Con_Alma;1571826 wrote:They will adapt to such limitations and continue to accumulate wealth.

That chart only shows income. That's hardly where real wealth multiples.

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010
Year 99% 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
For several decades their wealth relative to the rest of the population declined,
Then Reagan tilted the government in their favor.
　
　

isadore;1571838 wrote:Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010
Year 99% 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
For several decades their wealth relative to the rest of the population declined,
Then Reagan tilted the government in their favor.
　
　

Thanks for the numbers. I didn't dispute them but only pointed out your initial chart is just a small sliver of how wealth is generated.

Neither chart shows that wealth generation is permanently throttle by legislative action. The truly wealthy, adapt and continue creating wealth after things like tax changes are put into place. Sometime it takes longer than others. Having "the governemnt in your favor" only decreases the amount of time it takes.

Incredibly interesting numbers....the numbers began a downward trend while Nixon was in office and bottomed out when Ford took over..... began to rise steadily under Carter, Reagan , and Bush I....then despite relatively high tax rates continued to spike under Clinton before dropping and holding steady under GWB...holding pretty steady despite the Bush tax cuts (2003). Interesting to note the rise under Obama in the 1st two years of his administration.

Gee...do you think there may be other factors at play here?

HitsRus;1571865 wrote:Incredibly interesting numbers....the numbers began a downward trend while Nixon was in office and bottomed out when Ford took over..... began to rise steadily under Carter, Reagan , and Bush I....then despite relatively high tax rates continued to spike under Clinton before dropping and holding steady under GWB...holding pretty steady despite the Bush tax cuts (2003). Interesting to note the rise under Obama in the 1st two years of his administration.

Gee...do you think there may be other factors at play here?

I see the Reagan tax cuts as making the shift to making the rich, richer and the poor poorer. thanks ronnie

These two charts give a better idea of how increasingly wealth has shifted from to the top of the financial pyramid, at the loss of the large majority of Americans.
Total Net Worth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%

Financial (Non-Home) Wealth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7%
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6%
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7%
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0%
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1%
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.7%
2004	42.2%	50.3%	7.5%
2007	42.7%	50.3%	7.0%
2010	42.1%	53.5%	4.7%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

only problem is tax rates aren't correlated with revenues....next!!!

isadore;1571873 wrote:I see the Reagan tax cuts as making the shift to making the rich, richer and the poor poorer. thanks ronnie

It would have happened with or without the tax cuts. These cuts just make it a little easier.

gut;1571898 wrote:only problem is tax rates aren't correlated with revenues....next!!!

so to increase revenue and eliminate the deficit increase taxes on the top 20%.

Con_Alma;1571899 wrote:It would have happened with or without the tax cuts. These cuts just make it a little easier.

that is your opinion. what the earlier numbers show the government policies from the 30s to the 70s reduced maldistribution.

gut;1571898 wrote:only problem is tax rates aren't correlated with revenues....next!!!

Individual income tax revenue
2000 1,004,462,000
2001 994,339,000
3002 858,345,000
2003 793.699,000\
2004 808,959,000
2005 927,222,000
2006 1,043,908,000
2007 1,163,472,000
2008 1,145,747,000
2009 915,308,000
2010 859,549,000
2011 1,091,473,000
2012 1,132,206,000
That is revenue being lost because of cuts in rates, especially since the numbers are not adjusted for inflation.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

So... Income tax revenue increased despite the tax cuts under GWB....at the same time, % of wealth held by the upper1% actually decreased or held steady. Now they have started to rise again under BHO.. What's your point?

Really... Blame Reagan?...Celebrate Nixon!
Seriously....It's weak shit to post this kind of stuff and blame it all on Reagan when it should be pretty obvious that changes and variations depend on many factors and not just who the president of the United States is.

HitsRus;1571919 wrote:... when it should be pretty obvious that changes and variations depend on many factors and not just who the president of the United States is.

...or the current income tax rate.

isadore;1571907 wrote:that is your opinion. what the earlier numbers show the government policies from the 30s to the 70s reduced maldistribution.

Of course it's my opinion. I haven'nt spoke of maldistribution at all so that statement doesn't lend nor inhibit my comments relating to individuals continuing to increase their wealth no matter the tax rate.

isadore;1571906 wrote:so to increase revenue and eliminate the deficit increase taxes on the top 20%.

No thanks, We don't need more revenue. We can begin eliminating the deficit with a controlled combination of economic growth and expense reduction.

so to increase revenue and eliminate the deficit increase taxes on the top 20%.

I note some disingenuousness here...the figures cited are about the upper 1% and the total wealth they hold, not necessarily income by an additional 19%.

So what is being suggested is that we raise taxes on 20% of the people because 1% hold alot of wealth?... LOL ...

From the OP...

Gosh a ruddies the greedy and selfish are doing so well. Congratulations guys.

"The World's 85 Richest People Are as Wealthy as the Poorest 3 Billion

If this is a problem....then it would seem that 85 people are to blame for the disparity. Heck, just send some soldiers and take half their stuff, if you are so hell bent on thievery. Why take from the 20% of the people?

HitsRus;1571919 wrote:So... Income tax revenue increased despite the tax cuts under GWB....at the same time, % of wealth held by the upper1% actually decreased or held steady. Now they have started to rise again under BHO.. What's your point?

Really... Blame Reagan?...Celebrate Nixon!
Seriously....It's weak shit to post this kind of stuff and blame it all on Reagan when it should be pretty obvious that changes and variations depend on many factors and not just who the president of the United States is.

1. Revenue was lost during the Bush presidency because of income tax cuts.
2. Inflation adjusted to match the $
1,004,462,000 in 2000 in the last year of the Clinton administration , the Bushies would have had to collect $1,244,046,330 in 2008
a 100 billion more than the $1,145,747,000 than they did collect in the last year of the Bush administration and 80 billion than the $1,163,472,000 of 2007 the highest revenue year of the George’s rule.
3.When the riches sof the top 20% are over 90% of the total wealth of the nation and increasing while the bottom 80% declines, when the United States is rated with the most rapidly increasing income disparity then our government should be acting to stop the trend NOW. Undo the Reagan policies that are destroying opportunity in our nation.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Con_Alma;1571922 wrote:...or the current income tax rate.

too a very large extent.

Con_Alma;1571924 wrote:No thanks, We don't need more revenue. We can begin eliminating the deficit with a controlled combination of economic growth and expense reduction.

the euphemisms that Reagan\Bush folks have used to cut opportunity, enrich the rich and produce a giant deficit

Con_Alma;1571923 wrote:Of course it's my opinion. I haven'nt spoke of maldistribution at all so that statement doesn't lend nor inhibit my comments relating to individuals continuing to increase their wealth no matter the tax rate.

which in the case of the top 1% to be untrue when our government acts in a more just way.

isadore;1571968 wrote:which in the case of the top 1% to be untrue when our government acts in a more just way.

Just is subjective. A 90% tax rate is viewed as just by some while it is by others. Even with such a significant act by the government the wealthy will adapt and continue to grow their assets.

Sometimes it takes time but the adaptation does take place.

isadore;1571967 wrote:the euphemisms that Reagan\Bush folks have used to cut opportunity, enrich the rich and produce a giant deficit

Opportunity is not a right only perusing one is.

isadore;1571964 wrote:too a very large extent.

If wealth were predicated on income. It's not. The truly wealthy don't become wealthy based on ordinary income that would relate to the tax rate you are referring to .

HitsRus;1571926 wrote:I note some disingenuousness here...the figures cited are about the upper 1% and the total wealth they hold, not necessarily income by an additional 19%.

So what is being suggested is that we raise taxes on 20% of the people because 1% hold alot of wealth?... LOL ...

From the OP...


If this is a problem....then it would seem that 85 people are to blame for the disparity. Heck, just send some soldiers and take half their stuff, if you are so hell bent on thievery. Why take from the 20% of the people?

gosh a ruddies 80% of the people only have 5% of the non home owning wealth, well screw em, at least in your view of the world.

Con_Alma;1571973 wrote:If wealth were predicated on income. It's not. The truly wealthy don't become wealthy based on ordinary income that would relate to the tax rate you are referring to .

throw in capital gains and property tax, estate and inheritance taxes, that would make a nice start.

isadore;1571975 wrote:throw in capital gains and property tax, estate and inheritance taxes, that would make a nice start.

It might be but that's not what you were addressing above. By making such a move you would see shifting of assets to other areas...and they wouldn't likely be in the U.S.. That ought to help the economy. It's just another adaptation.