• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”

The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.

The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy
 
And the right wing ignores, and calls it all lies...
 
Most of us on the right from a fiscal perspective were against the stimulus. I dont know what point you are trying to prove other than we shouldn't have spent it. Corporate cronyism is rampant in both parties.

The far left thinks more government in everything is good, which means more cronyism or lessen the impact of government so its got its hand in fewer things.

Oh and look the top 10% makes up 70% of the income taxes on 45% of the AGI.
AGI numbers for 2010.jpg
 
Opportunity Cost,

I am pretty sure this post was not something you grasped. It had nothing to do with the stimulus in any way.
 
All this proves is that Keynsian economics does not benefit the masses.

But it also bolsters my signature.
 
All this proves is that Keynsian economics does not benefit the masses.

But it also bolsters my signature.
Ha ha! What Keynesian economics? The article clearly shows that since the 1980's (cough trickle down), that this inequality has become more exaggerated. are you guys even reading this????
 
And the right wing ignores, and calls it all lies...

actually many of us say so what? those who have money to invest are going to see their income grow more than those who spend every penny they earn
 
actually many of us say so what? those who have money to invest are going to see their income grow more than those who spend every penny they earn

And where are those jobs again?????
 
That
Ha ha! What Keynesian economics? The article clearly shows that since the 1980's (cough trickle down), that this inequality has become more exaggerated. are you guys even reading this????
Yes, I read it. That isn't the question. The question is, did you think about it?

The article clearly shows the relation of the top earners and government spending. It then tries to relate economic down turns to an income disparity as if that is abnormal. The reality is, it is the lower paid workers that lose their incomes first. They are the most expendable. Further, of course the top 1% will make more than 1% of the total income. It is statistically impossible for there not to be a greater percentage of income going to the top 1%.

But, as was said above, so what? What moral imperitive gives the government the right to tell people what they can and can't earn?
 
That
Yes, I read it. That isn't the question. The question is, did you think about it?

The article clearly shows the relation of the top earners and government spending. It then tries to relate economic down turns to an income disparity as if that is abnormal. The reality is, it is the lower paid workers that lose their incomes first. They are the most expendable. Further, of course the top 1% will make more than 1% of the total income. It is statistically impossible for there not to be a greater percentage of income going to the top 1%.

But, as was said above, so what? What moral imperitive gives the government the right to tell people what they can and can't earn?

It is true that the top 1% will always earn a greater income. But since trickle down started that percentage has become at its worse since before WW2. After WW2 we had the Keynesian Era and the gap was historically at its lowest. Then in 1980 trickle down policies started and have continued. And since then the gap in earnings has not only been immoral but also non existant for wage earners.
 
Opportunity Cost,

I am pretty sure this post was not something you grasped. It had nothing to do with the stimulus in any way.

Oh but it does.

What liberal out there has not been saying over and over that Obama's stimulus is what turned the economy around? They say this because they believe in Keynesianism, and that spending money is what turned the economy around.

So, if the spending under the stimulus was what helped our economy, you should not be surprised at all that the top 1% benefited more than the rest of us, because they are the ones who wrote and approved the stimulus, and therefore, got all the money.
 
Oh but it does.

What liberal out there has not been saying over and over that Obama's stimulus is what turned the economy around? They say this because they believe in Keynesianism, and that spending money is what turned the economy around.

So, if the spending under the stimulus was what helped our economy, you should not be surprised at all that the top 1% benefited more than the rest of us, because they are the ones who wrote and approved the stimulus, and therefore, got all the money.

I am not concerned with what the Obamabots say.

The study was done in 2010 it doesn't mean it measures just the effects of the stimulus. It has measured the trend since 1980, when Keynesian economics have ended.
 
And where are those jobs again?????

I don't have a duty to create a job for you nor do I have a duty to pay more taxes so you can have stuff you want that you aren't willing to pay for
 
I don't have a duty to create a job for you nor do I have a duty to pay more taxes so you can have stuff you want that you aren't willing to pay for

I am not asking you to do such a thing. In fact I want lower taxes for you. If I had asked you to pay higher taxes anywhere then please let me know so I could correct that.
 
Last edited:
Now that it's an election year I assume we can expect the left to give credit to Obama for "the recovery" while blaming Republicans for where the income gains during it actually went.
 
I am not concerned with what the Obamabots say.

The study was done in 2010 it doesn't mean it measures just the effects of the stimulus. It has measured the trend since 1980, when Keynesian economics have ended.

That doesn't change the fact that the stimulus package is what led the recovery. So, you should expect that in 2010, its effects would be apparent, and those effects are that the politically well-connected got their backs scratched, and the rest of us got left out.

To have a recovery that includes everyone, you would have to have some sort of initiative that put lots of people back to work in America. That would create some competition for laborers, and raise their wages. The stimulus didn't do that, and nothing else put forth by the President, or any part of the government, would either.
 
That doesn't change the fact that the stimulus package is what led the recovery. So, you should expect that in 2010, its effects would be apparent, and those effects are that the politically well-connected got their backs scratched, and the rest of us got left out.

To have a recovery that includes everyone, you would have to have some sort of initiative that put lots of people back to work in America. That would create some competition for laborers, and raise their wages. The stimulus didn't do that, and nothing else put forth by the President, or any part of the government, would either.

The stimulus still has nothing to do with this conversation. The trend started in 1980, when trickle down started, Obama was in his 20's and thus has nothing to do with current tax structure.
 
Then in 1980 trickle down policies started and have continued. And since then the gap in earnings has not only been immoral but also non existant for wage earners.

I am somewhat confused considering this excerpt from your link:

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

The 20% gain in 1993-2000 was AFTER the ‘1980 trickle down policies’ you reference. I fail to see your point. Further, are you suggesting something that will address this (as I missed it also)?
 
I am somewhat confused considering this excerpt from your link:

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

The 20% gain in 1993-2000 was AFTER the ‘1980 trickle down policies’ you reference. I fail to see your point. Further, are you suggesting something that will address this (as I missed it also)?
Yes, it is called the internet. I suggest you check out sites like Google and what not to search for how it works.
 
Here just like the other similiar thread....... The reason for this is because of the policies of Bernanke and Geithner. They have done nothing but pump Wall Street full of money the last few years. Who do you think is getting this money?

It proves nothing about "trickle down" either as artifical measures prove nothing. No, if you simply give money away it's not going to trickle down in the ways the economy needs to improve. Create new businesses and that money will trickle down.

The answer is not for more taxes, it's for ending the welfare we are provided to Wall Street.
 
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”

The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.

The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy

I wish we would just start to ignore what goes on with the 1% - if we only had 1% of our nation being poor we wouldn't pay that 1% any difference. In fact: it would be a triumph that the numbers were so small.

The 1% does not effect me, my family, my husband's earning. . . and in the future if we go through with our business plans we won't be the 1% - we will be the employing 99% via small business and we still won't be affected by the 1% unless they crawl into our shop and buy everything.

If we keep comparing ourselves to the 'best of the best' we'll never be successful and we'll always come up short. That's like how i use to be in school: comparing myself to the valedictorian .. . . and I as good as her, am I as smart as him? Am I as organized?

But it's not even like that, really - it's more like "we're not as successful as he/she so we need to interfere with their life so they don't look so good"

Why so jealous? Just let it go - focus on what you CAN change and what you CAN do something about instead of festering on what you have absolutely no control over.
 
Last edited:
It is true that the top 1% will always earn a greater income. But since trickle down started that percentage has become at its worse since before WW2. After WW2 we had the Keynesian Era and the gap was historically at its lowest. Then in 1980 trickle down policies started and have continued. And since then the gap in earnings has not only been immoral but also non existant for wage earners.

1980's. hmm... what major change in economic policy was just administered in the previous decade.

you blame trickle down, but ignore that we are on a completely new monetary system for convenience
 
1980's. hmm... what major change in economic policy was just administered in the previous decade.

you blame trickle down, but ignore that we are on a completely new monetary system for convenience
That happened in 1971, which had nothing to do with how money was distributed or taxed. It still goes through banks and through government spending, none fo that has changed. What has changed has been taxation and how it is being spent and where.
 
Most of us on the right from a fiscal perspective were against the stimulus. I dont know what point you are trying to prove other than we shouldn't have spent it. Corporate cronyism is rampant in both parties.

The far left thinks more government in everything is good, which means more cronyism or lessen the impact of government so its got its hand in fewer things.

Oh and look the top 10% makes up 70% of the income taxes on 45% of the AGI.
View attachment 67123408

Not only irrelevant but miss leading. The well off will ALWAYS pay a larger share of the total tax income of the state.. it is simple math. Even with a "fair tax" system the rich would pay a huge portion of the tax income of the state. Hence it is a hyperhole excuse and totally miss leading.
 
Back
Top Bottom