Quote:
Originally Posted by The12thMan";p="
I didn't get very far in the story. Once I saw they were comparing the top 1/10 of 1% to the average of the bottom 50%, it seemed pointless to go on.
|
That seems kind of selective reading, 12th.
The story made several related points:
1. The share of income earned by the top 10% -- and within that, the top 1% -- hit levels not seen since 1928.
2. While total reported income rose 9 percent, average incomes for the bottom 90% of earners actually fell -- meaning that entire increase, plus some, went to the top 10%.
3. The gains in fact went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose 14 percent.
4. As an example of the income chasm, the article notes that the top 300,000 earners collectively earned nearly as much as the bottom half of all earners -- 440 times as much per capita, in fact.
You read all that, and because you think #4 is illegitimate, you ignore the whole story?
There was also this point:
5. The wage disparity is probably even greater, because the IRS estimates that it taxes 99 percent of wage income but only about 70 percent of business and investment income, because those categories rely far more heavily on accurate self-reporting.
Are those all worthy of ignoring?