Home » Posts tagged 'Inequality' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Inequality
A Billionaire to Regulate Billionaires at the SEC
A TALE OF TWO NORMS
NORM AS DIRECTOR:
SEC Names Norm Champ as Director of Division of Investment Management
2012-129
Half of All Full-time Employees Earn Less Than $19/hr.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Thursday, October 18, 2012 USDL-12-2072
Technical information: (202) 691-6378 • cpsinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov
USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS THIRD QUARTER 2012
Median weekly earnings of the nation’s 103.6 million full-time wage and salary workers were $758 in the third quarter of 2012 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
This was 0.7 percent higher than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 1.7 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period.
Data on usual weekly earnings are collected as part of the Current Population Survey, a nationwide sample survey of households in which respondents are asked, among other things, how much each wage and salary worker usually earns. (See the Technical Note.) Data shown in this release are not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified. Highlights from the third-quarter data are:
- Seasonally adjusted median weekly earnings were $765 in the third quarter of 2012, little changed from the previous quarter ($773). (See table 1.)
- On a not seasonally adjusted basis, median weekly earnings were $758 in the third quarter of 2012. Women who usually worked full time had median weekly earnings of $685, or 82.7 percent of the $828 median for men. (See table 2.)
- The female-to-male earnings ratio varied by race and ethnicity. White women earned 83.4 percent as much as their male counterparts, compared with black (93.2 percent), Hispanic (87.5 percent), and Asian women (73.1 percent). (See table 2.)
- Among the major race and ethnicity groups, median weekly earnings for black men working at full-time jobs were $633 per week, or 74.1 percent of the median for white men ($854). The difference was less among women, as black women’s median earnings ($590) were 82.9 percent of those for white women ($712). Overall, median earnings of Hispanics who worked full time ($556) were lower than those of blacks ($606), whites ($780), and Asians ($915). (See table 2.)
- Usual weekly earnings of full-time workers varied by age. Among men, those age 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 had the highest median weekly earnings, $976 and $980, respectively. Usual weekly earnings were highest for women age 35 to 64; weekly earnings were $740 for women age 35 to 44, $754 for women age 45 to 54, and $766 for women age 55 to 64. Workers age 16 to 24 had the lowest median weekly earnings, at $437. (See table 3.)
- Among the major occupational groups, persons employed full time in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median weekly earnings—$1,300 for men and $948 for women. Men and women employed in service jobs earned the least, $530 and $440, respectively. (See table 4.)
- By educational attainment, full-time workers age 25 and over without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $464, compared with $648 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,170 for those holding at least a bachelor’s degree. Among college graduates with advanced degrees (professional or master’s degree and above), the highest earning 10 percent of male workers made $3,448 or more per week, compared with $2,311 or more for their female counterparts. (See table 5.)
Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Usual Weekly Earnings Data The Usual Weekly Earnings news release for the fourth quarter of 2012 will incorporate annual revisions to seasonally adjusted data for the number of full-time wage and salary workers and median weekly earnings in current dollars. (See table 1.) Estimates for constant (1982-84) dollar median weekly earnings also will be affected by revisions to the current dollar series. Seasonally adjusted estimates back to the first quarter of 2008 will be subject to revision.
Go to Tables: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
A 99 Year History of U.S. Income Tax Rates
SPECIAL NOTE: Our US progressive tax structure [or whats left of it] will turn 100 years old on October 3rd. We should plan a celebration!
OUR TAX STRUCTURE USE TO BE MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN IT IS TODAY.
The Progressive Tax Code
Our progressive, or graduated income tax was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson On October 3, 1913. The idea was to create a system where those who did well bore a greater responsibility for funding the government. In fact, the original intent was to only tax the wealthiest citizens. The income tax was never meant to burden the majority of wage earners. The new law taxed individuals making $3,000 or couples making $4,000 per year. $4,000 at that time would be equivalent to about $100,000 per year in today’s dollars. What the law did not take into account was inflation. Much the same as is presently the case with the minimum alternative income tax, the original income tax brackets stayed constant every year while inflation and working class wages slowly rose. Eventually, income taxes became a burden to lower wage earners as well as the rich. [ http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-controversial-history-of-the-graduate-income-tax.html ]
The progressive nature of the income tax is achieved by creating multiple income tax brackets to for rising levels of income. Each tax bracket has a slightly higher tax rate. Between 1913 and 1918 the number of tax brackets that applied to wealthy incomes rose to 56 brackets. By 1940 that number of brackets fell to 24 and there it more or less remained for the next 40 years.
What did rise over this time period were the marginal tax rates. By the 1950’s the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest earners was 90 percent. The top marginal tax rate was gradually lowered over the next 30 years until it was at 70% in 1980. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan collapsed the top 9 tax brackets to lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%. During is second term he eliminated 10 more upper tax brackets dropping the top marginal tax rate from 50% to just 28%. He also raised the tax rates on the lowest income earners, those who were originally not expected to contribute. At the same time, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans combined with huge jumps in military spending resulted in huge budget deficits and a large national debt that has been with us since.
The top marginal tax rate for wage income was eventually raised back to 35% but not before capital gains income was stripped from the progressive tax code and separately taxed at a rate of just 15%. Capital gains income represents the major source of income for the wealthiest Americans. So the original intent of the progressive tax code, that the tax burden should only fall on the wealthiest American’s, was turned upside down.
For a glimpse of the problem with our current tax structure, see the US states map at the following URL to see how much more the bottom 20% are paying in taxes, as a percentage of income, over the top 1%. http://tiles.mapbox.com/occupy/map/TaxBurden
The graph below shows the 99 year history of tax rates for four incomes levels in the US. The data are adjusted for inflation and reflect the current value of the dollar. Tax rates for those making one-million dollars are in blue, those making $100,000 are in pink, those making $50,000 (approx. median household income) are in brown, and those making $25,000 (half of all American make less than $26,364) are in black. All rates are based on the married, filing jointly category. The tax information begins in 1913 and continue through 2011.
See data source here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
What the graphic says to me is that for most of the last 100 years the wealthiest Americans have been paying more taxes than they are today, a lot more. Also, there was a period from around 1932 to 1988 when tax rates were lower for the working poor than for middle Americans.
I also noticed that beginning in the early 1980’s the tax brackets for the wealthy began collapsing until 1987 when a person making a million dollars a year was paying the same tax rate as someone making $117,760 per year. This had the effect of adding millions of tax payers into the same federal tax bracket as the ultra-wealth. From a political perspective, they became a single voting block on the issue of taxation. Also note that the tax rates for the two lower incomes jumped significantly in 1942-1946 and has been relatively steady since, decreasing only slightly during the Reagan administration when taxes on the wealthiest Americans began dropping sharply. Remember that mantra in the 80’s, “It’s not what you make, it’s what you keep.” This was never truer than for the wealthiest among us.
See Raw Data Here
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
The Rise and Fall of the US Progressive Tax Structure
Below is a companion chart to the 99 Year History of Tax Rates in America (Click Here to see chart). This graph charts the number of tax brackets into which income was divided over the years. Looking back, it is apparent that our progressive tax structure had many more tax brackets separating rich and poor for most or hour history. There was a peek of 56 income tax brackets in 1918. In 1924 (the Roaring 20’s) that number was compressed to just 23 tax brackets. The number of tax brackets fluctuated over the next 62 years but maintained an average of 25 brackets until the 1980’s.
In 1981 the first of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts was passed dropping the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. Five years later his Tax Reform Act of 1986 dropped the top tax rate again to 28% while raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% where it remains today. The 1986 law also collapsed the number of tax brackets from 15 in 1984 to 5 in 1985. While lowering the top tax rate for the rich from 70% to 28% was a huge boost for the wealthiest Americans, compressing the top 10 tax bracket helped assure that the changes would not be undone. The reduction in tax brackets meant that the number of people in the top earners bracket went from tens of thousands of the riches voters to many millions of voters including those with much more modest incomes. By lumping together people making over $300,000 with those earning many times that amount the change created a large voting block of voters who would oppose future tax hikes.
During these same years the Reagan administration began deregulating the banking and finance industries leading to more and more wealth building opportunities for those already blessed with riches. Ronald Reagan was following the economic path created by the economist, Milton Friedman, who, in turn, was influenced by the Objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand believed that altruism and self-sacrifice for others is evil. See more here]
Paul Ryan’s Mentor: Ayn Rand, the Mother of Modern Conservatives
On April 30, 2012, The Atlas Society published a piece called “Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand’s Ideas: In The Hot Seat Again.”
In it they talked about the close association then vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, had drawn between Ayn Rand and his own political philosophy. Publicity surrounding his views were prompted by a National Review article entitled, “Ryan Shrugged” which characterize as an “urban legend Ryan’s alleged connections to Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. While Rep. Ryan may never have expressly indicated he embraces her Objectivist philosopy, he is clearly a fan of Ayn Rand‘s ideas and requires his staff to read Atlas Shrugged. (See National Review’s “Ryan Isn’t a Randian” for more along these lines.)
How closely Paul Ryan and other conservative associate themselves with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is important because it shines a light on the heart and soul of their political objectives. Ayn Rand, a staunch believer in individualism and foe of collectivism in any form, believed altruism and any form of self-sacrifice was evil. She meant this literally, and any institutions based on such collectivist notions were also evil. This included churches and all major religions. Ayn Rand was obviously an atheist. This is an inconvenient truth for Ryan and many evangelical Christians who have adopted Rand’s ideology with respect to the behavior of corporations and the formulation of government business policies. Rand’s Objectivism philosophy has become, ex-post-facto, the underpinning for today’s very aggressive brand of capitalism. In fact, the incompatibility of Rand’s value systems applied to business behavior and Christian values applied to human behavior is the great paradox of our time. Objectivism and Religion antithetical belief systems. (To hear a little more about Ayn Rand in her own words, listen to her interviewed on the Phil Donahue Show back in 1979.)
In the article the Atlas Society released an audio recording of a 2005 speech mand by Paul Ryan at the organizations “Celebration of Ayn Rand” event. That audio file is posted here below along with the following excerpts [highlights are mine].
Congressman Paul Ryan on Ayn Rand
(1:45) I just want to speak to you a little bit about Ayn Rand and what she meant to me in my life and [in] the fight we’re engaged here in Congress. I grew up on Ayn Rand, that’s what I tell people. You know everybody does their soul-searching, and trying to find out who they are and what they believe, and you learn about yourself.
(2:01) I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.
(2:23) But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.
(2:38) In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill, whether it’s an amendment vote that I’ll take later on this afternoon, or a big piece of policy we’re putting through our Ways and Means Committee, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism.
(2:54) And so when you take a look at where we are today, ah, some would say we’re on offense, some would say we’re on defense, I’d say it’s a little bit of both. And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism—that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism—you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.
(3: 21) It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are. I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech (at Bill Taggart’s wedding) on money when I think about monetary policy. And then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises so that I know that what I’m believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism… [To better understand Ryan’s references here go to David Weigel’s commentary in Slate from August 13, 2012 ]
(6:53) Is this an easy fight? Absolutely not…But if we’re going to actually win this we need to make sure that we’re solid on premises, that our principles are well-defended, and if we want to go and articulately defend these principles and what they mean to our society, what they mean for the trends that we set internationally, we have to go back to Ayn Rand. Because there is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works.
TO LISTEN TO AUDIO, PLEASE CLICK ON THE ORIGINAL ATLAS SOCIETY LINK ABOVE
Life Without Parole Sentences for Juveniles
While the US Supreme Court held in 2010 that youth offenders under age 18 convicted of non-homicide crimes could not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, about 2,600 youth offenders continue to serve such a sentence for homicide-related crimes. – Human Rights Watch, 2012 [Read it here http://bit.ly/AiMRCj Excerpts Below.]
In one study of youth arrested for murder in 25 states where there was available data, African Americans were found to be sentenced to juvenile life without parole at a rate that is 1.59 times higher than white youth.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) has joined the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, and Leadership Conference on Race and Human Rights in filing an amicus brief in opposing the imposition of life sentences without parole on juvenile offenders in the Miller v. Alabama andJackson v. Hobbs cases (Miller-Jackson) currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. [ Read it here: http://bit.ly/xPZlOO ]
The amicus brief contends that life without parole sentences for fourteen year-old offenders violate the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the historic role of racial stereotyping in imposing these sentences on children further undermines their validity.
Historically, the imposition of life without parole sentences is rooted in stereotyping. For much of the 20th century, courts widely held that children were less culpable than adults and therefore not subject to such severe penalties. But in the 1980s and 90s, the media, academics, and politicians increasingly characterized teen crime in racially coded terms. For example, a 2000 study of news broadcasts in six major U.S. cities found that 62% of the stories involving Latino youth were about murder or attempted murder, even though data from 1998 indicated that minority youth accounted for only 25% of all juvenile crime arrests. This false conflation between race, youth, and criminal behavior — the infamous “Central Park Jogger” case being the most notorious example — led to harsh sentences for children previously only reserved for adults.
Consistent with its beginnings, the life without parole sentence continues to be imposed on children of color at disproportionate rates. According to a 2008 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report, African American youth nationwide serve life without parole sentences “at a rate that is ten times higher than white youth.” Thus, the continuing influence of race on the sentencing of youth to life without parole renders it unconstitutional. AALDEF contends that the Supreme Court should categorically exempt youth from this extreme and final sentence.
Nos. 10-9646 & 10-9647
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
EVAN MILLER, Petitioner,
v.
ALABAMA, Respondent.
KUNTRELL JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction, Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
and the Supreme Court of Arkansas
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND,
INC., CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON INSTITUTE
FOR RACE AND JUSTICE, LATINOJUSTICE
PRLDEF, ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND AND LEADERSHIP
CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The question presented by these cases is whether the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child convicted of a homicide offense violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. As detailed by the submissions of the Petitioners and their amici curiae, the answer is “yes.” As this amicus brief explains, the improper
influence of race impairs the culpability analyses of children subject to life without parole sentences, which is further evidence of the unconstitutionality of this sentencing practice. Although a proper evaluation of culpability is fundamental under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, history shows that racial stereotypes propelled the implementation of the laws that led to juvenile life without parole sentences, and research establishes that children of color are sentenced to life without parole at markedly disproportionate rates. This Court
declared, in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010), that youth are less culpable than adults and, therefore, less deserving of life without parole sentences. Yet, it is clear that race critically and inappropriately influences the assessment of blameworthiness in the context of juvenile life without parole sentencing. Given this constitutional infirmity, as well as the severity and finality
http://bit.ly/yuh15a Human Rights Watch files an amicus brief.
Human Rights Watch also joined 25 other institutions in filing an amicus brief before the US Supreme Court in the upcoming cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas. Both involve offenders who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed when they were 14 years old. The United States is the only country in the world that sentences youth to life without the possibility of parole for offenses they committed before the age of 18. Universally accepted standards, including several treaties to which the US is a party, condemn such sentencing of youth. We argue that international practice, opinion, and treaty obligations support holding all life without parole sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.
Graphic View of Wealth Distribution in America
Who Owns What In America?
Imagine lining up everyone in America according to what they own, starting with those who own nothing and continuing down the line to those who own a lot. Now divide that line of people into five equally long segments. Each segment would include 20% of the total population, or about 61.7 million people. Next, add up the total amount of what everyone owns in each segment. The result is represented by the pie chart below. The whole pie represents the total wealth in America. The size of each slice represent the ratio of how much each segment owns of America’s wealth. The slice of ownership for the poor and working poor are barely visible. 80% of all Americans own just 15.6% of America’s wealth.
The number of people who slipped into poverty in 2010 is an all time high of 46.2 million, so the poorest 20% in terms of wealth ownership includes 15.5 million folks who technically don’t meet the poverty criteria, based on income levels. The poor essentially own almost nothing. The working poor own twice of almost nothing.
When I first plotted the distribution of wealth in America in this pie chart it reminded me a little of that Pac-Man character. The richest Americans own 84.6% of everything while the remaining 80% of us have 15.4% left. The statistical middle of what I labeled the “Middle America” owns just 4% of America’s wealth assets.
This raises an interest question. How do we define middle class? Is Middle America, as I’ve labeled it here the same as middle-class?
No, We usually define middle class by income levels, not wealth ownership. As of 2011 the median family income has declined to just over $51,000 per year. If we were to define middle class based on 10% of families above and below the median income (as I have done here for wealth ownership, the narrow and very low income range would not fit most peoples conception of “middle class”.
But this pie chart displays the distribution of wealth, not income. It includes all equity ownership in everything from homes to 401K’s, stocks, bonds, businesses, etc. This chart cannot be directly converted to income levels. There are people with equity but not much income and people with large incomes but not much equity.
However, from a visual perspective the median income (middle most income) will still fall somewhere near the center of the red colored slice, about where the label line is drawn. Individuals in that group made about $26,364 per year, or about $52,000 per household in 2010. Beyond that it is difficult to superimpose income brackets on this pie chart
This graphic really make clear just how compressed wealth distribution is in America. Missing from the public dialogue over the past few decades is mention of the working poor. Politicians and the media seem to focus on the middle class or the poor as if there were no working poor.
The other conclusion I come away with is that there is plenty of wealth here in the still wealthiest nation on Earth. Telling ourselves that we can’t afford social services for the poor or good public schools or what ever else we desire as a nation is simply not true. As a nation we can afford a much better society than we have now.
Data Driven Viewpoints 