The Globalization Gap: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left
Further Behind by Robert A. Isaak
You can cherry pick and regurgitate all you want, the fact remains that
there is very little stagnation in the flux and flow of wage earners.
We used to have a progressive income tax which is very much like what
I'm proposing.
No, what you described was taxation of the marketplace. Please re-read what
you wrote for context.
Why is the middle class disappearing?
Uhm, it's not.
Democracy is impossible without
a middle class.
We have a Republic, not a democracy. But never-the-less, please explain why
you believe their is a disappearing middle class, and how that affects the
nation.
So what is your jingoistic response this time?
You really don't have a handle on the meaning of the words you use do you?
Please add references
so that I know your not just jacking-off, in which case I'm otta here.
You're done anyway. You just keep regurgitating what you've been told
without so much as an inkling of understanding the basic concepts of which
you speak.
Air America? Is that a tennis shoe?
Since the balls in your court, you'd better go back and listen for the radio
for your next argument.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com