The author said that the Americans their rich and classified into two groups: the first group eligible, such as those who have made outstanding technical achievements and other institutions ran successful or proficient in certain functions, such as the judiciary and the entertainment and sports, some states, for example the success of Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey. The second group is eligible, and they are the rich who have succeeded thanks to the work do not have great social value.
He explained that what is happening now is that most of the rich are classified in the category of non-eligible and receive a reprimand by the financial crisis, and during the financial boom in the nineties of the last century, a survey conducted by Harris that Americans look to the community of Wall Street that they are honest and Okhalagiwn more than others, but today did not left only 26% hold this view, while two-thirds of respondents say that the more successful on Wall Street are paid very high.
And confirmed by the existence of three varieties of varying financial in America, the former represents the phase of the staggering increase from 1945 to late 1970, where as much as economists Emmanuel Saez and PICTI Thomas that the richest 10% of Americans GRIP between 33 and 35% of the total income, including gains capital (most of the dividends). By 2007, the share increased to 50%, and most of the gains went to 1% of the rich only, where the share of this group of about 10% in 1980 to 24% in 2007.
The second class says writer, it's about the phenomenon of global, as according to a study conducted in 2008 found the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that inequality increased in 17 out of 22 countries over two decades, despite the fact that conditions vary greatly from one country to another.
In the third class by talking about taxes, he says, most of the rich in America does not survive the tax, in 2007 the richest 10% pay of the rich 55% of federal taxes, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. And pay the richest 1% of the rich is the lion's share of 28.1% of these taxes. The average tax rate on the richest 1% of the rich is 29.5%.
The author said there are many theories about the cause of increasing inequality, he said that although there is no consensus in the new techniques reward the highly skilled,and globalization reduce the salaries of factory workers, and the erosion of union powerleads to the same result.
He said that whatever the cause, the inequality is a new political rift. Just last week,suggested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the imposition of additional tax value of 5.6% for those who are making over a million dollars to pay for the program of President Barack Obama's positions, estimated at $ 447 billion, and this is easy,Fddhm few is about 534 thousand people according to the Center tax policy, and theyare unpopular and increasingly unable to pay this tax.
And concluded by the end of his article that the backlash against the rich is the beginning, not the end, he wondered: Do I have to punish the rich on their success orask them to pay a fair contribution? If the tax hike, will be maintained on the hardapproach to the best investment incentives, work and risk? Does criticism of Obama for the rich just talk or is it a political program? And answered, "What is certain is that the rich are trapped and intensified attacks on them certainly."
Source: Washington Post
He explained that what is happening now is that most of the rich are classified in the category of non-eligible and receive a reprimand by the financial crisis, and during the financial boom in the nineties of the last century, a survey conducted by Harris that Americans look to the community of Wall Street that they are honest and Okhalagiwn more than others, but today did not left only 26% hold this view, while two-thirds of respondents say that the more successful on Wall Street are paid very high.
And confirmed by the existence of three varieties of varying financial in America, the former represents the phase of the staggering increase from 1945 to late 1970, where as much as economists Emmanuel Saez and PICTI Thomas that the richest 10% of Americans GRIP between 33 and 35% of the total income, including gains capital (most of the dividends). By 2007, the share increased to 50%, and most of the gains went to 1% of the rich only, where the share of this group of about 10% in 1980 to 24% in 2007.
The second class says writer, it's about the phenomenon of global, as according to a study conducted in 2008 found the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that inequality increased in 17 out of 22 countries over two decades, despite the fact that conditions vary greatly from one country to another.
In the third class by talking about taxes, he says, most of the rich in America does not survive the tax, in 2007 the richest 10% pay of the rich 55% of federal taxes, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. And pay the richest 1% of the rich is the lion's share of 28.1% of these taxes. The average tax rate on the richest 1% of the rich is 29.5%.
The author said there are many theories about the cause of increasing inequality, he said that although there is no consensus in the new techniques reward the highly skilled,and globalization reduce the salaries of factory workers, and the erosion of union powerleads to the same result.
He said that whatever the cause, the inequality is a new political rift. Just last week,suggested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the imposition of additional tax value of 5.6% for those who are making over a million dollars to pay for the program of President Barack Obama's positions, estimated at $ 447 billion, and this is easy,Fddhm few is about 534 thousand people according to the Center tax policy, and theyare unpopular and increasingly unable to pay this tax.
And concluded by the end of his article that the backlash against the rich is the beginning, not the end, he wondered: Do I have to punish the rich on their success orask them to pay a fair contribution? If the tax hike, will be maintained on the hardapproach to the best investment incentives, work and risk? Does criticism of Obama for the rich just talk or is it a political program? And answered, "What is certain is that the rich are trapped and intensified attacks on them certainly."
Source: Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment