Winners and Losers.

Posted by Moderate June 14, 2012 at 5:07 p.m.

A recent NYT published article reported that median family income today is the same in real terms as median family income in the early 1990s. The median family’s net worth has declined by 40% from $125K to less than $80K over the same period. The gains of a generation have been lost. What is also noteworthy is that the article goes on to report that it is the middle 60% of us that are feeling that pain (Income between $20K and $100K per household). Apparently, according to the article, the top 20% and the bottom 20% have seen gains in income. Yes, that is right, the bottom 20% have gained.

Perhaps it may be time for the very focal advocates on here to actually focus where the pain is – the middle 60% of us. That is the group with jobs and responsibilities. These are the people who already pay a goodly portion of the taxes. Maybe a tax increase on them to benefit the poor is not really warranted. Maybe the end of the Bush tax cuts for these people would be unjust considering what has already been lost. Perhaps a tax increase on the top 20% would be more appropriate. The proposed “Buffet” tax hardly touches these letter people. Just maybe the Democratic Party is not helping the middle class as they claim to be. They certainly are not asking much from the really wealthy.

See the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/economy/family-net-worth-drops-to-level-of-early-90s-fed-says.html

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

Moderate 11 months, 1 week ago

I was not sure what you meant. Finally dawned on me. In the 20 years or so w e are talking about we have had two Democratic Presidents and one Republican. The Congress has been under full control of one party (different parties) for at least two years and has been split in various manners the rest of the time.

The Republicans (and Mr. Clinton) did not promise to help the middle as Mr. Obama did and continues to do. They did not make a big deal out of class differences. The problem I see is that the party I turned to for a fix of our ill distribution of wealth did not fix it when they had a chance. They got fixated on medical care for predominantly the near poor.

There is absolutely no way we can sustain the current federal expenditures without tax increases. Those increases proposed so far for the rich will hardly dent the annual deficit. So - it will be the middle class that will have to pay the piper – once again. That is why the swipe at the party that made a promise it did not keep.

Moderate 11 months, 1 week ago

pretty

booyalab 11 months, 1 week ago

"Perhaps a tax increase on the top 20% would be more appropriate." Considering that tax increases do not increase tax revenue, there is no objective reason to increase taxes on anyone.

Moderate 11 months, 1 week ago

That is an interesting argument. Because recidivism is high why bother to punish criminals. In past blogs I have also suggested we eliminate all tax expenditures and treat all income the same for tax purposes. That would solve the problem you suggest.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.