Longer-Term Trends in Income Concentration
The uneven distribution of economic gains in recent years continues a longer-term trend that began in the late 1970s. In the generation following World War II, robust economic gains were shared widely, with the incomes of the bottom 90 percent actually increasing more rapidly in percentage terms, on average, than the incomes of the top 1 percent. But since the late 1970s, the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of households have essentially stagnated while the incomes of the top 1 percent have soared. (See Figure 3.)
In fact, the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90 percent of households is almost $900 below what it was in 1979, while the average pre-tax income for the top 1 percent is over $700,000 above its 1979 level.[4]
With the latest IRS data, we now have both a complete picture of income concentration during the recent economic expansion, which ended in December 2007, and a glimpse of the recession’s effects on income concentration. Based on national income and product account data and other indicators, Saez predicts that next year's analysis will show that top incomes fell modestly in 2009.[5]
It remains to be seen whether the highest-income households will again capture a highly disproportionate share of income gains as the economy begins to recover, as they did after the dot.com collapse and subsequent 2001 recession (see Figure 3). Saez notes, however, that historically income concentration tends to bounce back after economic downturns unless major policy changes — such as those enacted during the New Deal — occur. So it would not be surprising, in the absence of significant policy or behavioral changes, for income concentration to return to recent levels and continue rising after the current recession ends.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3309

America used to think that becoming too rich was a bad thing...till Reagan came.

considers Reagan one of his role models.

We have one corporate party with two faces.
Only we can make the difference. It won't be easy. Nothing worth standing up for ever is.

-Laelth

-p

the slack-jawed-lemming crowd will agree!

Now they can earn exactly that Much after taxes! Lets see how they like it.

THIS is why the U.S. imposed a top tax rate of between 71% and 94% for decades, to keep people from getting super rich and thus super powerful like these fuckers.

Great wealth is an enabler of evil. It helps them get away with it.

Well doesn't that mean since they are in the top 1/1000th of a percent for worldwide income that they can easily afford higher taxes.

If they are so sure about that, why don't they try it? I'd love to see these two assholes try to live for a couple of years on an income of thirty-four grand each. They'd think they had died and gone to hell!

Every where we look, there they are.

Lou

Yes, either David OR Charles Koch makes more money in a fast lunch than a worker making just over $15 an hour makes in one year.

This means that one of them could buy six homes worth between $270,000 and $300,000 every DAY . . . and it would not reduce his overall wealth by one CENT (in fact, such a feat would probably ADD to it).

"But but but but dey creates jawrbs with that wea" HORSESHIT. Over 20 billion dollars of their overall wealth came AFTER 2007 . . . as they were laying thousands of workers OFF. This is non-job-creating, minimally-taxed capital gains wealth. They're two of six heirs in the top 10 wealthiest Americans chart.

Yeah, TELL me how the Reaganomicon Bible of Inequality will start raining down the fruits any day now.