http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-amer...?g=2&c=upw1

Still think it was dumb to re-set the top marginal rates?

IR...you're always good for a chart, graph, stupid analogy or laugh at your expense.

Thanks for all of the above.

It depends on what you are attempting to accomplish.

I get a daily economic paper from the bank that is my bank's bank. Yes, banks have banks.

Anyway, contained within the daily "Banc Investment Daily" are short blurbs of data gathered from different sources, and they don't play to either the right, or left, just the facts. Two tidbits in there are appropriate based on the topic being discussed in the above video.

1. Analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that families with incomes in the top 20% will pay the highest tax bills in 30 years.

2. The Labor Department reports that people earning in the top 20% account for roughly 38% of all consumer spending, which is almost as much as the bottom 60% of earners combined.

Damn you Dogfish for poking holes in the 1% theory. I hate it when you make sense.

We all know the bankers in the top 1% are only interested in stimulating each other's private sectors....


Great link and infographic vid Brian.

I wish I was in that 20%.

Andy, assuming the #'s in the video are factual (which I didn't go verify) then you'd expect that in DOLLARS your point #1 should absolutely be true. If "highests" is measured as a percentage of income, it may also be true (because an increasing percent will be at the top marginal rate). I'd be curious which it is though.

As for consumer spending -- note these are INCOME not WEALTH stats you're talking about I believe.. The top 20% being 38% of consumer spending seems about right to me, if not small, given they earn 51% of all income...

The bottom 60% of earners earn less than 30% of the total income (I don't have a good ref here, had to eyeball a chart from 2007 census)... So again it makes sense they combine for 38% of the spending--becuause savings rates are low in these income brackets.

FWIW my prime concern is the ugly state of the financial situation of the middle class. How people can look at the wealth distribution and not be concerned about the middle class being screwed over is confusing to me.

Ref on my 51%:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/09/1...-of-all-income/

IR,

Good points. I wasn't taking a side either way on the issue, just providing a little background information that would help bring some of the information in that video a little more into focus.

I would entirely agree that there is a difference between wealth and income measurement, They generally do go hand in hand, primarily as a function of age up until 60-70 years of age. Retired folks may not have as much reportable/taxable income on an annual basis, but knowing how many cash millionaires I have banked over the years, just because they don't make more than $100,000 per year doesn't mean they don't have wealth. You would be surprised.