Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="YBLogical" data-source="post: 2689186" data-attributes="member: 764627">I support RockIt for best awnswer. Here is why:National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent. Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent.Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain.Saez and Piketty show that the vast majority&#039;s average adjusted gross income, of which wages are just a part, was $29,840 in 2010. That was down $127 from 2009 and down $4,842 from 2000.Most shocking? The average income of the vast majority of taxpayers in 2010 was just a smidgen more than the $29,448 average way back in 1966.At the top, the super-rich saw their 2010 average income grow by $4.2 million over 2009 to $23.8 million. Compared to 1966 their income was up on average by $18.7 million per taxpayer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="YBLogical, post: 2689186, member: 764627"] I support RockIt for best awnswer. Here is why: National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent. Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent. Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain. Saez and Piketty show that the vast majority's average adjusted gross income, of which wages are just a part, was $29,840 in 2010. That was down $127 from 2009 and down $4,842 from 2000. Most shocking? The average income of the vast majority of taxpayers in 2010 was just a smidgen more than the $29,448 average way back in 1966. At the top, the super-rich saw their 2010 average income grow by $4.2 million over 2009 to $23.8 million. Compared to 1966 their income was up on average by $18.7 million per taxpayer. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…