Another CBO Study Superfreak Will Ignore

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Rising tides lift all boats, but rich boats get lifted 275%. The rest of the boats, not so much:

WASHINGTON — The top 1 percent 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.

In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.

“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.

Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.

The report, requested several years ago, was issued as lawmakers tussle over how to reduce unemployment, a joint committee of Congress weighs changes in the tax code and protesters around the country rail against disparities in income between rich and poor.

In its report, the budget office 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.

And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.


For the visual learners out there, here's a chart:

esq-top-1-percent-income-stats-102611-xlg.jpg






http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/u...ed-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/WebSummary.pdf
 
No problem.......I made out pretty well from '79 to '07......how about you...?

Are you jealous you're not smart enough to succeed ?....
 
No problem.......I made out pretty well from '79 to '07......how about you...?

Are you jealous you're not smart enough to succeed ?....

That's mighty Republican of you, bravs, though I suspect your the kind of guy that really believes it when you're told it's just raining as opposed to the kind of guy that does the pissing.

To answer your questions, I do OK myself, but I'm not a self-absorbed schmuck. I actually care about the well-being of others.
 
QUOTE=David St. Hubbins;892540]That's mighty Republican of you, bravs, though I suspect your the kind of guy that really believes it when you're told it's just raining as opposed to the kind of guy that does the pissing.

To answer your questions, I do OK myself, but I'm not a self-absorbed schmuck. I actually care about the well-being of others.[/QUOTE]


And so do I care about the well being of others....I certainly hope everyone can achieve the very best they can with the talents, skills, and ambition nature gave them.....

and if you want to give others a helping hand, please do so,... as I do......but I won't support forcing you to share your wealth and belongings with others....
 
when did redistribution become a goal of government?.......

Let me just paint a hypothetical for you. What if there was some fatal flaw in the capitalist system, whereby the following happened: once someone got rich through their own hard work, they found out that they could get richer just by virtue of the money they had, in a way no longer really related to work. Beyond that, their kids and the generations beyond them kept using this loophole to stay rich and get richer, without any work at all. Through this method, a significant amount of the nation's wealth basically stayed in the same group's hands, an amount that continued to grow, without any visible work being done.

And higher education, one of the few means whereby someone not in that group could hope to aspire to join that group, slowly & gradually grew in cost to the point where many of those not in the group either couldn't afford to attend, or attended at great debt to themselves, so that instead of accumulating wealth afterwards with their hard work, they spent many years just paying off that debt.

Would you have an suggestions on what could be done to address that flaw?
 
that does appear to be a problem. i'm interested in the growth prior to 1979. also, i wonder how much the economic bubbles influenced the growth. and, what part did insane and regular IPO's and stock values have? for example, bill gates is supposedly worth 40 billion, yet that is probably 35 billion of just paper worth.
 
Rising tides lift all boats, but rich boats get lifted 275%. The rest of the boats, not so much:

For the visual learners out there, here's a chart:

esq-top-1-percent-income-stats-102611-xlg.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/u...ed-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/WebSummary.pdf

1) What CBO study have I 'ignored' in the past you pathetic partisan hack?

2) Tell us... was the top 1% made up of the same families in 1979 and 2007? Or did people move in and out of the category? Same question for the bottom 20%? Same question for the other brackets?

3) Does the CBO study include benefits when calculating these shifts in household income? Because from the link you posted, it would appear it does not.

The reality is, those innovators you hate so much made far greater leaps from 1979 to 2007 than 275%. I posted the study on another of your bullshit whiny threads that showed 57% of the top 1% in 1996 were no longer in the top 1% in 2005. One decade and it changed that much. The same study showed a similar move in the bottom 20%. About half moved out of it into another bracket.
 
1) What CBO study have I 'ignored' in the past you pathetic partisan hack?

You mean other than the ones that say that the stimulus created millions of jobs, that the Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit and that the repeal of the affordable care act increases the deficit?


2) Tell us... was the top 1% made up of the same families in 1979 and 2007? Or did people move in and out of the category? Same question for the bottom 20%? Same question for the other brackets?

This dumbassery again? Why don't you do some research on social mobility in the United States before repeating nonsensical shit you read in an IBD op-ed.

3) Does the CBO study include benefits when calculating these shifts in household income? Because from the link you posted, it would appear it does not.

I posted a link to the CBO summary. I'm sure it answers this question. If not, I'm sure it is the full study here:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Further Edit: The chart on the left "Market Income" includes benefits and the like. The chart on the right includes benefits and the like, plus government benefits, less taxes.


The reality is, those innovators you hate so much made far greater leaps from 1979 to 2007 than 275%. I posted the study on another of your bullshit whiny threads that showed 57% of the top 1% in 1996 were no longer in the top 1% in 2005. One decade and it changed that much. The same study showed a similar move in the bottom 20%. About half moved out of it into another bracket.

Again, do some basic research on social mobility in the United States and come back to me. And if you cannot figure out on your own why a comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20% is fucking stupid, you really need to have your head examined.
 
Last edited:
Once again Dung will ignore.....

For one, they are a snapshot of income distribution at a single point in time. Yet income is not static. It changes over time. Low-paying jobs from early adulthood give way to better-paying jobs later in life.

And income groups in America are not fixed. There's no caste system here, really no such thing even as a middle "class." The poor aren't stuck in poverty. And the rich don't enjoy lifetime membership in an exclusive club.

A 2007 Treasury Department study bears this out. Nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/10/19/busting_the_1_vs_99_inequality_myth_99318.html
 
You mean other than the ones that say that the stimulus created millions of jobs, that the Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit and that the repeal of the affordable care act increases the deficit?

1) I did not ignore your studies dipshit, every time you posted them I commented on them.... hence, not ignored.
2) I have acknowledged that the CBO ESTIMATED 1.2m to 3.7m jobs were 'created'. I then went on to point out that with that broad of a range, they have no clue. They are ESTIMATING. I also pointed out that the unemployment rate has remained above 9%. Which shows the 'stimulus' did little other than maintain the status quo.
3) Let me guess, you are going to continue to pretend to believe the smoke and mirrors? LMAO.... your messiah just lost one of the supposed 'savings' (it in fact accounted for over 40% of the supposed savings of the bill) because his health secretary proclaimed it was not economically feasible to sustain. Something everyone else pointed out to you morons a long time ago.

You should look up the definition of 'ignore' it does not mean the same thing as 'disagree'.

This dumbassery again? Why don't you do some research on social mobility in the United States before repeating nonsensical shit you read in an IBD op-ed.

LMAO... you post an opinion piece from the NYT in this very thread that quotes a government study... that is ok.... but for me to quote another piece that quotes a government study... that is 'nonsensical'. READ dipshit. It was a study by the Treasury department they are quoting. But good job IGNORING it.


I posted a link to the CBO report. I'm sure it answers this question.

As I stated, that report does not address it. But since you are 'sure' it does, then you will have no problem pointing to the section that discusses it. It is only five pages, surely you have read it and know right where it is given you are 'SURE' it covers it.

Again, do some basic research on social mobility in the United States and come back to me.

Again, the article quoted a study by the Treasury department on just that. That is where those stats come from.

And if you cannot figure out on your own why a comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20% is fucking stupid, you really need to have your head examined.

Tell us genius... what is YOUR OP comparing? Is it the top 1% vs. the other brackets, like say..... the bottom 20%?
 
1) I did not ignore your studies dipshit, every time you posted them I commented on them.... hence, not ignored.
2) I have acknowledged that the CBO ESTIMATED 1.2m to 3.7m jobs were 'created'. I then went on to point out that with that broad of a range, they have no clue. They are ESTIMATING. I also pointed out that the unemployment rate has remained above 9%. Which shows the 'stimulus' did little other than maintain the status quo.
3) Let me guess, you are going to continue to pretend to believe the smoke and mirrors? LMAO.... your messiah just lost one of the supposed 'savings' (it in fact accounted for over 40% of the supposed savings of the bill) because his health secretary proclaimed it was not economically feasible to sustain. Something everyone else pointed out to you morons a long time ago.

You should look up the definition of 'ignore' it does not mean the same thing as 'disagree'.

Shorter SF: I didn't ignore the reports, just their conclusions!


LMAO... you post an opinion piece from the NYT in this very thread that quotes a government study... that is ok.... but for me to quote another piece that quotes a government study... that is 'nonsensical'. READ dipshit. It was a study by the Treasury department they are quoting. But good job IGNORING it.


Shorter SF: I don't know the difference between an article and an editorial.


As I stated, that report does not address it. But since you are 'sure' it does, then you will have no problem pointing to the section that discusses it. It is only five pages, surely you have read it and know right where it is given you are 'SURE' it covers it.

Shorter SF: I don't see your edit.


Again, the article quoted a study by the Treasury department on just that. That is where those stats come from.

Shorter SF: I really, truly don't know the difference between an article and an editorial.


Tell us genius... what is YOUR OP comparing? Is it the top 1% vs. the other brackets, like say..... the bottom 20%?

Shorter SF: Gotcha!

In the context of social mobility, as was clear from my comment that you broke apart, such a comparison is fucking stupid.
 
Another piece Dung will IGNORE....

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1920

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/2010/a/images/Figure-1B.png

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/2010/a/images/Figure-1A.png

Another problem with drawing inferences from the census statistics is that the statistics do not include the noncash resources received by lower-income households—resources transferred to the households—and the tax payments made by wealthier households to fund these transfers. Lower-income households annually receive tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and medical care. None of these are considered income by the Census Bureau. Thus the resources available to lower-income households are actually greater than is suggested by the income of those households as reported in the census data.

At the same time, these noncash payments to lower-income households are funded with taxpayer dollars—mostly from wealthier households, since they pay a majority of overall taxes. One research report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest income quintile increases roughly 50 percent—whereas the share of total income earned by the highest income quintile drops roughly 7 percent—when transfer payments and taxes are considered.

At the same time, these noncash payments to lower-income households are funded with taxpayer dollars—mostly from wealthier households, since they pay a majority of overall taxes. One research report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest income quintile increases roughly 50 percent—whereas the share of total income earned by the highest income quintile drops roughly 7 percent—when transfer payments and taxes are considered.

Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.

This from the St. Louis Fed and since we all know Dung has posted from them before, surely he won't just dismiss the above with another 'dat jus an op ed piece, do u some research'
 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1920

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/2010/a/images/Figure-1B.png

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/2010/a/images/Figure-1A.png







This from the St. Louis Fed and since we all know Dung has posted from them before, surely he won't just dismiss the above with another 'dat jus an op ed piece, do u some research'


Shorter SF: I don't know the difference between statistical information and the interpretation of statistical information.
 
Shorter SF: I didn't ignore the reports, just their conclusions!

Wow.... such wit.... shorter Dung: "I can't defend my position"

Shorter SF: I don't know the difference between an article and an editorial.

Shorter Dung: I am too fucking retarded to understand that the Treasury department report is not an op-ed. That the numbers quoted in op-ed's are actually FACTS from the study by the Treasury dept.

Shorter SF: I don't see your edit.

Dipshit Dung.... it wasn't there when I responded you idiot.

Shorter SF: I really, truly don't know the difference between an article and an editorial.

Longer Dung: I am going to desperately IGNORE the FACT that it was a US Government agency that did the study and came up with the numbers. I am going to continue attacking the SOURCE rather than acknowledge the ACTUAL data. I am really going to be embarrassed when SF posts the same numbers from the St. Louis Fed showing the EXACT same study as the op-ed I am trying so hard to bash.

Shorter SF: Gotcha!

In the context of social mobility, as was clear from my comment that you broke apart, such a comparison is fucking stupid.

Shorter Dung: I have no idea what I am talking about now, so I am just going to ramble and hope no one notices.
 
Back
Top