2010 Report: 93% of all new income created to the top 1%

I

Ixiterra

Veteran XV
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.

The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.
Click to expand...

Job well done Obama & congress. 3 million jobs "saved" in the top 1% at a cost of only a trillion or so bucks. Pocket change.
 
That's actually somewhat misleading, as the top 1% took a lions share of the losses in 2008-2009 so the rebound in home prices and other comebacks went to them.
 
Corporations and the Federal Reserve are more powerful than the government. It means the greedy CEOs give themselves raises, while giving no raises to grunt workers (me), and if they do, it's only 3%. The middle class has virtually disappeared.
 
since when is the value of a home factored into income?

and the top 1% only took the "lion's share" of losses because they own the lion's share and had the most to risk. the entire world economy was affected. but, predictably, bailing out the wealthy leads the wealthy to keep that share even though a large number of these people were the ones that caused the problem in the first place.
 
It would make sense to me that the top 1% earned the top 99% of income.

I mean if you're making 100 grand and you make a 10% raise, you get 10 grand. If you're making 100 million and you get a 10% raise, you get 10 million.

The fact that they got 93% of the income means that the bottom 99% got more than their share.
 
i sympathize with the 99%

but im gonna work my ass off to get into the 1% and leave the revolution to the deadbeats
 
plus none of the 99%ers will have the balls to fuck with me when they see my multiple howitzer pointed at them
 
also that article sucks, i expect more from the nytimes, even if it is an oped

20120121_USC422.gif


i can't readily find numbers showing the loss of wealth by the top 1% during the recession, but im guessing its way more than 288 billion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top