An Inconvenient Truth?Posted Saturday, November 5, 2011, at 10:20 AM
With all the talk about taxes and who pays the most, and who pays the least,percentages of dollars is used, but there is no correlation given given to income. For example X amount of dollars were collected in tax revenue and Y was how much of that came from a certain group, done is such a way to make it look like they are overtaxed, or paying an unfair portion. Then I heard about and read a report from the Congressional Budget Office. I will post the link, but not all of the article as server space cost money, but I will provide quotes. This quote is from Mark Twain.
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."" Quote from Mark Twain.
The fact that spending is out of control is a given.
The fact that we can not continue to spend beyond our means is a given.
The fact that absolutely no one has even begun to address the problem of paying off the national debt is a given.
The fact that Big Money has bought our government is a given. At least I think so.
What I'm leading up to is the proposition that there is something seriously wrong in this country and that we are in peril of losing what little freedom to better ourselves that we do have.
"The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation's income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt." This a mathematical fact.
"In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.
And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent." Again mathematical fact.
"The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population. People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979." Once again a mathematical fact.
So I ask you, given the mathematical facts presented, is there a disparity, and if so, where does the blame lie? Where lies the cure?
Brenda, sorry about the 4 letter word, but it is a direct quote.
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires free registration:
Thoughts from an old progressive
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed
- Send email to Roy Pratt
Almost 65 and retired. Raised by an East Coast liberal. I am also a child of the sixties.
Hot topicsWelfare or Workfare?
(0 ~ 2:01 PM, Jul 19)
The times are changing
What the next World War might look like
Ever wonder what the air could look like without the EPA?