US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

From the Guardian: US income inequality - 'CEOs don't want this released': US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

Excerpt:

Upper-income taxation (see historical graphic here) was mostly above 90% from 1941 to 1960s. JFK made a BigMistake when he brought it down to 80%. And Reckless Ronnie became a Replicant saint when he brought them all the way down to the 30% range.

Which has is the single-most reason why Wealth has skyrocketed for this very select group who are nonetheless just 0.1% of the nation's population. (See that fact demonstrated here where Prof. Domhoff of UofC showed clearly in his Who Rules America web-site accessible from here.)

How do you like living in a country where the bottom 80% of the population own only 11% of the nations total Net Worth* - and top 20% of us own the other 89%?

Seems fair to you? Not to me ...

*Which is essentially all Wealth minus Debt.

 

those were marginal rates that nobody paid. Upper income folks pay far more today e.g., top 1% pay 44% of all taxes but only 20% under Reagan. Wakey Wakey!!

 

Todays MEDIAN income, as per the National Debt Clock real time available online,$31,892 the MEDIAN INCOME in the year 2000,$31,378 a whole $514 increase in the past 18 years and most of that probably went to CEO's and Executives.

 

Was the Keith Ellison? Anything that antiamerican pushes we need to run from!

I agree CEOs pay is a sticky issues, but regulating what CEOs can make is not a good solution. Yes they make a lot of money, but most of them are running mulibillion dollar corporations and worked damn hard to get where they are.

We have less poverty now then any time in human history.

 

I wouldnt say they worked for it... most of them inherited the money and were taught how to make their money work so they wouldnt have to.

But I agree with everything else. Historically, the economy does better when the rich can get richer.

Best thing we can do is simplify taxation so its harder for them to lobby for exemption.

 

I have worked in some too big to fail banks and the CEOs and executives worked hard to get to the top. Many didn’t come from poverty, but most got their through a good combination of skill, drive and luck.

If you think small business owners who worked their way into the 1% didn’t work hard to get their then your nutz

 

I don't think the issue is how hard they worked to get there.

You can work really hard to get something, that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm very much into the notion that a person is entitled to the fruits of their own labor, but in some of these types of situations that's not so clear. Just because you are being paid in a private enterprise system doesn't automatically mean that payment is the fruits of your labor.

I'm also not saying that CEOs of gigantic companies don't deserve $1 million dollars a year. However, when one factors in stock options and company funded perks, a lot of times it's much more than that.

 

Im not saying no one who's rich deserves it.

But we all know, the hardest work pays the least. Risk pays the most, and most often only for the lucky.

 

According to pour real time National Debt Clock we have just under 40MILLION Americans living below the poverty level TODAY In America.
We have well over 10 percent of AMERICANS TODAY living in poverty.

 

Taxing the guy who makes a few hundred grand as if he's a Rockefeller will only widen the gap.

 

Even conservative organisations such as the IMF disagree with that now. Inequalities have become so extreme that growth is threatened

 

means nothing, this is American poverty wherein you are likely to suffer more from eating too much rather than too little. Ask American poor with $70K in welfare entitlements if they'd like to trade places with African poor and slowly die of starvation.

 

total liberal gibberish of course. growth is threatened by the lack of supply side economics wherein the new inventions that supply growth are encouraged.

 

Actually just factual. The IMF is not liberal (e.g. look at its part in the Washington Consensus), but it acknowledges that inequalities now harm growth.

 

The 401K is a main reason why executive salaries skyrocketed.Within 10 years of the introduction of 401K over 100,000 private pension plans were eliminated.CEO's and Boards of directors took the money, they saved by no longer funding pension plans, and gave themselves raises.And they have done it ever since.

 

IMF is very liberal. It makes welfare loans that cripple countries just like our domestic liberals make welfare loans or gifts that cripple people.

 

You deserve a medal here for the most cretinous comments!

 

IMF is very liberal for making crippling welfare loans to countries. Read Easterly or Dead Aid to begin your education

 

Given their part in the Washington Consensus, your ignorance is unlimited.

 

One-liner nonsense.

Moving right along ...

 

Lumping in guys who've managed to make it up to a couple hundred grand in income with billion and trillionaires is stupidity.
They are pimples on the asses of the rich

 

"Lumping-in" is what you do.

What I do is show the statistical information by "class" or "grouping" as the statistics were gathered.

Draw whichever conclusions you want, but if you make no effort to understand how statistics are employed in an "economics forum" then there's no excuse for posting here ...

 

This is a rare phenomenon, but you do have a point here. Technically you've gone a little Marxist on us by introducing the importance of 'divide & conquer'. God bless you!

 

Actually I don't favor a progressive tax at all, so you're wrong.

 

What statistics did you provide and how did you employ them?