UA-9726592-1
Showing posts with label one per cent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label one per cent. Show all posts

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Supply side economics and the one per cent.



The Gross National income of the US in 2014 is $17,601,119,000,000.

The gross national income (GNI) is the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country, consisting of gross domestic product (GDP) plus factor incomes earned by foreign residents, minus income earned in the domestic economy by nonresidents. (Wikipedia).

One does not have to a brain surgeon like Ben Carson to understand why supply side economics will never work in the United States. The top quintile or 20 per cent of Americans now earn half the income. The the top one per cent rake in 23 per cent of the GNI.

Admittedly the affluent live in better home and drive better cars, travel more and take international vacations, but most of their income is surplus. Indeed, the affluent can take some of this surplus income and convert it to capital by buying stock, bonds and mutual funds. However, the top 10 per cent of Americans own more than 80 per cent of this market already. The top one per cent own more than 38 per cent of he stock and bond market.

As the Motley Fool points out:

Wealthy people don't own stocks because they're wealthy; they're wealthy because they own stocks.

The size of the U.S. bond market is just under $37 trillion, finance professor Torben Anderson at the Kellogg School of Management says in “Volatile Assets” in July 2012. In comparison, the market capitalization of the U.S. stock market is about $21 trillion.

The top decile (10 per cent) of income has a direct participation rate of 47.5% and an indirect participation rate in the form of retirement accounts of 89.6% in the stock and bond market. In the top decile, mean value of all holdings fell from $982,000 to $969,300 in 2007

U.S. corporate bond sales swelled to an annual record as a late-year rush by borrowers to lock in low interest rates pushed offerings for 2014 past $1.5 trillion.

Data compiled by Bloomberg. Internet commerce company Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. which sold $8 billion in bonds in one month, helping push this year’s bond volume past the previous high of $1.494 trillion set in 2013.

In 2014 a lot of mutual funds were converted to bonds and bond sale outpaced stock sales. The point here is that many stock, bond and mutual fund sales are conversions rather than new purchases.

The top 1 per cent of Americans earned $76,526,604,347,826 in 2014. Even if the one per cent purchased $ 5 trillion in stocks, bonds and mutual funds, which represents most of the US securities market in 2014, such a capital investment would represent a trivial amount of the income the 1 per cent received that year.

This is why tax breaks for the 1 per cent or even the top 10 per cent are pointless. Such tax breaks will do little for the economy. These tax break would at best provide packet change to the one per cent. The per cent of annual income the affluent invest in the stock market is not large enough to be stimulative.

The Democratic party uses a more direct approach to stimulate the economy. Programs like unemployment compensation food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and school lunches for women, Infants and children (WIC) provide direct aid to the middle class and the working poor.

Any funds these program provide are usually quickly spent. The funds do not sit in US or foreign bank accounts as is the case for many upper income Americans.

The middle calls is the basis of the US economic engine, not the one per cent. As the AFL-CiO noted:

The middle class is the great engine of the American economy, but that engine is sputtering.

As one business man explained it, tax breaks at the end of the years are great, but it's customers that make or break a company. The middle class provides the customers to small and larger businesses that drives the US economy.

Supply side economics is blind to the middle class economic engine with its top down approach. Unfortunately America is hearing that same old supply side song from most the Republican candidates for president.


Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_income
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/10-Ways-to-Rebuild-the-Middle-Class


Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA 
  Creative Commons License

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Monday, December 10, 2012

The War on Christmas: One Percenta Claus

source: Democratic Underground

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The best way to beat the one per cent's money



source:

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

The GOP thinks it owns America and this why it will lose the next presidential election


What the GOP means by an Ownership Society is simple. It wants to own America.


The problem with the GOP is that it thinks it already owns America. When you mention the US is a democracy, a Republican will say the US is really a republic.

Really! Like the Peoples Republic of China or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?

Does the GOP really think it can continue to call he political shots with its Tampax tactics: a group of ideologues and oligarchs who are white, uptight with the one per cent kept out of sight?


The GOP Tampax tactics: a group of ideologues and oligarchs who are white, uptight with the one per cent kept out of sight

Chris Christie said this about women voters "CBS This Morning":

"I think there's a fallacy about having to cater to a particular sector of the electorate," I think it's condescending to women to say we have to have a different message for women than we have with men."

Women are 53 per cent of the electorate and President Obama has a 13 point edge over Mittens with women.

Perhaps if the GOP curtailed its war with women on issues such as planned parenthood, rape and abortion, it might have better chances in the next presidential election. It has already lost this presidential election.

graphic: http://raeleigh.wordpress.com/2009/12/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Allan Brawley: Saving Capitalism From Its Greatest Danger -- The One Percent

How many more billions do the Kochs, Waltons and others need before they cease to work the system so blatantly and shamefully for their own benefit? They already own a huge portion of the country's wealth, with the Walton family's $90 billion alone equaling that of the bottom 30 percent of the population, according to Joseph L. Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, in his article "The 1 Percent's Problem" in the May 31, 2012, issue of Vanity Fair.

In the first year of the economic recovery, 93 percent of all income gains went to the top 1 percent.

Although the very rich had a bad 2009, but an incredible 2010. 


The afleuent's share of national income bounced back to 19.77 percent. So inequality isn't lessening in the US. 

Undoubtedly, the economic stimulus helped the affluent because 70 per cent of the expenditures went into the defense industry. 

Allan Brawley: Saving Capitalism From Its Greatest Danger -- The One Percent

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/in-2010-93-percent-of-income-gains-went-to-the-top-1-percent/2011/08/25/gIQA0qxhsR_blog.html

graphic: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/political-ironing/10/15/i-am-the-one-percent/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Monday, June 4, 2012

The Washington Post: The CBO takes on income inequality


The incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent have nearly tripled since the late 1970s. 
Everyone else? Not so much.
The chart sets the scene. 
The after-tax incomes of the middle class (the 21st to 80th percentiles) have grown at about 1 percent per year since 1979, adjusting for inflation. 
The incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent, meanwhile, have zoomed upward at a consderably faster pace.

 Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA
Creative Commons License
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Monopoly: Mitt Romney "One Per Cent" edition


This new One Per Cent edition of monopoly is for the "rich and famous" like Mittens.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Sunday, April 15, 2012

DU: The GOP stance on stay-at-home moms in two sentences.


If you're a rich white woman, you're making a career choice. If you're a poor black woman, you're a welfare queen.

Mittens recently commented on women receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

He stated that poor women should be required to work outside the home to receive TANF benefits.

Mittens added:

[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work.  

Rightardia is not sure why Mittens brought this up because one of the objectives of TANF is to help single women with children find employment.

Only 1.7 per cent of Americans receive TANF assistance so this is an example of the one per cent attacking the other one per cent.

art: http://ninaspetpeeves.blogspot.com


source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002566413
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

The "nickel and dime" politics of the GOP


Do Americans want to preserve tax entitlements for privileged Americans or start a rebirth of a dynamic middle class?

Do we want the affluent to pay lower tax rates than middle calls Americans in capital gains and deferred interest?

Can we continue to tolerate CEOs making 400 times what he average worker makes? Do we need to make income tax and Social Security FICA tax  more progressive?

What about Estate Tax? Bush suspended and when restored, the estates of 50,000 millionaires were exempted.

Then there is corporate tax. At one time corporations provided 30 per cent of federal revenues, but it is now 6 per cent because of offshore tax breaks in Ireland and the Netherlands.

Many Americans fail to realize that the tax burden has been ever shifted to the middle calls by the "nickel and dime" politics of the GOP over three decades. Taxes have been shifted away form c-corporations and the affluent.

This has weakened the middle class. As one business owner put it, the tax refund at the end of the year is nice, but it won't help if you don't have customers.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Share of national income going to the top 1 per cent



“This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.” -- Remarks by the President Obama on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, December 6, 2011
The President has been focused on working to ensure an America that grows together, rather than one in which the gains go disproportionately to the wealthy. His policies have already made a real contribution to achieving this ideal—benefiting millions of people, principally middle-class Americans and those struggling to get into the middle class—and he continues to push tirelessly for policies, including the Buffett Rule, that will help us get closer.
The best available data on incomes refute the baseless claim recently made by some that income inequality is worse under President Obama than it was under President George W. Bush. More fundamentally, whereas the previous Administration’s policies were tilted towards the wealthiest Americans, President Obama has been focused on the middle class and those working to get into the middle class.
Inequality Was Worse Under President Bush than Under President Obama
According to the latest data from economist Emmanuel Saez, when the last economic expansion ended in 2007, the fraction of income going to the top 1 percent was the highest since 1928 and the fraction of income going to the top 0.1 percent was the highest ever recorded (the data go back to 1913). The share of income going to the very top remains high, but has come down and was lower in both 2009 and 2010 than in any year from 2005 through 2008.
You might wonder why income going to the top 1 per cent rose in 2010. The 111th Democratic congress was replaced by the Republican 112th, led by John Boehner. Republicans have a far greater tolerance for inequality than Democrats. 
You won't see a chart like this when the GOP holds the presidency because Repblicans consider data like this to be "class warfare." 
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA
Creative Commons License

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

WIN: 2010 was a good year for the 1 percent


2010 was a good year for the top 1-percent. According to data analyzed by the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal (Conk-zal) 93 percent of the income gains in the first year of the recovery were captured by the top 1 percent.

The bottom 99 percent gained $80 in 2010 while the top 1 percent gained more than $100,000.


Rightardia suspects the Bush tax cuts which were never rescinded can explain a lot the good fortune of the top 1 perr cent. for top income earners, the bush tax cut amounted to about $64,000 per year.

The Bush tax cuts also cut taxes for the second income tax bracket form 28 per cent to 15 cent. Essentially anyone who lives in the US and makes less than $30,000 plays very low or no taxes.

This is why Republicans like Rush Limbaugh complain that nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax cuts.

Of course, the Bush tax cuts were responsible for letting more low income tax payers off the hook.

graphic source: http://grist.org

source: http://www.laborradio.org/Channels/Story.aspx?ID=1665112

 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

When will Mittens get that big GW Bush endorsement?


The one per centers have to stick together. That's the Republican way!

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Friday, December 16, 2011

Cryptlogon: Six one per centers worth more than bottom 30 per cent of Americans


Found this little blivett on CryptLogon this morning.  

Labor economist Sylvia Allegretto, the six Walton family members on the Forbes 400 had a net worth equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans in 2007

The Waltons are now collectively worth about $93 billion, according to Forbes. The Walton family members are descendants of Sam Walton, the man who founded Wal-Mart. 

Apparently the Occupy members weren't exaggerating about the one per centers. 

source: http://cryptogon.com/?p=26512

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  

 Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.