How Are The Rich Doing?

In his Mother Jones blog, Kevin Drum checks in to see how the rich are doing in these tough times. Turns out that things are going pretty well.

Drum pulls some data from a Wall Street Journal article that shows exactly how wealth continues to be socked away by an increasingly smaller group of people.

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S.....In the five years ending in 2007, earnings for American workers rose 24%, half the 48% gain for the top-paid. The result: The top-paid represent 33% of the total, up from 28% in 2002.

Think about that - 33% of the total of all pay in the U.S. That doesn't leave much for everyone else, does it?

Keep in mind that Americans only owe payroll taxes on income up to $106,000, so while the rest of us are paying our fair share, the top-paid max out early on and contribute no payroll taxes on their extra accumulated income.

Tell me again what a socialist Obama is for wanting the top 1 1/2% to help fund health care reform with some additional taxation, and try to do it without using the term "robber-barons" to describe those raking in 1/3 of all pay in this country.

Image by jvstin via flickr

Federal Tax Rate - So Unfair

If you thought this was going to be a post about how unfair it is that rich people are being asked to shoulder a bit more of the burden when it comes to funding health care, prepare to be disappointed.

Kevin Drum shares this handy chart that details how the effective tax rate for the top 1% of households has plummeted since 1993, which obviously leads to two results - either less affluent taxpayers need to pick up the difference, or programs need to be cut due to tax revenue drops.

Sadly, it's not the top 1% that usually needs these programs funded. It's the lower income folks who depend on the federal programs as a lifeline. We're not talking about luxury, here. These programs are typically the only thing between suffering and eeking by in life.

Taxes are not bad, and they are not socialist. Lower income citizens normally spend a higher percentage of after-tax income on basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care, where higher income folks invest, save, and spend on non-basic items. So it makes sense to have a graduated tax system, as a flat tax places a higher burden on low-income people than it does high-income taxpayers. Unless, of course, Republicans and conservatives would agree to a flat tax rate applied to gross income in all forms of compensation, with no deductions, but that's not likely.

So stop whining that taxing the top 1% to provide basic health care to around 50 million of our brothers and sisters is some great punishment or redistribution of wealth. If it wasn't a redistribution in the 90s when it was given to the rich, then it's not now. Going back to the 90s, when most people were doing better than we are today, doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Crapping on Earth Day

I hate to take a dump on your Earth Day festivities, but this garbage chart should tell you everything you need to know about environmental futility.

There is so much attention paid to consumer trash recycling that you would think it would be making a difference. Turns out, not so much.

76% of all garbage is industrial waste. We don't recycle that, do we?

No - we spend our time and effort on the 2.5% that is municipal solid waste. Heck, for a minute there I thought I might actually be making a difference.

Silly me.

Chart of the Day - 4.21.2009

The Decline in Lending

In this Mother Jones blog, Kevin Drum has a good look at the true state of lending in the US. The image presented is not all that comforting.

Using Treasury Department data, the Wall Street Journal did an analysis demonstrating that the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid saw a whopping 23% drop in lending between October 2008, when TARP kicked off, and February 2009.

I suppose one could expect a drop off of lending in a crappy economy, but 23%. Yikes.

Chart of the Day - 4.20.2009

Dick Cheney's Pie Hole

Kevin Drum, via ThinkProgress, shares some speculation on whether an outgoing administration has a moral or patriotic duty to keep their opinions to themselves once they leave office.

Much has been made of Dick Cheney going off half-cocked with comments insinuating that President Obama is making the country less safe and that his policies are destined to lead us into an abyss.

Compare that to the approach taken by Cheney's former boss, George W. Bush, who has been admirably quiet, and who believes that he owes the Obama administration his silence.

I added the following comment to Drum's piece:

Getting advice and counsel from the previous administration would be a valuable asset to any new president, and there are scores of examples of where such assistance has been provided. Generally it's given directly to the new administration, not via media outlets like FOX.

And intent is very important here. Is the aim of the person providing the advice really to present alternate views and constructive criticism, or is it to poke the tiger and fan the flames of discontent in general?

With Cheney, many believe that he's so consistently wrong and out of touch, as demonstrated by the success (or lack thereof) of programs and dogmas he supported, that he can't possibly have good intentions at heart and therefore he should shut his pie hole.

Perhaps that's simply transference on my part.

Should Dick Keep His Trap Shut?