Shared publicly  - 
Of the total income increase in 2010, 93% went to the top 1% and only 7% to the bottom 99%. (Source: The New York Times)
Martha D (JustMartha)'s profile photoRyan McDonald's profile photoNorman M.'s profile photoJohn Galt's profile photo
So, wtf are you doing about it Bernie?
And this is the government's business how?
you believe the ny times because? and think there is truth in statistics?
"figures never lie, but liars always figure" would be how I would start my analysis.
Be aware that if you live in the US and are earning more than about $30,000, you are in the global 1%. :-)
+Alexa Alexa Sorry no, the government is societal net-drain, third-party that takes without asking.

The only reason for this kind of article is to promote envy of others. It isn't healthy, it's non-constructive, and doesn't do anything but setup votes for those promising to "make it right."

How about passing some sort of budget at all, or watching what you spend in Congress before paying attention to what we the people make.
Yeah all those roads and police and shit sure is terrible.
Pat Gunn
+Landon Zabcik That's ridiculous. We're all entitled to the fruits of society, not just the very wealthy; if some people are hogging them, that's a valid cause for concern. The government should be our voice in helping seek the public good. It's crazy libertarian logic to portray government as this nasty thing that just leeches off of us.
Where does it say we're entitled to the "fruits of society"? I thought it was just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Anyway, yes, you nailed it, I'm a cynical, mostly libertarian whose tired of the government wasting our money, saddling our children with debt, all while blaming the people.

My point is there is plenty of room for improvement on government's end before we start this envy of others crap.
This kind of inequality on wealth distribution happens everywhere!
+Alexa Alexa On that we actually disagree; I think the representative democracy (in the form of a democratic republic) that we have is probably the best balance; we do need to get lobbying-with-favours out of the system, but it has the potential to be more expertise-driven than direct democracy while still being as democratic in nature (kindasorta) as our system was intended to be.
If income were solely based on capital, it would have been 99%/1%. This sounds like reversion to the mean to me.
+Alexa Alexa Yep, that would be a transformation alright. I agree that we really no longer need a representative republic in this day an age. Our world is so small that the people can directly engage, vote, etc. on every issue, maybe even over the Internet. There is no longer the need for an elected official to represent us and travel to D.C via horseback to vote on issues.
+Landon Zabcik You are neglecting the fruits of our system while focusing on a distorted view of the negatives. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was initially, and we're still improving it, just like the government it grew out of has evolved positively over time.

All people are entitled to organise into a society to better their collective lot. That's not just American. Societies are not just to provide a crown to the very wealthy or the religious freaks and leave everyone else with mud.
+Alexa Alexa I fail to understand any other reason for the article mentioned in this post other than to incite envy? What else would be the reason for this article and for Bernie drawing attention to it??? He (Bernie) wants you to look at your fellow citizens as the problem (they don't pay their fair share), not him. That is my complaint with this kind of article. Our citizens are not the problem, our politicians are.
yes ,Socialism has proved Unsuccessful!
Daron W
Ick.. Who wants a Democracy? I think the Republic that America was designed to be should be the model that we should all follow.. In America all 100% have the same opportunity to become the richest 1% of the nation. Maybe the so called 99% schmucks that are protesting should work toward becoming the 1% & stop trying to drag the 1% down into the 99%. If we all tried to be rich we would get closer to being rich.
stupid demoncraps with their "get from all and divide" VS stupid repigligungs with gomophobe crap; come on, stop your freaking and support only real questions - end the fed & kill the taxes
People move in and out of those groups. Nice try, though.
+Daron Weyers Not everyone can be the richest. And everyone needs to have their basic and reasonable needs met; that's far more important than more privilege for the very richest.
Malesa B
$30,000 in America is not a living income based on the standards that we as Americans feel we need. We as a society feel entitled to luxuries that didn't even exist half a century ago. After living in Peru for 18 months and seeing how some people live there, I feel like I just need to keep my mouth shut and count my many blessings even though my husband and I make a pathetic amount of money (maybe you wouldn't consider our income a living income either). Even though I don't like our rental house at all, I am living like a queen compared to what 99% of the world is living like. I recognize that. I believe in capitalism and I believe that we live in a country where my husband and I can carve a better life out for ourselves. It takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice and decades of not living high on the hog, but it can be done and we are going to do it. We won't have millions of dollars, but we will be happy. People who have food on their table, a secure shelter over their head, sufficient clothes to wear, and clean water to drink just shouldn't be complaining about how their life sucks so bad. The problem is that here people have too high of standards of what that food, shelter, and clothing should be like. Who cares how the 1% of rich dudes live? Are most of them truly happy anyway? I doubt it.
+Yury Vorobyov Less than 10% of the people pushing to "end the fed" have any clue what the fed is or how it functions. If they did, they'd probably not be so keen to see it end, and would probably be talking about reforming it instead.
The biggest lie here is that there was any income increase in 2010. Did you know that our government now adds in it's spending to our reported GNP? So every time our illustrious congress votes itself another pay raise it increases our GNP. Subtract government spending and you will see that the GNP for the US actually decreased sharply.
Artificial statistics wont give any relief
+Malesa B Perhaps the very wealthy should not feel so entitled to hog societal resources for their luxury.
This information is about increases in reported wages, not GNP. Your point may be valid, but it is not relevant.
Landon, I don't think it's an "envy of other" thing (well, o.k., for some people it is) but rather a growing acknowledgement that the game is rigged. Steal $160 and you're going to jail. Steal $1.6 Billion and you get declared "too big to fail" and bailed out with more taxpayer money.

For most of the 20th century the rising tide lifted all boats. The wealthy made a lot of money and the working and middle classes steadily got better off too. Generation after generation for the most part the next generation was a little better off than their parents were. Then sometime in the late 20th century things changed. The wealthy kept getting richer but the working and middle classes started to lose ground. More and more of the wealth started flowing from the bottom to the top.

When things got a little tough the wealthy, not content with already raking in more money than they knew what to do with, shipped massive numbers of jobs overseas so that they could make another 5 cents a share and then, for good measure, sent a lot of their money overseas too so they could avoid paying 15 cents on the dollar in taxes. Naturally with no jobs and increasing cuts in gov't spending on things like education and social services things got even worse for the working and middle classes, who started to default on the overvalued loans the wealthy had sold them and then kicked out into the street when the bankers foreclosed. All of those loan defaults would seem like a bad thing for the banks...until the gov't stepped in and gave them billions of dollars in bailout money. (Where was the bailout money for the working and middle class?). Naturally the bankers accepted the bailout money, gave themselves huge bonuses and continued to foreclose on the working class.

The problem isn't that the wealthy are doing well. The problem is that the wealthy are profiting on the backs of the working class who aren't seeing much of those rewards and they're doing so, at least in part, due to a system that seems designed for exactly that result. It's not that the rich are winning the game, it's that the game is fixed.
The purpose of a healthy system (government) is to use the (voluntarily) shared resources to serve the needs of all the individuals in the system so that each individual is cable to be their best (most physically, emotionally, intellectually, and philosophically healthy). The structure of such a system can be effectively modeled on the structure of a healthy human brain. If you want to see what that might look like, take a look at this:
and this:

Our current system/government is very, very sick. And doesn't really serve anyone's needs at all, and mostly just enables addictions (money/hoarding).
+Stan Warren GNP has always been highly abstract. Cigarettes and gambling are part of it too, lumped in with the obviously productive things like food production and other material goods. Congress is actually quite cheap, and if they make a reasonable wage they're less dependent on lobbyists and the like to just get by.
We have to stop saying "restore democracy" or "we live in a democracy".
We don't. And few of us would want to.
We live in a republic, and there is a critical and important difference between a democracy and a republic. Stop letting politicians confuse you on this matter. It's not just careless language; it's dangerous.
The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. Learn the difference, and spread the word.
envy is a horrible sin, you begin to take such hatred towards others even though you have never met them. Your excuse to ruin others because of the hardships you have faced is never valid. You must stop the time spent on hating fellow human beings and more time spent on acting together to end the hardships you had to endure.
So what are we going to occupy this time?
+Michael Edwards We live in a democratic republic. Republics are considered a kind of democracy. There are other kinds of democracy out there too, like direct democracy.
+Ben Schorr as a friend of mine once put it, the problem with the notion that 'a rising tide lifts all boats' is that in this analogy the water is people too.
I'm guessing this is for the U.S.?
Obviously it takes longer to build up an entire company/economy than one persons career.. Pursue being the 1% instead! If more people do this, the economy will bloom
// Masters in economics and business
+Carl-Johan Nilsson No; that's telling people that the welfare of the less well-off is less important than a stampede to try to become the richest. Closing our eyes to the suffering is not an option, and if anyone merits less privilege, it's the very wealthy, not the poorest.
The super-rich are cannibalising their own success, and no-one has the political will to stop it.
i dunno. i'm middle class, but i don't hold it against the rich people for being super rich. they've been VERY successful, and people shouldn't judge them because of that! if anything, we should all take a lesson from them. and listen to yourselves! you're sounding like communists with all this "equal distribution of wealth" stuff.
+Alden Taylor Any allocation of privilege to them has to be responsible. They should not get tax breaks when our education system is doing poorly, when people are going bankrupt for reasonable medical treatment, and while our transportation system continues to fall behind. They should not be the only people that see benefits from economic growth. They should not own our political system.

Unless the lesson is "get ahead, other people don't matter", I don't imagine what lesson you'd have people learn.
Suck it up. If you had worked hard and gotten into a good college, not gotten a BS degree, and put in the time, the chances are you'd get a pretty damn good job. But now you're at home crying on the internet in this "participation trophy" era. You want wealth? Earn it.
Well yes, that's what we are here for. The top .01% goes "here's some money to put food in you, come back next week" and in return we're supposed to increase their income by a much wider margin than the amount they invested in us. If you can't make 7 or 8 times what you're paying someone off of their work, your return on investment will make you a laughingstock among the other .009%.
While the system isn't built to be fair, it is becoming increasingly unfair. I understand that there will always be rich people, and I understand that there will always be people who deserve to earn more money.

However, there has been a dramatic shift in the allocation of wealth in the last 60 years. The current GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, is triple what it was in the 1950's. That means that, should the distribution of wealth not have changed in the last 60 years, each American would only have to work 1/3rd as much to maintain the same relative standard of living. Obviously that is not the case. It is also obviously impossible that the upper 1% account for 2/3rds of the nation's GDP. This means that the upper 1% has been taking a drastically larger percentage of the wealth produced by everyone in this nation. I don't think we should steal the fruits of their labor, but I think it is time we stopped them from stealing the fruits of our labor.
+Sam López it's what I did, went to college, got a good degree, found a pretty comfortable job. None of this done by occupying anything.
+Daniel Obot That's great for you; not everyone has that opportunity. Occupy is not a perfect movement, but it has drawn a lot of attention to the plight of people who are not so fortunate as to be able to afford college, or who face crippling debt by doing so, or who end up in a less comfortable job and are bankrupted by medical expenses, or other systemic injustices that a lot of Americans face. We can build a more compassionate system that treats them well too. We should.
+Scott Armstrong Changing the system to be more fair is possible, and protests are part of that. We can do that either by changing who gets elected (raising awareness of issues, and ideally getting some laws changed) or by more rough means. The former is naturally preferable.
The system is pretty obviously rigged to favor the extremely wealthy. There is absolutely no reason why investment income should be taxed at less than half the rate of salary based income. Sales taxes are regressive (since wealthy people don't have to spend as much of their income every year), as are Social Security and Medicare taxes (which are capped, which means the effective tax rate is LOWER the wealthier you are). The wealthy have way more access to vehicles that can be used to shield assets and income, as well as more access to foreign financial markets.

People who think our system is perfectly fair haven't examined the ins and outs of our taxation system, which absolutely IS a function of our government. Even things like the mortgage deduction favor the already well-to-do.
+Tony Ouwendyk You're aware that a dollar per day is 365 dollars per year, correct? And you seriously think that will put people into the middle class? I understand that a penny saved is a penny earned, but if you look at my post above, the majority of Americans aren't receiving most of the pennies they've earned, unless you believe this nation to have been socialist/communist in the 1950's. And if you think that, then I say ROFLMFAO.
The 99% are not in the 99% by choice. I'm sorry, but to say that an inner city youth has the same opportunities as someone from wealth is cruel, unfair, and not based in fact.
The top 1% of earners carry those who don't pull their weight- What's new?
So, what follows? There's no necessary correlation to prove it should have been more evenly dispersed. I can't think of a better example of covetousness than this petty class warfare that the left constantly propagates.
+Jared Miller When someone is hogging all the societal resources while everyone else is doing rather badly, it's hardly class warfare to try to fix that. That said, if it's class warfare, let it be class warfare. It's a just war, to fight a grave injustice.
+Jared Miller Actually, worker productivity has been shooting through the roof for the last ten+ years, Normally increased worker productivity is rewarded via increased wages, but instead what is happening is that executives and traders are taking the increased production and keeping it for themselves. If worker productivity is rising, wages should at lease rise at the level of inflation, but instead the inflation adjusted income of the average job holder is going DOWN. You can't honestly say that the average person, with a job, increasing their productivity year after year, does not at least deserve to make the same money he did before.

These aren't "leeches" and "socialists" complaining; it's the average American worker, with a job.

If you look at CEO pay as a microcosm of this phenomenon, CEOs USED to make dozens of times the salary of their average worker's pay. Now they make HUNDREDS of times that salary.

This is not "how things have always been." This is new. And wrong.
The rich are robbing us blind, and you are worried about left and right? Politics are a diversion to distract you from the billionaires with their hand in your pocket. They own everyone.
+Jared Miller You want a correlation, I'll repeat it again. The GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, is triple what it was in the 1950's. You know, during the height of the red scare? At a time when this nation was most concerned with NOT being communist/socialist? Well that means that, in order to maintain the same standard of living in that very much not communist/socialist time, that each and every American would only have to work 1/3rd as much. Obviously that is not the case, because an increasingly small percentage of people have been taking an increasingly larger percentage of the wealth generated by this nation. Can anyone find any reason to justify that shift in income distribution?
It has never been evenly distributed during the history of our nation. I don't understand why the +/- 50% of us still supports a party that is only serving that 1% on top? Surely the other 49% are being duped! Nor can I see why these political traitors (Republican legislators) aren't behind bars for treason, where they belong! Stop boycotting every- and anything just because it is from the Democrate party, you fools!!!
don h
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10 NKJV)
Congratz to the the top 1%!!! Cannot wait to become one of them.

But I am not sure, I had a $12.5k pay increase last year. According to these "unbiased" stats, I dont fit into either the top 1% or the bottom 99%.

Huh, makes no sense?

Wait, it does with a basic understanding of mathematics.

With 8-9% unemployment for 99 weeks, those people got 0 pay increase, so

($12.5k + .008 * (USA population - me) * 0)/USA Population = ~0

which is close to $80 relative to ($4.2 Million / full employment) of the top 1%.

The new york times and bernie sanders are simply praying off of the stupid. Do not be one of them!
+Ian Struckhoff From this post there is no way of telling what source the chart used to compute income increases., but if someone is making 100X my income, and the income for the nation increases say 3% my 3% increase will be a hell of a lot less than his 3% increase.
Who will come forward for equal distribution? It's from the beginning. How far we are civilized?
Mike D
welp, it is nice to see politically moderate and intellectually sound people dominating this discussion. Wait...nvm
Rich get richer and the poor move to Mexico
+anthony kulis I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not being one of them. However, all this talk did inspire me to look at the history of wealth distribution in this nation. It has changed drastically in my father's lifetime, and I have yet to find a reason why. What was wrong with the manner wealth was distributed in the 1950s?
I'm going offshore, just like all the politicians and wealthy do (legally).
And to be clear, I'm doing perfectly fine financially. The only debt I have is a car payment. By myself, I'm roughly at roughly the 70th percentile of household income. However, I strongly believe in individual responsibility. It really bothers me that so many people are either a) not paying taxes or b) living off of government assistance. So I started to look into things. How can it be that our GDP per capita has been skyrocketing over the last few decades, our unemployment rate has remained steady, and yet still so many people are still unable to support themselves? Then I came across the shift in the distribution of wealth. The wealthy have been taking even more. How are we to expect people to stand on their own feet and not mooch off of society when the top 1% are taking away the money they've earned? Give people what's theirs, so that we don't have to give them what's ours.
yeah init i am one two were going to mess you all up lol :)
How about you get off G+, stop whining, and go get an education and a job. I make a 6 figure salary, NO ONE has given me ANYTHING, and I work HARD for what I have. Get over it whiner. I am NOT ashamed to be making what I do. I earned it.
It's way past time to get off the envy and class warfare bullshit and time to return to what made this country at one time the richest country with the highest standard of living for the most people the world had ever known. When everybody in our country had the freedom to develop an idea, start an enterprise, and succeed or fail the US was known as "the land of opportunity", sadly, now, we are "the land of regulations". Instead of millions of free individuals innovating and developing, we have government bureaucrats telling us what is allowed. They have many people believing the big lie that this is for our own safety and well being instead of a power grab. A US citizen wanting to develop and create a business biased on a new idea today would be better off going to China to do it.

I agree that the income disparity is getting much worse in this country. I submit that this is because of those regulations stifling competition to the people, and companies that have already "made it". The big corporations, big unions, support the government of their choice and in turn the government rewards them with the laws they want passed.

In attempting to control and eliminate the abuses of the system that made the US the richest country in history, we have destroyed the system.

Our politicians are now more dependent on the lobbyists than the voters for their jobs.
+Stan Warren What will allow us to make the country well off is actually caring for it. People don't become great in isolation; they need a great educational system, they need a just economic system, and they need infrastructure. By failing to invest in our future and just tossing our money into trinkets for the rich, we're squandering our potential and being very cruel to our most vulnerable.
+Ryan McDonald Congrats on making a 6 figure salary. However, sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't yet qualify to be in the population people are pissed at.
Because wealth grows into more wealth and debt grows into more debt. Unchecked you end up with lords and serfs, kings and peasants, educated and uneducated, healthy and unhealthy.
Because trickle-down economics totally works. Totally! note sarcasm
Trickle-down economics is a lot like communism. They both work in theory. It's the practice that ruins things.
+Steven Krashefski and agreed to the trickle down economics the only problem by the time it gets to the bottom there is nothing left to share
+Alexa Alexa I wouldn't live in a democracy, because that would allow 51% of the people to remove the rights of the other 49%. So, if 51% of U.S. citizens decided that all Latino U.S. citizens should be deported, it would be legal. Democracy is essentially just organized mob rule. That's not a system I want to live in.
+Pat Gunn The key difference is that our republic has some democratic elements. That's not a bad thing, overall. But a republic does not allow for any citizen's rights to be infringed upon, even if it's 99.9% for and only 0.1% against.

But the more that politicians use the term 'democracy' incorrectly (and I believe, sometimes intentionally), the more that people will misunderstand the difference,and the easier it would be to make sweeping changes. None of us can ever be sure of exactly how many of us vote a certain way. Under a democracy, the government can tell us that 51% voted in one direction, and we can't confirm or deny it. But in a republic, regardless of the vote, we can know if a proposed law is legal or not. If it infringes upon personal rights, it is not legal in a republic. But in a democracy, it would be.
I can't get passed the cupid contact....................... honest to god people.........................................................and you said I was crazy......................yeah right sure about that? Donna....>>>>>>scoop DL.
+John Patti What're you talking about? He's been a senator for almost his entire life.
+Tony Ouwendyk Most of us who are so privileged to take part in this conversation are not the poor on whose behalf we're hoping to see change. Most of those poor are not going to be able to provide such a service anyhow. Your advice is bollocks except for the already privileged who don't need it.
this whole economy is messed up. we work on the notion of debt so someone is always in debt. It is so simple that everyone can understand it. lets say that all we have in the economy is $1. This $1 is printed by the US government then given to the bank at 0% interest rate (because that is what it is right now). Then the bank loans out the $1 to farmer John with a 25% interest. So farmer John owes back a $1.25. Where is John going to get .25c if it does not exist?? So there is no way in the world we can pay off our debts unless there is a constant print of $ raising inflation but gets worse. So to pay off the .25 cents the government prints 25 cent and gives it to the bank. The bank leads out this 25 cent to Steve's Groceries for an interest of 5 cent. So Steve buy's John's groceries for 25 cent. John is able to pay back the bank the $1.25 but now Steve is in debt for 5 cent because it does not exist!
I agree with everything except your last point. Actions and words are two separate channels of expression, so one can work toward a better future for themselves in action while still advocating for a more level playing field. Also, Everybody who has influence, votes others in to earn their keep; This is the American way to the majority of corporate successes. A lot of people do have the mindset that they are owed something, and that will contribute to their inability to move progressively.
So I guess the Wall Street occupiers did not experience a sudden increase in income?! Shocking! Shocking!
+Tony Ouwendyk I'm relatively satisfied with my level of income. Like you, I am concerned with people not earning their keep. But upon investigation of what has been happening, I am left with two possible conclusions. Either a) 1 in 100 Americans are twice as productive as the other 99 Americans combined; or b) 1 in 100 Americans are taking a larger percentage of the profits of the labor done by all 100 Americans.

I say these things because the gdp per capita, adjusted for inflation, is triple what it was 60 years ago. We'd have a lot less people to be upset with, if their relative pay hadn't changed in 60 years.
I tend to resent a arrogance of the people calling themselves the 99%. That implies that I, and millions of others that believe the way I do are with them. We are not, they do not represent us! Label yourselves correctly, perhaps the 20%.
Sounds reasonable to me. I want our rich getting richer. They employ a hell of a lot more than the poor do.
try explaining that to right wing republicans like Michael Savage.
he will scream class
+Stan Warren They represent the interests of the vast majority of the population, not necessarily the politics of those of whom are duped.
I don't begrudge the wealthy their money what I do take issue with is that many of them get tax breaks to create jobs and then they never create them. They should not be getting those kinds of breaks from the government. The reason the economy is as bad as it is is because all the jobs were shipped overseas and then came the lay offs and then the companies paid themselves multi million dollar bonuses. If those bonuses had went back into development and labor then the economy might have grew instead of shrank.

Bankers with no morals and Corporations with no feelings are the main problems as well as how both were so deregulated that they decided to just run with the money and it looked to the whole world as if they just didn't care at all what was happening. To run a business or financial institution with just a money grab mentality is going to just cause large financial problems. It forces people out of work and then that affects other businesses as they loose customers because of the other lay offs. Then those businesses have to lay off and then on and on it goes till you have companies folding and going bankrupt.

Until people get back to work with a meaningful wage then we are not going to see the economy get well any time soon. I am not talking about government I am talking about people actually being able to work. This a country of we the people and not just we the rich and corporate. If the country does not look to the common good then this nation is at its end and there will be no way of saving it.
+Todd Scheving That's a catch 22 though. I'm all for the rich getting richer as well, so long as the overall percentage doesn't change. However, it's continuing to change. If they're keeping an even larger percentage of that wealth for themselves, then they're employing less people, or they are denying other people the fruits of their labor.

The problem isn't uneven distribution of wealth. The problem is the changing distribution of wealth.
Jack Le
NYT is a duhh source. I never believe it. And I only kiss my womans' asses.
99% in terms of population or income level, I think they're quite different.
Jack--It's the old story: if you can't refute the message, then attack the messenger. Your old lady's ass has nothing to do with it. (Thank goodness!)
The numbers can play out anyway you want them. When you take the total population of the world, I am sure what his chart describes may be true. But, this is coming from a self-described democratic socialist. hard to believe people fall for this BS
+Alexa Alexa Our republic is being destroyed by using democratic principals to ignore the rule of law, our constitution and bill of rights. You are dangerously close to your wish to live in a democracy. Every year the US slips a little closer to mob rule instead of the rule of law.
I agree with you that something must be done about our 2 party dictatorship.
it's irrelevant the fact remains that the american rich get richer and the poor stay poor or get poorer and we can do is elect filthy dishonest weak men to dole out the cash amongst themselves and the rich welcome to america land of bought oppurtunity
It's a sad reflection on our society that 99% are underachievers who believe the world owes them a living.
Frank M
The lesson here is that its not a redistribution of wealth; rather, we should focus on why the "99%" are not seeing an increase comparable to the "1%". Focus on having the 99ers see their opportunities and wealth increase for the very hard work they do.
+Frank M The issue won't be solved with inspiring the less-well-off. The issue will be solved by restructuring things so they have a fair share of society's fruits.
This isn't good in general. But what the heck does anyone propose we do about it?
A graph can show anything sometimes even the truth.Remember that the 1% are the ones that furnish the jobs for the ones that want to work.But then again you have the75% that is to lazy to work and wants every thing given to them.Jane Fonda and Obama are two peas in a pod. If you voted for Obama to show that you were not perjudice.Please don't vote for him again and show how stupid you are.!!!
+kevin levy Increase taxes on investment. Return to earlier tax brackets. Provide effective education for everyone. Provide effective healthcare for everyone. Regulate abstract financials. Increase investment in infrastructure, particularly public transit. Publicly fund elections.
It is actually very simple, you cannot get someone to understand something if their salary is dependant on not understanding it. These fat cats think they deserve it. They live in an unrealistic world based on greed and ego. They are so high on themselves that they really can't see that their largesse is destroying the fabric of society.
And of course, they are the ones making the rules to benefit themselves.
We are living in a world run by the military industrial complex as foretold by Eisenhower years ago. A corporate feudalistic society that no longer has people in the equation.
The only way to change this, is for people to play an active part in their society and stop waiting for someone else to do it for them.
Provide provide provide. Provide for yourself, Not the governments job.
+Theo Von Druessel +Ed Radcliff Yeah, as nonsense goes, it was top-notch. It balanced profound ignorance of how people live, profound ignorance of how jobs are created, profound ignorance of why people vote the way they do, and yet it managed to call others stupid. Pretty amazing.
One solution (not THE solution, but 1 of many) is actually completely counter intuitive, but... To create products and solutions that will make these people with additional income to want to SPEND THEM.

The problem isn't the income going to the top, the problem is income going there and then getting trapped as re-investment or savings because there's nothing to spend it on. There's no chance of the money reaching "main street" hands in that case.

Growing completely new industries that the rich would WANT is one key way to unlock these pool of resources. Something insane, like space tourism, buy your own orbital spaceship, clinical facilities focused on scientifically extending youth/life, building/land grab on the moon, etc.

Examples like these will start getting everyone employed again and money flowing.
+Stan Warren considering the change in the distribution of wealth that has occurred over the last few decades, thanks to so called charitable donations and lobbyists, the evidence seems to suggest that this nation is moving closer to a corporatocracy than it is to mob rule.
+Hon Chong Chang We won't make a just society by finding ways to be nicer to the selfish rich. Let's leave serfdom in the past.
+Trapier K. Michael The problem is that the 1% are getting paid a larger and larger percentage overall. I have no problem with the rich getting richer, but if you run a company of 100 people, and the company's profits double, what would be the appropriate way to distribute those extra profits? Would it not be the same way you distributed the profits before?
The only time anyone does more than bitch and complain about anything Gov't related, though, is when SOPA breaches the gates and threatens internet activity.
Just saying... if you care that much, people, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
So wait, because I think there's a problem with the extreme degree of division of wealth I don't have a job anymore? You'd think I'd at least have gotten an e-mail from my employer or something, but thanks for letting me know, guys. Did you feel so charitable to leave COBRA in place or am I going to have to just stop my heart medications after this month?
Well, that's good. Some people are just better at gaining money than others. What people forget is at what cost? How much "in love" is their wife with them (or their money)? Do they spend quality time with their kids, teaching them how to live and be real honest adults? Some people are very successful in their careers and can make lots of money, and that's great. I don't see why people that aren't as successful have to bash those that are. I have a great (probably even a capital GREAT!) family, kids that I love and they love me back, a beautiful and wonderful wife, and I make enough to provide for them and have extras. I'm definitely not in the 1%, or in the top 50%. But, I'm extremely happy and successful in my career. I volunteer and help others when I can, I enjoy my work. Great job for those 1% that got that far! Congratulations! We all have our success stories, their's just happens to be loads of cash. Mine is to be happy in my own home with a loving family and a successful career that I thoroughly enjoy.
Josh B
let me see if i understand this.
lets say ther are 3 people. one has a net value of 10,000,000, the next has a value of 1,000,000, and the last has only 50,000.
now lets say they all invest some money and get a return equal to 10% of their value. so the first person earned 1,000,000 the second 100,000 and the thirds a meager 5,000. so tell me this, is this the definition of income equality?
The article says the chart is adjusted for inflation. If they took their inflation stats from the Federal Reserve reporting, this chart is crap.
When did Christian dogma become secular law, Trap? Did we re-prohibit porn again too? And why is it so wrong to be jealous of people actually being paid proportionately to the value they generate instead of .01 of the value they generate? You could give me 1% of the income I generate instead and still afford to have a nicer chair in your office than I have in my cube.

Oh wait I forgot, the internet fired me for thinking something bad about old-money.
Where are they getting these stats? $80 - really? If someone is that poor how are they even in a stable enough environment to track those numbers?
+Josh B I'd be perfectly happy with that situation. The problem is, lets say a company employs 3 people, one makes $1,000,000 per year, one makes $100,000 per year, and one makes $50,000 per year. Now lets say the profits triple. Would it not then be fair to say that one makes $3,000,000 a year, one makes $300,000 a year, and one makes $150,000 a year? That seems fair right? Profits tripled, so everyone's salary tripled.

The problem is, it's more like this: the first guy now makes $3,995,500, the second guy now makes $103,000 and the third guy now makes $51,500.
+Jennifer Sober that's not how much they made. That's how much there income increased over the previous year.
I find it interesting that the people on here that are crying for the government to "do something" are the same ones that are mad at wall street. Why do I find it interesting? Because the big banks wouldn't be able to do what they're doing without the government bailing them out every time they steal from general public!

The more power you give the government, the more incentive you give companies to lobby and work their way into the government to get special deals rather than actually compete in a free marketplace. More government will make the problem worse, not better.

Edit: I also find it funny that the people that are wanting more government intervention are always talking about how incompetent half of congress are. Do you really want to give politicians more power? What if a party opposite of your views takes the majority in congress? Do you still want the government to have more control?

The government should be small and very limited. The government should be nothing more than an umpire, not a body that picks winners and losers and determines who should be taken from and who should be given to. Anytime you give the government the power in those choices you invite rampant abuse and special favors.

The problem is the government. The solution is not more government.
congrats, yo have successfully identified something that is common sense: the more money you have the easier it is to get more, and the less you have the harder it is to get more. I believe the term "No shit Sherlock" applies here nicely.
why do we need to punish success again?
And if Romney gets his way, the 99% will suffer even more. In a bleak future, the 99% may have to take up arms against the 1% (and the police hired to protect them) to keep their simple liberties, and enough money to feed their families. To that I say:

Down with the 1%.
+Alexa Alexa That's a bit extreme. We've a mixed system, with far too much corporate/wealthy influence in government, but it's better than a lot of the rest of the world.
+Trapier K. Michael Your scale is very narrow. This problem didn't pop up over night, it's been growing for decades. The problem with the upper 1% is that, just like everyone else, they're a little greedy. However, unlike everyone else, there's no one to stop them from acting on their greed. So every now and then they take a little bit more of the pie. Expand that over a few decades, and you get what you have today where 1 in 5 dollars of value generated by this nation finds its way to 1 in 100 hands.
+Trapier K. Michael I'd even be fine with your suggestion. Reward the people who innovated. But even that's not happening. The people in charge of the people who innovated are the ones being rewarded.
Yet another example of lying with statistics.
Stop giving corporations control of the government, and watch how much these numbers change.
Assuming these numbers are factual (NYT has admitted to never letting facts get in the way of a good story), a lot of the increase can be accounted for by the hundreds of millions Buffett made from his relationship with B.O.
+Douglass Gaking True, but doing something about that is difficult. People will always be corruptible or have something to lose. How do you stop corporations from rewarding politicians who aid them, or throw their weight behind the enemies of politicians who won't aid them?
J Lewis
If we all paid less attention to what everybody else is doing and spent more time on our own efforts, we would see our situations improve. Keep your eye on your own prize!
+Michael Edwards It's in the best interest of the USA and the citizens of the USA to have a more even distribution of wealth. An economy that has the much greater majority of the wealth concentrated in the top 1% of earners is unbalanced and not good for the economy in the long term. A healthy economy is a diverse economy. You get a diverse economy through having institutions and laws that give everybody the chance to get out there, be creative, and have the good ideas that they will have if given the chance. Our laws and institutions are drifting more and more from effectively doing that. Instead, our laws and institutions are increasingly being organized in a way that give people with lots of wealth an advantage over those who lack wealth. Therefore, in the USA, wealth generally creates more wealth in a positive feedback loop.

Here's a visual representation of this. Imagine business opportunities and economic opportunities are like a nice steady rainfall on a big open field. This field is limited in size and everyone has to squeeze onto it if they want to catch these opportunities. Everyone is trying to catch that rain with a tarp or some other contraption. These tarps represent wealth but they also enable individuals to catch economic opportunities that can be used to get a bigger tarp. Some people have little tarps that don't catch much rain, while others have enormous tarps that catch lots of rain. In the same amount of time, individuals with bigger tarps catch more rain, or economic opportunities, than those with smaller tarps. Why, might you ask. Well, because the bigger tarps take up a larger area. They cover more surface area. You're not going to catch much rainwater with a cup, but you'll catch lots of it with a big, huge tarp. All these opportunities that are getting caught can be used to get a bigger tarp, aka increase ones wealth. So, because people with bigger tarps collect economic opportunities faster than people with smaller tarps, the people with bigger tarps can make their tarps get larger much faster than those with little tarps. This is what is happening in the USA.

All the economic opportunities are being caught by those with the most wealth, because they are in the best position to catch them. There's little left for the rest of us.
+J Lewis We'll never achieve justice or compassion if we're only concerned about our own well-being.
+Jack Le 's woman has more than one ass. Probably a one-percenter -- in her own way.
Add in the value of health care benefits that people are getting and you'd see a very different--and more legitimate--result.
I too am in the bottom 99%, but I don't go around complaining about the rich getting richer. Let the rich keep their money. I don't complain because I know I have the same tools and same rights to make as much money as the rich. What's stopping me and the rest of the 99% is lack of motivation and initiative. We have no one to blame but ourselves for being in the bottom 99%.
+Phil Ward In a narrow scope your point is right on the money. The problem is, when you broaden the scope to a few decades, you'll see that it's not exactly that simple. There has been a shift in the distribution of wealth over the last few decades where the wealthy are getting a larger percentage of the wealth generated by the nation. So while I agree that we have the right to work hard and pull ourselves up into that 1%, doing so is being made difficult because the 1% is taking an increasingly larger percentage of the wealth generated by our hard work.
+Michael Frank Nobody's suggesting a perfectly flat income map. It just needs to be a lot less severe.
+Alexa Alexa that's true, the 1% are giant institutions that are taking over control of our government for their own advantage. The people that are willing to give up what little is left of their personal rights and freedoms to an ever bigger more powerful government in the hopes the government will control these giant corporations are just playing into their hands.
You can not "regulate" your way to freedom.
+Landon Zabcik The reason for the article is to illustrate that the government isnt the only one who takes. This is whats missing from these conversations and Bernie gets it. Coroporations ARE taxing the poor and middle class far more than the government ever did. I want to see the chart that shows (in the last 20-30 years) 1. average cost of living increase, 2. the amount of money the government has taken from our paychecks, and 3. the amount of money CORPORATIONS have taken from our paycheck in reduced wages. Whats lost in this TAX conversation is that when salaries and average wages are stagnant (or declining) as the cost of living rises, we have less spending power. That is a far greater TAX on society than a 1 or 2% government tax increase (which is usually implemented to FIX the very problem of inequality that corporations are creating. I like knowing the ones making these decisions are held accountable to the people (by way of vote) as opposed to a corporatocracy which the anti-government activists are asking for. When corporations run things, our benefits and wages are always subject to change. How often is that change beneficial to US as opposed to THEM! This scenario has always existed, but today, we can see the results of coroporate decision-making loud and clear. They are in the business if making money. Our welfare is an afterthought. At least there's someone out there representing OUR intersests who IS accountable to us (as long as we are vigilant and vote). Am I wrong? How is money TAKEN from us by way of decreased wages and benefits to increase the wealth of the top 1% better than money TAKEN from us by a group of elected individuals to provide services which benefit ALL OF SOCIETY? Will someone please explain this to me. Honestly, it doesnt make sense to me.
Its social darwinism. The top are on top for a reason. If they somehow got there by lying, stealing, or taking advantage of the less priviledged thats on their conscious. Money does not a rich man make.
Great, now the rich will have more money to buy my stuff :D
And pray-tell Einstein, by what measurement shall these "re-distributions" be determined? By what standard shall they be applied? Whom shall we trust to be "fair"? and what is the definition of fair? Who gets to decide how "fairness" shall be defined? Do you trust Congress to decide these things? How have they done so far in this regard? Shall we appoint an all-knowing "Czar of All Things Fair"? What would be the qualifications for such a position?

You ignore history at our peril. This stupidity has been tried in several countries, throughout history, many times. The results are always the same; a despotic, unrepentant, brutal dictatorship ensues. The quality of life for all declines, freedom is destroyed, and the only equality the nation achieves is everyone lives in misery, except the ruling political elites and their allies.

You are very likely too young to know this but our nation has been in rapid decline since the mid 60's precisely because dickheads convinced minds full of mush capitalism is inherently unfair and unjust. Few lies are more deadly. You very likely are too young to have any clue what living in a true Capitalistic society is like. Beginning with the LBJ's nightmarish "Great Society" programs and the progressives foray into our schools and universities we had less poverty, less crime, a much larger middle class, more economic power, and all the nice things we would like to get back. Yes, I said "get back" because we had it once. What happened you need to ask and you need to learn. How did we get to where we are? See above but apply it to a wider scale.

Perhaps you hate "big corporations". You likely hate them for the same reasons I do but unlike me you haven't learned the truth why they are despicable. Big corporations have become a nuisance because they have leveraged big government power to their advantage. They achieved the unfair advantages I assume you hate because stupid people like Bernie Sanders get pumpkin-heads to to help them.

Before you respond I invite you to consider the following questions. When you learn you cannot answer them perhaps then you will learn the awful truth. You will learn you are a tool of the establishment not a champion against it. Perhaps you will learn you should no longer trust any politician especially douchebags like Bernie Sanders.

1) What is the net asset value of the Socialist Security Trust Fund? (i.e., what is the current balance in it after one subtracts all the liabilities due)
2) What have been the annualized rates of return on the "investments" within it over the past 1, 5, 10, 20+ years?
3) When you find there is no "Trust Fund" where did all the money go? Who took it? Was a crime committed?
4) Why does the government require the private investment entities to disclose these things but they aren't required to do so with all the money they have taken from us all these years?
5) Can you explain why the cost of college tuition has increased far faster than the cost of medical care yet no one seem to think it necessary to "Occupy __(the university of one's choice)?"
6) Why hasn't there been any new automobile manufacturers in this country since AMC motors died?
7) On what basis, by what standard, and by what measure has one person have a claim to another's income, assets, wealth whatever? And who gets to apply the basis, set the standard, and take the measurement and by what authority shall they have these powers?
8) If I refuse to submit to allowing others to loot my holdings have you the justification to kill me?
9) How long do you believe it will be before the producers of the world grow indifferent to their "responsibilities" to the blood-suckers who feed on us and become one ourselves. After all why work harder we should all get "share" with everyone.

Wake up dumbass.
If you look at history, it's almost always these kinds of inequities that cause the downfall of societies.
+John Galt This country was founded because we were pissed that the British were taking away our money. Whether that money is taken away by the government, or by the increasingly greedy super rich is splitting hairs.

How much of the profits will be spent on salary increases is determined in a manner in which the employees have no input. Is that not akin to taxation without representation? :-p
I like the idea that I could possibly be in the 1% one day. The problem is, 99% of all human beings will never be in the 1%! Thats a fact. Think about it. We shouldnt cater to them when they are such a small percentage. Do some research. Look at what the tax rates were 50-60 years ago on the top 1% and corporations. Was the economy healthy? Was the middle class healthy? Were the 1% STILL rich? Were the corporations doing well? The answer is YES to all. The difference is the 1% and the corporations have gotten so good at making money, they've forgotten who makes all that money for them. The income divide wasnt always so dramatic as it is now. When one group takes more of the pie, the other group ALWAYS gives up some of their pie. And when the group taking represents only 1 in 100 people, I say that's just greedy. I'm sorry but I work hard to take care of my family and I'm not feeling any of this excess wealth that corporations have now trickling down to me. Does anyone else? I think someone lied to us about this whole trickle-down concept. IT DOESNT WORK! It relies on people who have spent their entire lives finding ways to cut costs and make more money to suddenly change that mindset and give money away. SERIOUSLY! Am i the only one who has realized this? 
Yes, and life is as simple as Republicans and Democrats, just like the Democrats believe.
Our country has already been brought down by greed; individual and corporate!
Welcome my son, Welcome, to the machine.
It shouldn't be about 'redistribution of wealth'. It should be about 'equalization or opportunities'. And that equalization should be based on merit and ability, not on existing financial wealth. Whether my net worth is $100 or $1,000,000, I should have the same opportunities (excluding those that require a 'buy-in', like investing in the stock market or a new business venture.
The other important aspect is a fair tax percentage without legal loopholes accessible only to those with the money to pay for the specialized accountants & lawyers.
A lot of numbers are thrown around like the top 1% pay X% of the total tax revenue. That's a misleading statistic, and used by a lot of conservative media personalities. What matters is what percentage of their income they are paying.
Example: 100 people in a community. 1 makes $1,000,000/year, the other 99 make $10,000 per year. The community collects taxes of $600,000 each year. The top earner pays $200,000 in taxes each year. So, he's paying 33.3% of all the taxes! One person is paying 33.3% of the taxes! Unfair, right?
Yes, but not why you might think. He's only paying 20% of his income in taxes, while the other 99 are paying 40.4% of their income in taxes.
(20% of $1,000,000 = $200,000; 40.4% of $10,000 = $4040 [x99 = $399,960])
So, those 99% are paying twice as much of their income in taxes as the top earner. The top earner's net income is still $800,000 per year. The bottom 99% is taking home $5,960 each.
And considering that your tax returns are private information, how do we know, for certain, exactly how much the top wage earners are actually paying in taxes?
There's a simple solution. A flat tax, with minor conditions.
Example: Any wage earner that is below the 'poverty line' (let's call it $18k per year for now) would not pay taxes. That's about $8.65/hour, not much above minimum wage.
Anyone between $18k-$23k/year would pay a 10% flat rate. $23k-$30k, 20%. More than $30k/year, 30%. (Or some type of scaling that doesn't penalize someone getting a raise from $29,500 per year to $30,000 per year).
Cap it at 30%. Then, don't allow any budgets that spend more than was collected. In fact, the budget for 2013 should be based upon what was collected in 2012 for the 2011 taxes. No defecit spending. No borrowing, except in actual and extreme emergencies. If each of us as citizens can manage our households this way, so can the government.
Sharikov wanted to take all people's money and divide them in "right way". It is communism, not less.
+Morris Buel If colonial Americans were unhappy with British taxation, why didn't they just leave?

Trickle down economics does not work, as is evident by the shift in the distribution of wealth that has undergone in this country. The link at the bottom of this post has a chart showing the change in gdp per capita, the change in median family income and the change in median household income. If there was not a change in the distribution of wealth, those lines would be closer together. Clearly American businessmen are more absorbent that the theory realized.
Guys, you are LUCKY you have America, we here in Russia have nothing just because of such communist jokes. When you will understand that communism failed, it is always too late to do anything.
I agree completely with Bernie Sanders. Having worked at job for five years without a pay increase, I understand Senator Sanders position. With the destruction of labor Unions the government seems to be the last resort to negotiate better wages for working folks. AT & T paid Tmobile 3 billion dollars. Can you imagine if that money has gone to customer incentive and wage increase ? Now AT & T has increased customers rate by 5 dollars in order to compensate the stupidity of some CEO's . Every U.S worker should think of starting their own business. The practices in some corporations makes me feel like throwing up. The government needs to check the power and influence of big corporation on people's life and politics. The minimum wage in U.S should be $12/hr and people should get paid "time and half" for working over 30hr/wk. The government should lower corporate taxes and raise individual taxes on those top 1% while closing all special deductions and tax loopholes.Businesses who give their workers pay increases or bonuses should get even more tax cuts. Capital investment is as important as "time" investment". Workers who have invested their time, energy and life need to get dividends when a company grows. If 90% of gains in economic growth has gone to 1% of the people, does that imply that only 1% of the populace created all that economic gains ? My answer is : NO.
+Clint Fix "The more power you give the government, the more incentive you give companies to lobby and work their way into the government to get special deals rather than actually compete in a free marketplace. More government will make the problem worse, not better."

That only difference that will make is that corporations will have to spend less on lobbyist.
Pure and unregulated capitalism doesnt work. Im not opposed to most of the obvious benefits which capitalism provides us. Im not opposed to those who work harder getting more from that work. I simply believe that there needs to be an income balance for a fair and just society. If the top .1% held 99.99% of the wealth, would that be just and fair simply because capitalism would allow it? What would be a just and fair distribution to benefit all society (corporations included)? A balance and fairness must exist for people to be happy. ALL people, not just the uberwealthy. All who can work should work. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Its obvious that those who are currently working are working with less reward for that work when you consider the average cost of living increases. Could it be possible that part of the reason why it's so hard to motivate people to enter the workforce is because of the reduced benefit (brought to us by corporate cost cutting)? When corporations cut wages and benefits (taking away the very thing which motivates an individual to apply for a position), is it their fault when fewer people apply or is it the person's fault for simply not accepting their lot in life...accept it or starve? I'm being overly dramatic here but you should get my point. Dangling this carrot of "YOU TOO COULD ONE DAY BE IN THE 1% !" Is dishonest and only serves to brainwash 99% of americans. It's true, but, people have finally realized what the odds of that are when seeing what an AVERAGE wage will get us now and the increasing decline of that wage and any benefits. When the AVERAGE wage approaches the MININUM WAGE, we'll see this man-made system called capitalism collapse. This wage issue needs to be resolved. I dont have the answer. If fairness and equality isnt naturally produced from a particular system (take your pick), it is doomed to failure. The people will end it. They always have. Everyone needs oversight. The government oversees the the good of society (including corporations), and WE oversee the government. Take that away and we'll lose what little control we have over our society. Of, for, and by the people remember. The founding fathers understood this. We just need to understand why this is preferable to "might makes right".
Reminds me of the old saying. Those who have, will be given more.
+Ben McBride It's not really a republican/democrat thing, because neither party has a plan to address the issue.
+Morris Buel Do you really think that google wouldnt exist if their tax rate were 5-10% more? They would still have as many employees, still produce the same products, and still be making ridiculous amounts of profits. Just not nearly as ridiculous as they are now. That's the only thing that would change. Oh yeah, AND WE COUKD BE ON OUR WAY TO PAYING OFF OUR FREAKIN' NATIONAL DEBT! But who cares about the national debt? We need to make sure people have the right to be trillionaires first right! That's an excellent priority. 
That is to say I made (if I'm average in this respect) $80 more last year than I did the year before. If this number is adjusted for inflation, then it's good news. If it's not adjusted for inflation, it's deceptive.
Trap, you don't need me, I took out loans to get my degree since I don't have a trust-fund. I'm the wrong kind of people for the jobs you're referring to, I actually know stuff and can do things. If someone like that gets into the 1%, pretty soon trillionaires will only be billionaires and there will be several percents more of them. This is unacceptable.

What we really need to do is stop drug-testing so that people with jobs who aren't from old money are happy being poor, shut off their ambition with THC so that they don't go trying to take away board-room jobs from people who can't actually do anything productive and have no career options besides sitting in a board-room.

Do I have to make a power-point for you to understand? Managers do so love power-points, you can replace the subtleties of effective strategy with pretty colors and fun sounds and a handful of buzzwords.
Good, trickle down economics never worked, about time to fix those tax cuts.
+Matthew Hatfield Good job with the petty insults. That is always the best way to ensure others that you really are more than some jealous, pissed off guy.
If you don't like your income, get off your ass and create something. Dont be a Leach that expects more to be handed to you.
+Chris Gray You don't seem to understand the problem. The problem is that the upper 1% is taking a larger percentage of the profits generated. If you look at the GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, you'll see that Americans are getting off their asses to try to make more money. The problem is, that 1% is keeping that money for themselves.
How true -- sad the what greed has become in the USA
+Albert Berard That's a good point. But I have no idea how to address union cultures, because I have never been part of a union.
Plural vs singular isn't covered in MBA courses, Ken?
+Clayton Thompson You don't seem to understand the issue. The issue isn't that people are upset because people worked hard, studied hard, took a risk that paid off, and got rewarded for it. That makes sense.

What people are upset about is their pay increase not reflecting the value increase their hard work has brought to the company. Since 1967, the median household income has increased by 21%. Over that same time, the GDP per capita has increased by 213%. That's an awful lot of money being denied to people who worked very hard for it.
what people are upset about is (being screwed) or not.
+Chris Gray So, when you go about your day, socializing with the people you meet, buying the products you buy, and paying for the services you pay for, are ALL those people leeches? REALLY! Wake up man. Not everyone is an inventor. Most of us will work for someone else. Alot of the top 1% simply work for someone else. Your comment shows your lack of understanding to the situation that we're in. It's not a republican thing. It's not a democratic thing. It's a financial balance thing which affects ALL workers across the board. Most (if not all) of the people you know are probably being affected by this. Our incomes are decreasing (once cost of living is calculated) unless you're in the top 1%. If you are, maybe you simply don't care what's happening to everyone else. Maybe you dont have any friends who have taken pay cuts while corporate profits are at record highs. Are you THAT guy or are you the guy who is arguing against your friends' best interest based on propaganda? Trickle-down economics is a failure and anyone who doesnt see that by now must be blind or brainwashed. We cant all be Steve Jobs. We can all try, but it's never gonna happen. How much more do the top 1% deserve? Maybe we should just give it all to them. At what point would you actually say that they've taken too much? I say they already have. I've asked this question to my republican friends (yes, I have many republican friends) and the answer is always "What is too much?". There's the problem. Does noone see this as a problem? If the top .1% held 99.99% of all the money, would that be right? Shouldn't there be a fair balance? Does one single human being deserve so much when ALL other humans have so little? When is it too much? How would we decide? Is a trillion dollars really that much more useful to a human being than a billion dollars or million dollars? I'm nowhere near the 1% but I work hard, support my family, and can help others often. Imagine how much more we could do for our families if all the money taken from us weren't going toward private islands and corporate jets and all the other obviously unnecessary things that humans need to truly be happy and prosperous. I'm tired of my prosperity being taken away by those who have enough prosperity to last 10 generations. Maybe 100 generations! Give it some thought. The more they take, the less we have.
The thing is that to make the kind of money you need to make to get into that 1% that controls 99% of the wealth is that you need either lottery-winning luck with a small business, like Apple, or you need to spend an amount of money that most people will never see investing. If you start with the fiscal resources, yes it can be argued that hard work can keep you in the 1% or advance your ranking within it, but if you don't start there you aren't going to get there by hard-work, your only entry is incredible luck. The risk is also much greater, instead of having to wait on buying a vacation property for a year you lose everything if you don't win.
It looks like Obama's policies are helping the 1%
+Albert Berard I think you dont understand the OBVIOUS difference here. Unions work for the emoloyees benefit. CEOs don't. When employees make more money, so do the unions (they're motivated to help). CEOs make LESS money if the workers make MORE (their motivation is to keep wages down). It's a fact. Which side will you choose? I choose unions to keep things fair.
And Albert, illegal enterprise like the mob doesn't factor into the GDP so it gets left out of these conversations. Yes, organized crime can pay very well but in that enterprise it's as much or more about nepotism as/than hard work.
+Clayton Thompson Go back 50 years or so. Look up what the tax rates were then on the top 1% and corporations. Were there plenty of businesses? Yes. Were they profitable and thriving? Yes. Was the wealth of the country more equal? Yes. Were the rich still rich. Yes. They just weren't super-ultra-uber rich. Now they are. And where do you think all their money came from? It has to come from somewhere right? Someone is losing money for them to have so much. Take another look at the chart above and think about it for a while. Take your time. It'll come to you.
Once again, Bernie Sanders proves that bite-sized percentages in a vacuum are divisive, inflammatory, and misleading!
+Andrew Seabrook Would you consider these stats to be misleading? Since 1967 the Median household income has increased by 21%, adjusted for inflation. During that same span, GDP per capita has increased by 213%, adjusted for inflation. Where is all of that extra money going?
wow and just think the top 5% only paid 67% of the taxes according to the us treasury
Mine went up. Get education, get a job. Quit bitching.
You shouldn't want a pure democracy. That's very scary.
I have to wonder how many of the people blaming the 99% for being "lazy" or accusing them of "greed" or "class warfare" are aware that the 1954 tax law that Republican President Eisenhower signed, there was a progressive structure of 24 tax brackets, with the top one - on income over about $3.5 million in 2008 dollars - being 91% - and this was not considered "socialist" or "class warfare" - it was considered reasonable tax policy.

NINETY ONE FREAKING PERCENT! and people now whine about the possibility of the top tax bracket going up to just under a paltry 40%. Don't believe me? Here's the proof:

Flat taxes are a pointless handout to the wealthy; the fact that the current crop of rabid right-wing nutjobs make classic Republicans like Eisenhower - hell, Nixon! - look like "liberals" should tell you that it's the current wack jobs that have completely lost their minds.
Pat, you're not ENTITLED to anything. Work for things.
A direct democracy protects the majority. A republic protects the minority. Be careful what you wish for Alexa
+Andrew Seabrook This shouldn't be divisive within the bottom 99%. It's simlply pointing out the obvious division that exists today. It should be something to enflame the bottom 99%. Do you think what the chart depicts is the "trickle-down effect" working? Do you think it's right? And, how are these facts misleading. Would you like a more extensive chart. Maybe going back 20 years or so? Its about the same. What's misleading about the truth? 
+Michael Walker We're entitled to the fruits of our labor. Unfortunately, the 1% has been stealing those fruits for decades. Unequal income distribution is fine. Unmerited change to the distribution if income is not.
Alexa so are u. Quit reading Keynes. He is wrong. F.A. Hayek is the person to study.
+Kevin Burger i don't know about +Andrew Seabrook but yes, i would. You are asking, nah telling me to believe this money went to the richest. I have no idea where this money truely went and i would venture to guess not many people could account for all of it. In fact I might guess that much of this money has been wasted away on feeble attempts to make things more even, the government sinking money and resources into programs that don't work and therefore don't produce results. I don't know but i would be interested to see the % 'rise' in income of the 1% over that same time period. You show me that stat and i will believe yours!
+Kevin Burger i don't know about +Andrew Seabrook but yes, i would. You are asking, nah telling me to believe this money went to the richest. I have no idea where this money truely went and i would venture to guess not many people could account for all of it. In fact I might guess that much of this money has been wasted away on feeble attempts to make things more even, the government sinking money and resources into programs that don't work and therefore don't produce results. I don't know but i would be interested to see the % 'rise' in income of the 1% over that same time period. You show me that stat and i will believe yours!
+Kevin Burger +chris currence Ultimately? Investment. Individuals at the higher end of the income scale don't build great big vaults of money to swim in a la Scrooge McDuck. People in the top 1% spend a relatively low percentage on themselves (money which still moves back into the economy) and have the rest in a variety of places which (in the modern economy) are able to take advantage of most of it via investment, for a relatively small expectation of return. Banks get to plug most of the money deposited back into the economy, just like all investment tools, retail or otherwise. In this manner, the top 1% are the members of society most exposed, in relative terms, to economic volatility, and therefore most invested, relatively, in a strong, healthy economy. If "all of that extra money" were simply sitting in large vaults, inaccessible to entrepreneurs and other potential investment opportunities, you'd have a point (that would be hoarding). But because the top 1% choose to assume the risk of putting the money (with myriad methods and results) back into the economy, I feel statistics like those above are specifically selected to tell an unbalanced, short-sighted, unnuanced account of the whole story, purely for political gain by fueling historically strong class resentments born in ages where the richest 1% actually did spend a much higher relative percentage of their accumulated wealth on themselves and nobody else.
Incidentally, the cutoff for getting into the top 1% is a bit over $500,000 a year. I doubt anyone defending the 1% here is actually a part of it, although 1 or 2 might be. A lot of people who defend the 1% are college students who think they're going to get into the 1% by working hard, or older people who think the threshold for the 1% is closer to the $60k mark.

The latter are arguing against raises for themselves under the delusion that anyone is mad at them for being "rich", in addition to the delusion that $60k a year is "rich". Don't get me wrong, at that income level you are still working hard for what you get although you should be getting a lot more given the value you have to produce to be able to pry that $60k from the hands of the 1% without resorting to criminal activity.

The former will learn something about the value of their education vs the cost of it in the next couple years, so they can be left alone for a minute.
+Paul Tirelli So how much money does the top 5% hold? ALOT MORE THAN 67%! These numbers always leave out the important parts. If they have 90% of the money but only pay 67% of the country's taxes, your whole propagandist argument falls apart doesnt it? The numbers matter, but let's be honest here. Don't try to mislead please. Let's have an honest discussion. By the way, I'm not saying they have 90% of the money. I've seen the numbers before and is was far more than 67%. 90% was just to get my point across. Give all the facts before misleading people who dont have the time to look these things up. They DO pay less (as a percentage of income) than someone making $30,000 per year. It's a fact. They pay alot because they make alot. Thats only fair.
+Andrew Seabrook You are correct in your statements, but you seem to have either dodged, or not understood my assertion. The median household income has not been experiencing the same growth rate as the gdp per capita, not even close. If it was within 50%, I'd say screw it, there are too many variables. But the difference is 192%. Can you seriously not even acknowledge the mere possibility that those in charge have been taking a larger percentage of the money produced by the overall work force than they used to?
Kinda off-topic, but hey.
"Societal Resources": are you serious? Regardless of how some might think things to be, I am not entitled to the wealth of anyone but myself here in America, and nor are you. It's not like I just take whatever I need from someone else's property 'for the good of the commune': that's because we don't live in a commune! America is not socialistic; America is not part of a universal "society" for there to even be 'fruit sharing' (as someone here put it).
This entitled, Utopian mindset is a needless blight on our land. Please, don't try to drag America into a social experiment - they haven't worked, they won't work, and I'm not willing to bet my investment to see if that fact has changed.
+Gabe Trout That's true, but not really addressing the point. The point is that while the value produced by the nation has grown, the distribution of that added value has changed. A small percentage of people have increased the percentage of the nation's wealth that they are claiming for themselves. It's not about taking away from the rich, it's about giving the average what they have earned.
+Pat Gunn, you said "We're all entitled to the fruits of society."

Why do you think some are entitled to the production of others?
+Suma Chatterjee...27th March, 2012...+Alexa Alexa....Some corrupt Govts all over the World are secretly won't have to know ,how. The Parliamentarians, being compromised, just carry out orders , coming from some Superior Authority. Thus, the World that we find, has been presented. Alongwith Politicians, Filmstrars/Models have equally enriched themselves, like, a set of Cream Multi-Nationals. This is the 1% Coterie. Various Economic SCAMS enable them to gather money. Then, they invest in Natural Resources/ Multi-Nationals, / Infrastructures / Films , &c, in various Nations via Swiss Bank A/c. It is the norm to keep just $20,000 per A/C. The rest is invested in a Unique manner. Ministers are White-Characters. So, Fake-Names are required to invest in leading Companies. Filmstars, Models, Escorts, etc, are used to lend their own Signature. So, Base is prepared by the entire World-gang in support of those FAKE-Signatories. They are projected as Most Glamorous, Most Wanted , Highest Paid Super-Dupers, and, as such, made too busy to show themselves up !!! Multi-Nationals never disclose, why they are TOP-RICH ones in the WORLD !!! Since, plundered money is invested as Lending against 90% Interest, just 10% is the actual Investment for the Citizens of those Nations. Out of $1, 10 Cent is for people. We know, because, INDIA earned Trillions of Trillions of Dollars due to the very existence of a single JEW, named, so called, SONIA GANDHI....the point, West has boastingly claimed so far. Quite naturally, for her own benefit, Sonia Gandhi went on cultivating Prostitutes, who enabled her earn almost all the Fund of "Super-Power" USA . Body-selling of youths were forceful in INDIAN families during last 25 years of Sonia Gandhi's upliftment done by West.Hindus/Muslims became Pros-faces of Hindusthan. It's quite natural , when anybody attempts to kick so Enriched Civilization of Hinduism. That way, we are lucky to be established Hon'bly, despite, widespread traps of Mafias...........laid by Govt.
+William Pina because those 400 Americans being greedy can spend more on public relations. :) I mean, if you owned a TV station, would you let it call you out?
Leo T
Who the fuck is Bernie Sanders? * shrugs *
And this is related to photography how???
Agreed. And the people complaining that about over 40% of Americans do not pay taxes: No one stops to think... these people didn't make enough to pay taxes!! Over 40% of the country doesn't make enough to pay taxes. That's not that they don't pay any taxes because they still pay payroll, FICA, and sales tax.
+Morris Buel Oh, drop the "job creator" nonsense already. Steve Jobs (despite his name) was not a "job creator" - Apple, Inc. was. Taxing Steve Jobs didn't have the slightest freaking impact on how many people Apple, Inc. might or might not hire. Same story for Bill Gates and Microsoft, Larry Ellison and Oracle or any other similar example.

Was Dwight D. Eisenhower a "marxist"? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, he signed a tax law in 1954 that had a top income tax bracket of 91% - and no one at that time found that particularly controversial, and certainly no one called the retired general - a hero of World War II - a "socialist".

Frankly, you're so full of manure your eyes are brown.
+Kevin Burger From the (statistical) standpoint of everyone contributing to an increase in the purchasing power of a country, I agree: economic gains should be judiciously distributed. But when gains are attributed to only one person (like some lone-wolf investor), the distribution of those gains makes the scenario, by the mean, uneven. Is it unfair for the gain to be evenly distributed among those responsible (i.e., just him in this case)?

I'm just trying to debunk the fallacy that surrounds wealth sharing. There is an actual problem here - I at least know that from personal experience (my father's company excelling but not being able to compensate employees because of a loosely related pay-freeze) - but uninformed* thinking, for a large part, is just hindering a true solution from being reached.
The 1% door is open. Anyone can walk in. Just get a job that pays (presumably $105k) and you're in. Or start a busines that nets more than $105k. Then rake it in. Distribution problem solved. Sounds quite fair to me.
Who cares, Bernie? They didn't take that money from the 99%, so the entire post is just to encite wealth envy. The economic pie grows, it's not a static number.

Socialists, especially liberals, do not believe the economy can grow. Based on that, they falsely believe that anytime someone earns more than them they must have taken it from someone else.
+Norbert Haupt especially in crisis , most self made men did their biggest realisation in time like today. (Bill Gates , steeve jobs , google, etc)
+Robert Soyars Given that over the past few decades worker productivity has continually increased while pay rates have stagnated - I'd say you're absolutely WRONG in saying the 1% has not stolen from the 99%.
Hi, Mr.Chan. I saw your last movey ''Kroty Kid''.
it would be epic to be the .01%
So how's that hopenchange working out, comin' from good ol' President Goldman Sachs?
What would have happened to social security if the banks weren't bailed out. What about food stamps?
+Furr B. The rich didn't steal anything. You are flat out wrong. Bill Gates didn't steal his wealth from the poor. Obama didn't take his wealth from the made up 99%.

We in America all have an equal chance to become rich. No one nor any government can force equal outcomes because of human nature. The only way to assist human nature and not fight it is to nurture an environment where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead in life. Capitalism is the only economic system where that can be achieved. There will always be rich and there will always be poor. Blaming the rich for being poor is just an excuse to try and use the police powers of government to steal what they earned.
We've regulated are selves into a hole, and big biz/labor has been helping big gov write it all up.
+Robert Soyars Considering the top 1% set the pay rates for the 99% below them, I'd consider then responsible for pay rates not increasing in relation to productivity; especially since they would be responsible for setting expected work loads.

Now, I'm not saying every single person in the top 1% are thieves; some do look out for the good of their employees and others around them. I'm also not saying that the government should step in and regulate the distribution of wealth directly. I'm sure that would cause unfavorable side effects.

The overall situation is bull. The top 1% are, overall, at fault. I wish there was a -1 bottom for your comment.
Distributism. The problem is not that we have too much capitalism. It's that we have a severe lack of it. If businesses were too small to own pols via lobbyists, and if the most consequential government were far more local (with DC made tiny), it'd be a spot better.
History always repeats itself. After the great depression, income inequality was also the main social problem at that time. Now we all know that how it ended- some countries went extreme by taking away other's resource to increase the general welfare for covering this problem, and then we had world war II. If capitalism can't solve this problem internally, either we go to war or Marxism? According to the programmes I've seen on the major media, no country no economist has an practical solution for income inequality. Maybe communists are right about this, income inequality is the problem of capitalism in nature?
Ah, cool, never new the occupy movement was directly against me. But I'm not against them, can't we be friends, Nolan-Catwoman?!
+Justin San Agustin

Let me ask you a simple question. Has anyone ever had a job from a poor person? Didn't think so. To say that the business owner is somehow wrong because he/she pays the employees is just plain messed up logic.
Let me also be blunt here. No, poor people and the middle class don't employ as many other people as the wealthy people do, BUT the poor and middle classes are the CUSTOMERS of the wealthy classes. The poor and middle classes are extremely important, because they actually spend most of the money they earn, and we have a consumption based economy. You can have a functional economy where everyone spends all of their income every year, but you CAN'T have a functional economy where everyone saves all of their money every year.

The wealthy in this country have a vastly disproportionate effect on tax and economic policy. They pay LESS in taxes as a percentage of their income than does the middle class. That is by design. They DESIGNED the tax system, of course it favors themselves.

The wealthy in this country are only sabotaging themselves by crippling the other classes. They've forgotten the lessons of Henry Ford: if you pay your workers enough, they can afford to buy your product. They are on track to "win" class warfare, but by impoverishing the other social classes, they ultimately constrain their own wealth.
On a basic level, employment is simply a service (requested work) provided in exchange for compensation.

What happens when you approach your TV service provider and ask for more channels? They require more compensation.

What happens when you approach your internet service provider and request more bandwidth? They require more compensation.

The current trend with employment is that employers are requesting higher service levels with no to minimal increase in compensation levels.
If your ever paid what your "worth" you'd be out of work. Companies pay more for an employee than just a wage.
as long as the poor aren't getting poorer, people complaining about rich people being rich just sounds greedy
Ben Xie
I don't fault the rich for being rich, and I think it's great for them as long as it is by lawful means. But saying that the poor aren't getting poorer is uninformed...the extra $80 falls so far behind cost of living inflation that they are getting significantly poorer.
Thats how I feel Ben... Thats me, getting poorer n poorer, send me some money mann....
+Ben Xie I don't either, I fault them for how they obtained their riches. I've never met an honest wealthy businessman in my life.
Ben Xie
+Ryan Thompson That depends on how you define wealthy. I know quite a few people today, people who have worked a 9-5 job with titles that don't read C(x)O, who are retiring with 2+ million dollars. I would consider them honest wealthy people who made their money on well placed stock investments. They're out there, they're just not on the news because working class millionaires don't make for sensational media.
After reading the comments i am reminded of why i usually dont post on political/economic stuff. Same people posting over and over getting themselves whipped up into a pissing match that is nothing more than a dog chasing its own tail and then get offended if someone says get a life or go out and make a difference. Judging by how many comments they have made it speaks for itself. All yakking and no original ideas or plan which in the end is a boar. I can get the same bs on cable news. Just saying.....
So i'm not sure where the data comes from as it only lists two names of individuals as the sources. However if you look at the latest data from the IRS, found at,,id=133521,00.html
Over the latest two years of available data (2007-2009) the top 0.1% had a 45% share of the income LOSS.
Also if you read the article the $80 increase is after adjusting for inflation, but the other numbers aren't clear if they have included inflation or not. Just need to echo the "liars figure" comments through out the thread.
Check real numbers, just because what someone said fits into your political view does not mean that it is accurate. It might not be, or it might be technically correct, but misleading. We all need to be better consumers of information if we want to make the world a better place.
+Jonathan Brelje But the middle class and poor ARE getting poorer. They have been for quite some time now. That's the problem. More and more hard-working Americans are being pushed into the "poor" category every day. There IS a problem and until we admit it, we can't have a debate about how to solve it. The majority are getting poorer while a small minority are getting richer. There's definitely a correlation. We need to address the causation. This trend is the one thing that's undeniable. Now lets address the cause and (hopefully) a solution.
WOW. The top 1% are crazy.
+Jayme Goff

So the fact that your husband makes almost twice the minimum wage as a maintenance worker means that the owners of the company should pay him more? Look, I earn almost the same as him as a civil designer, but I don't get angry at my company because I believe I'm worth more. If I want more I'll go to another company.

How much of a profit margin do they make? Do they pay the owners, the share holders, a good dividend?

Look, unless you work for yourself, you don't own your job. It's not yours. It's the business' job. People need to remember that.
+chris currence The reason the poor and middle class are losing income is because of inflation. Wages haven't been growing enough to match the real inflation of around 9% a year. They have been matching the false inflation the government says, so it's hidden. The rich have also felt it, but they have enough to weather the decline and make it up through investments, which you and I aren't able to do.

Fix the Fed and report the real numbers and things will look bleak, but at least then action can be taken to rectify the problem.
+Peter Mueller Isn't it convenient how you picked the most ideal scenario to make your point? The 2 years that the stock market was in a downward spiral would be a good example for you to make your point considering that the .1% probably have the most invested in the stock market. I'd like to see the stats on the 10 years prior to the collapse or maybe even the last 2 years (during it's rise). If I used only the years when the stock market was on its upswing, it would paint an entirely different picture now wouldn't it? It would be inflammatory and dishonest. You're selecting the information that supports your opinion and disregarding any information that disproves it. It's misleading even if it is true.
I don't feed those who don't produce anything. Their kitchen staff feeds them.
We have roughly 30 years before China becomes the undisputed global super power and the whole country goes the way of Detroit following the 2008 recession. That's when our GDP will be surpassed by China's GDP, currently growing at a rate of 10%, seemingly unstopable. We trully are facing a catathropic demise, and 99% of those commenting don't seem to understand who the enemy really is or what the issues are. In the end, it matters not who has the money, or how the buckets are played with, that's all going to be spent by somebody or some institution anyway. ONLY TWO THINGS MATTER: GDP AND JOBS. The two are more intertwinned and dependant on each other than Siamesse Twins, if one goes down, the other goes down. Nobody is Washington seems to realize that only a miracle will save us this time, every economist agrees with the forecast models, including me. I know that every single one of us should get past the blame game and name calling, that needless arrogance, and memorize three words: ideas, innovation and entrepreneurship. In what those words represent lies the miracle that we need to ensure the necessary economic growth, or else....
what I would like to see is how much was lost by that same 1% when the market crashed in guess is that most of them were just making up what they lost...not defending the rich, but let's be fair with numbers at least
+Kelly Carson The thing to really consider is, how many in the 1% are actually government officials.
+Brian Warren If you notice, the figure does not even talk about a "bottom 1%" but is in fact concerned about the bottom 99%. And so who will be in the bottom 99% forever? Almost everybody - it's simple math.
+B Gallagher So explain the Chik-fil-a owner. Explain Obama's wealth. Explain the Facebook creator. Explain the Home Depot creator. They aren't outliers.

My vision of the American Dream is the exact same as it's been considered for decades. The fact is there is much mobility across all income brackets. That proves that the Dream is still working, albeit not as fast as it should because of government interference.

And Mitt paid around 11.5% in taxes. I paid 6.7% as a lower middle class taxpayer. The rich on average pay 25% while the rest pay 12% on average. Do not fall into the lie that the rich are paying less than everyone else.
I think it's more about the political implications associated with the statistical analysis of income increases of Americans. When you hear a candidate talk about "American incomes are on the rise", you assume they mean the general population. It creates a diversion from the truth of the matter which is that most of us (who also work incredibly hard everyday) aren't seeing increases at all. Many of us have taken pay cuts or opted to continue in jobs where we know there is no possibility of a pay increase simply to maintain a basic simplistic lifestyle going.
I don't believe in the Robin Hood mentality, but I think that those with great power have a responsibility to ensure the well being of the many who create their wealth. Don't rob the poor of their dignity or their ability to pursue happiness in order to satisfy the hunger of your greed.
+Jaimie Cline I know it's frustrating, but the rich haven't stolen the dignity or their ability to pursue happiness one bit. The Fed and the US government are the cause of the malaise.

They have printed trillions of dollars and kept interest rates so low that inflation is outpacing the income growth of the middle and poor.

The rich do not have any responsibility more than you and I to provide anyone anything. Once you cross that threshold, liberty and freedom are lost.
I'd also like to know where this illusion that wealthy people are necessarily "producers" came from. When people become multimillionaires, it's not like every one of them puts on their CEO hat and says "Right, off to the races, time to create bold new industries to employ my fellow Americans."

There's an awful lot of idle rich people who spend their lives being pampered until they die. Making new businesses is enormously risky, and if there's one thing that unites successful wealthy people, it's being risk averse.

Like I've said before, America is not especially socially mobile. Americans are more likely to remain the same social class as their parents than they are in more socialized countries. There are huge barriers in place for poor and working class people here, and blaming the government or taxes for standing in the way of social advancement is asinine when you have countries with much more controlled economies and much higher taxes where children are more likely to exceed the wealth of their parents.

The much maligned Sweden is a better place to improve on your social class than is the United States.
Kelly, the 1% didn't lose anything in the stock market crash. The people who lost everything were the people who handed their money to the 1% for them to invest for them. When the market crashed due to dirty accounting that the 1% made into a job-keeping necessity, the 1% recouped their losses out of the money that people had entrusted to them to be invested. The ultra-rich are still just as ultra-rich as they were before, it's just anyone who isn't ultra-rich who was trying to win at investing is thoroughly boned.
+Matthew Hatfield Ah, you're right. I misread Bernie's chart at the top. Not totally clear, but looks like $105k is the INCREASE the 1% got. Well, my cynical argument stands. Except the number is larger. Have to go to my boss and ask for a $400k raise to get there.
He is a Marxist and really has no desire to preserve nor save America, time will show who he really is and the hatred he has towards our country. My question is do we have any better choices? A government filled with self seeking politicians that give to themselves and the companies that put them into power, while doing nothing for the people that they represent.
I am ashamed at the level of corruption in our gov't, as I tell my children PROTECT the constitution not the people who claim to be our leaders, we want our country back, a nation for the people by the people! We need to take our country back and not let the fat cats control us anymore! Stand up and lets be united and take it back find those that actually have morals and true honest values that want to rebuild America for America's sake not there own pockets! After all they are public servants LOL!!!
+Todd Woicik Can you explain why you call him a Marxist? What specific writings of Marx support your claim?
Obama is actually closer to a fascist. The current liberal mindset is to have the government control industry. That is textbook economic fascism .

As to the Marxist comment, Obama in his own book said he gravitated toward the Marxist professors while in college.
+Robert Soyars ease back and take an objective look at things. Claiming Obama is fascist is like claiming I'm a homosexual because I have given another man a hug. If you don't like Obama, that's cool. If you think he has some things not dissimilar from fascism, that's fine, and you can articulate them. But it's hard for people of a dissenting opinion to take you seriously when you claim he's an all out fascist. And if you don't care if people take you seriously or not, why even bother? Your words won't change anything if you're not taken seriously.
+Kevin Burger

I have taken an objective look. His actions speak for themselves. Take over the financial sector? Check. Take over banking? Check. Take over healthcare? In progress. Take over the US auto industry? Check. Take over the energy industry? In progress.
These aren't just minor regulations. We are talking about fundamental changes to them.

And I said economic fascist, not a total fascist.
Obama took over the financial sector, banking sector, and auto industry? That's news to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of his either. But hyperbole gets us no where.
I work in the financial sector, saying Obama has taken over it is rather inaccurate. It is more accurate to say the financial sector has taken over Obama...
+Kevin Burger It's not hyperbole. The government took over a private corporation to then give it to another. That is what happened to GM. The government also forced banks to take bailout money even if they didn't need it. Wells Fargo was highly pressed to buy out Wachovia bank, even though they didn't really want to.

Those are examples of the government directing private businesses to do what it wanted, not what the shareholders wanted.
please present us with a comparison of the wealth distribution of the different dynasties of the past as well.
Desh, you can get any income tax data you want all the way back to 1996 here, in convenient .xls format:
Trying to find a comparable datastore of tax data from the Hearst Dynasty era.
Thanks. it is 2 fold. i would like to see that economic impact on the middle class annually and i would like to compare wealth distribution of other great empires of the past. Thanks
Well you'll have to go to a library then. Probably a lot of libraries. I'm not going to put in 8 hour days doing your research for you. You'll need dimes, lots of dimes for the copiers.
It's not so hard to create that kind of increase - stop giving in to every single demand your kids make, put that money into a solid investment, and repeat, every time the kids make a demand. You'll build up a retirement base, and income, and they'll have something after you die. No kids? Stop giving your spouse all that extra cash, plan for retirement.
simple math. any rate times a larger number yields a large outcome when applied to a smaller number. It would be a freak-show if the "gap between rich and poor" DIDN'T grow. Anything otherwise would be a freak of nature like water running up-hill.

A earns 5% return on $100,000 = $5,000
B earns 5% return on $10,000 = $500

How can this equation be made "fair?"

I get it, if some $hitheads like Barry S and Barry O decide to steal $2,250 from A and give it to B then this is fair?
Kevin Burger, what money does the rich take from the poor? Before you answer that you first you have to define what do YOU mean by "the rich"? What is your measurement and by what standard have you concluded this?

It isn't splitting hairs when the government makes the rules AND has all the weapons. What military force does GE have? Oh, that's right, they have the establishment media.

When the government decides something must be, no matter how stupid it nearly always is, they have the massive force of the law and the weaponry to force us to eat their and their mascots mistakes.
I got dizzy from watching the spin in this info graphic.  I work hard and I deserve what I make.  I will not be ashamed of my salary.
Is it really surprising a socialist doesn't understand this is explained by natural law and simple math. Any percentage applied to any baseline amount larger than a smaller baseline figure will always yield a larger result. i.e. $100,000 *10% is always going to yield $10,000. $10,000 net worth * 10% will always yield $1,000. The $10,000 increase received by the $100,000 net worth owner (relatively "richer") and the $1,000 increase received by the $10,000 net worth owner (relatively "poorer") will always result in "the gap between rich and poor" always getting larger.

To "rectify" this "unfairness" someone (a political progressive pig) would have to do one, many, or a combination of arbitrary and stupid things. Either the rate of return on the poorer person's worth would have to become up to 10 times greater than the return on the "richer" persons net worth to bring them into balance. Or, they coerce the "richer" person to forego the winning behavior they practiced to get to $100,000 net worth and give it to the political progressive pigs (PPP's). The PPP's historically consume nearly the entire amount on bureaucracy as they "redistribute" it to the poorer people. As the meager amount relative to their theft is an embarrassment, they borrow some of the amount the PPP's hogged up and give it to the "poorer" person.

Economic conditions are directly and completely the culmination of over 100 years of lying, cheating, distortion, and extortion by the PPP's.

Don't agree? Then you can prove what the balance of the Social Security Trust Fund is. What was the rate of return as measured by GAAP in any time period demanded of any "fat-cat" banker?

{crickets} and there always has been. I have been asking that question since 1987. It is like screaming in space.
That it took someone 3 1/2 years to even comment on my blast is indicative of its power.

Norman Ma, as for your brief reply, you are correct, facts can be useful. In Bernie's case, he has nefariously made use of these facts to perpetuate a fallacy of cause and effect. Either he does not realize how ignorant he sounds or he doesn't care. If we are to take his "honesty" at face value, then he is an ignoramus.

Sanders presents these facts with the implication they are indicative of evil and wrong-doing. He is complaining about the results of a mathematical equation.
Add a comment...