In article , Peter
wrote:

Thank you Fat-Dumb and Happy. And this too:
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst...hic_data_that_
shows_exactly_what_motivates_the_occupy_movement_/

I don't even know where to begin on this piece of tripe. The graph that
shows incomes doesn't show even half of the reality. Looking at
Effective Federal Tax Rates for all households show that while the top
1% has fallen, so has every other tax rate since 2000. In fact the
effective rate of the top 1% have fallen 20% while the middle quintile's
fell by *40%*.
The bottom two quintiles actually have NEGATIVE income rates because
of the effects of credits. So they not only get all their withholding
back, but also get additional money. This, BTW, has gone up from -4.6%
effective rate for the lowest quintile in 2000 to -6.6% in 2009. The
second lowest quintile joined the having a negative income rate in 2002
related ONLY to the Bush tax cuts that increased access to such things
as the earned income credit and child care credits to much lower
incomes.
I also thought it was sorta interesting that they all of a
sudden went from effective tax rates to marginal tax rates when talking
about 90% tax rates. Indeed the two were mixed together in consecutive
sentences in the same para go make it sound like the EFFECTIVE rate went
from 90% to 16%. They also failed to mention that the first major cut,
1/3 from 90% to 70% was under JFK.
The chart about the income share was most illuminating,
although they took exactly the wrong message from it. Looking at that
chart, it is shown that the top 1%'s share was pretty steady from 41 to
81 or so. It took off in the mid-80s, which coincides with a major
change in tax policy... although not one that the OWS folks would
acknowledge and one that suggests they should be damn careful what they
wish for when calling for Congressional intervention.
The Democrat Congress at the time (although the final votes were
fairly bipartisan) decided that Executive Compensation was getting out
of hand and they Must Put A Stop To That. So, they effectively capped
the salary of the top executives at a $1 million dollars by making that
the top amount that could be deducted (BTW: If you look at the annual
reports you will see that even to today most salaries are around a $1
million or so).
But in order to do Good Things and "make the interests of the
executives coincide with those of the shareholders" they tax advantaged
stock options and "incentive based" bonuses.
This did three things:
1), It meant that people were no longer being paid to run the
company (salary) but were being paid to run the books and thus the stock
price (The first bookkeeping scandal took place two years later, not
likely a coincidence
2). As the stock market took off, it meant that the execs were being
paid orders of magnitude above what even the most captive board would
have had the balls to pay them in real actual money.
3). The concentration of income skyrocketed, all because Congress
screwed around with things.

They also pretend that billionaires benefited the most from the
bailout. Not hardly. Actually the biggest holders of the toxic stuff was
not individuals of any income bracket, but rather pension funds, college
endowments, and investments by foundations.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz