All-Time Record Highs In Income Disparity Reported By CBO and Census

shifrbv

Senior member
Feb 21, 2000
981
1
0
I knew it was bad, but man!!

According to the Census data issued today, in 2000 the share of the national household income that the poorest fifth of households receive was tied for the lowest level on record, with these data going back to 1967. The share received by the middle three-fifth of households ? the broad middle class ? set a new low in 2000. But the shares that the top fifth of households and the top five percent receive set new highs.

The CBO data show that between 1993 and 1997 (the last year for which CBO has published these data), average income, after adjusting for inflation, grew 3.8 percent among the poorest fifth of the population and only slightly more than that for the middle three-fifths of the population - the broad middle class. But average income grew 20.6 percent among the top fifth of the population and climbed 51.1 percent among the richest one percent.

Meanwhile,

While poverty rates declined in 2000, those who were poor remained poorer than at any time since 1979. The average poor person fell further below the poverty line in 1999 and 2000 than in any other year on record. Poverty rates are likely to rise again in 2001.

I'm assuming the richest 1 percent is probably all of these CEO's that have been in the news lately filing for bankruptcy protection and special tax treatment for their companies. Foxes in the henhouse.

Poverty Rates Fall In 2000, Red Flags Raised For 2001
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
yeah people making like 10 mil a year, and voting for bush so they can save some money on taxes.

it's sad.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
drewshin,

Hate to break it to you, but with so much of the wealth concentrated in the hands of so few (as so many love to say so many times), millionaires and billionaires alone could not elect Bush.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
balt,

i wasn't saying that they voted him into office, but that it's pretty sad that there extremely wealthy people out there that would be horrified if they had to pay any more taxes than they do (darn, i cant afford that new yacht this year because i voted for that damn democrat).

as far as i'm concerned anyone making under $25,000 shouldn't pay any taxes, $25-$100k 15%, 100k - 1 mil 30%, 1 mil and over 45%. heh heh.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
<<as far as i'm concerned anyone making under $25,000 shouldn't pay any taxes, $25-$100k 15%, 100k - 1 mil 30%, 1 mil and over 45%. heh heh.>>


Hmmmm, I could be wrong, but I think people making 75-100k already pay much more than 15% in income taxes.

I think your scheme would actually DECREASE the amount of income tax paid by EVERYONE (including the rich).