Wealthy Americans Don't Actually Earn Their Money, Merely 'Receive' or 'Claim' It, Says NY Times Reporter
A Wednesday post by economics reporter Catherine Rampell on the paper's Economix blog hits hard at the common liberal target of "extreme" and "stark" income inequality in America: “Inequality Is Most Extreme in Wealth, Not Income.”
Rampell’s word choice sent the message (perhaps unconsciously) that income isn’t earned through hard work or talent but is instead passively and undeservedly “received,” distributed by some nameless but powerful entity.
Typically, comments about rising inequality refer to the stark disparities in incomes of the very highest-paid Americans and everyone. We have observed in several posts, for example, that most of the income gains over the last few decades have gone to the very richest Americans. That means the highest-paid Americans have been claiming a larger and larger share of earnings.
Rampell even composed a chart “showing what percentage of all of America’s income (including capital gains) is going to each of several income classes, today versus previous years.”
Pretty striking, right? As of 2008, about 21 percent of income was received by just 1 percent of earners.
She showed an income inequality chart from the liberal Economic Policy Institute as well.
The top 1 percent of earners receive about a fifth of all American income; on the other hand, the top 1 percent of Americans by net worth hold about a third of American wealth. (Note that the top income earners are not necessarily the same people as the top net-worth Americans -- after all, lots of high-net-worth people don’t work or have much else in the way of sources of new income.) Wealth-related inequality has also been relatively stable over the last few decades, whereas income-related inequality has been growing since the ’70s.
Rampell concluded by looking for a way to justify a wealth tax:
Proposals for a wealth tax resurface periodically. The idea is always contentious since it basically requires double-taxation of earnings. There are lots of existing examples of double-taxation on the books, though.
(Hat tip Karol)
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
OK
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:00pm.
Let's make income taxes match that, huh?
Two can play that ballgame. Let's just do exactly that, shall we? I'm sure that the author of this piece will see that as right and proper, won't she? It is using her own methods, right?
Not only this a epic fail, but the foolishness of a "wealth tax" is straight up marxism. It is taking just because something is there for the taking.
This nation has GOT to get serious again about private property. If it does not, another civil war will ensue. Theft is theft and there is now something that wasn't in existence for almost a century and a half - that being an incorporated right to USE arms in defense of hearth and home.
Many have still not absorbed just how far reaching and profound Heller and McDonald really are. I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise, those same folks still have not absorbed just how far reaching and profound enumerated rights themselves are even when ratified as amendments to the Constitution itself.
Americans need to wake up.
Wow, that's shocking!!
Submitted by Dave81 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:02pm.
About 21% of income was received by just 1% of earners?? Oh noos!!! Let's also take a look at what % of taxes those same people paid, shall we?
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents...
Another interesting article.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:22pm.
No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.
Everyday people are free to
Submitted by Edhenry on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:07pm.
Everyday people are free to "claim" their worth on the open labor market in an economy that is dynamic and growing. Anyone can claim more, or less.
Claim away!
Who voted for the progressive
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:08pm.
Who voted for the progressive tax anyway!? It was very short sighted not to see where that would lead to. Very few people paying taxes so the remainder vote themselves the treasury. Real intelligent! RNC asleep again. Don't compromise with the DNC! Get you position to the people. Learn how to overcome the media bias with straight talk! Point out lies clearly & back that up!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
16th, 17th, & 18th
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:57pm.
Within the course of six years, Progressives passed three amendments to the Constitution that took away a great deal of individual liberty and freedom:
16th - Income Tax
17th - Senate Elected by popular vote
18th - Prohibition on liquor
Here' a very eloquent 10 minute video explaining the ramifications of this time in our history, (that does end on a positive note).
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The Left actually does
Submitted by MikeB on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:08pm.
The Left actually does believe that income should be distributed by nameless powerful entity. That entity is the Democrat Party. Their saint, Karl Marx said, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." The Left believes that with all their heart. So, the wealth accumulated by the rich is undeserved and was stolen by the workers of the proletariat. The bourgeoise expoliters of the proletariat masses NEED to have all their property and wealth confiscated and redistributed to the workers who actually earned that wealth. So what if marxism/communism/socialism failed in the Soviet Union? They were a bunch of low-brow, mentally deficient Europeans, and we are Americans and, therefore, much smarter than those dumb Russkies. It'll work here!
Duh.
Submitted by Back Row on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:03pm.
This is news? Maybe the statistics have evolved but the point hasn't changed for ages.
Oh, and just IMO, someone proposing a wealth tax is asking to be "purged" by their own ideology.
"We know the difference between the reality of freedom, and the illusion of freedom. It's about power." -John Trudell
Well, when the federal
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:45pm.
Well, when the federal reserves is feeling a bit pinched, they print more to help ease their angst.
Does that bother the ultra liberal "HATE THE RICH" crowd?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Maybe for her next post, Rampell can tell us about those jobs...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:15pm.
...she got from poor people over the years.
And I hate to tell this stoopid communist witch, but wealth is a big part of what is paying for all those wonderful (but unconstitutional) social programs she and her comrades are so fond of.
The problem is, we are no-longer generating anywhere near enough wealth in America to afford all this crap, which is why we are going to do a fair imitation of the Titanic in a few short years.
Of course, the commies can go ahead and confiscate a large chunk of what wealth that actually still exists in America, and send us over the cliff far sooner.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Libutards ARE 'the wealthy' who 'haven't earned it'
Submitted by Slyrr on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:00pm.
NY Times putting Democrats 'in the crosshairs!' (military lingo/violent extremist language)
Nearly every Democrat politician/policy wonk ARE the people the NY Times is targeting here!
Democrat powermongers live lives of luxury and opulence, but hardly ANY of them 'earn' their money. Their wealth is had because their parents were rich, or they otherwise inherited their money from trust funds and the like by people who earned it LONG before they ever came along.
Look at the Kennedys. Look at Teresa Kerry, who pocketed her GOP husband's wealth after he died, then started spending it all on liberals. Look at her gigolo husband - who hasn't earned a dime outside the government payroll, but hunted down and married TWO wealthy women so he could live in mansions and buy yachts.
For Pete's sake, the entire liberal philosophy is BASED on seizing money from people who have it and then giving it away to people who 'didn't earn it'.
If the libutards at the NY times want to start killing off 'the 'wealthy who haven't earned their fortunes', they'd better start getting their own necks fitted for those lynching ropes. Or shorten the process by hanging themselves. Think of all the worm food they'd provide for their beloved Earth Mother Gaea.
So, by extension...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 1:01am.
So by extension, when those rich people go bankrupt, they're not actually broke, just retuning that claimed money, right?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Rich people spend and invest that money
Submitted by IdahoJim on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 6:54pm.
And investing is just loaning money to someone who spends it.
I read a guy who was complaining that millionares were building a bunch of mansions somewhere near his town. Unfortunetly, there was no way for me to comment back to him. So I will do it here.
Buster, millionares do NOT build houses, they pay carpenters, designers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, masons, cabinet makers, and a whole host of other trades to build a mansion. They pay for lumber, plaster, drywall, wiring, plumbing fixtures, doors, countertops, paint, trim. In other words, they SPEND their money. Think about all the people employed when a mansion is built.
There. I have vented my spleen. Thank you all for your tolerance.
BTW I'm setting up a blog site this weekend. I've got plenty more spleens to vent. And comments will be welcome.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net