Are you better off

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
than you were 4 years ago--that depends--note when economic down started (2000) and ended (end of 2001)


Study: Income Gap Grows Between Races

Monday, October 18, 2004



WASHINGTON ? The enormous wealth gap (search) between white families and blacks and Hispanics grew larger after the most recent recession, a private analysis of government data finds.

White households had a median net worth of greater than $88,000 in 2002, 11 times more than Hispanics and more than 14 times that of blacks, the Pew Hispanic Center (search) said in a study being released Monday.

Blacks were slowest to emerge from the economic downturn that started in 2000 and ended in late 2001, the report found.

Net worth accounts for the values of items such as a home and car, checking and savings accounts, and stocks, minus debts such as mortgage, car loans and credit card bills.

Greater wealth means a greater ability to weather a job loss, emergency home repairs, illness and other unexpected costs, as well as being able to save for retirement or a child's college tuition.

According to the group's analysis of Census Bureau (search) data, nearly one-third of black families and 26 percent of Hispanic families were in debt or had no net assets, compared with 11 percent of white families.

"Wealth is a measure of cumulative advantage or disadvantage," said Roderick Harrison, a researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank that focuses on black issues. "The fact that black and Hispanic wealth is a fraction of white wealth also reflects a history of discrimination."

After accounting for inflation, net worth for white households increased 17 percent between 1996 and 2002 and rose for Hispanic homes by 14 percent to about $7,900. It decreased for blacks by 16 percent, to roughly $6,000.

Regardless of race and ethnicity, the median net worth for all U.S. households was $59,700 in 2002, a 12 percent gain from 1996.

Only white homes recouped all their losses between 2001 and 2002. Both Hispanics and blacks lost nearly 27 percent of net worth between 1999 and 2001; the next year Latinos had gained almost all back (26 percent) though blacks were up only about 5 percent.

Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said the accumulation of wealth allows low-income families to rise into the middle class and "have some kind of assets beyond next week's paychecks."

"Having more assets enabled whites to ride out the jobless recovery better," he said.

Harrison says Hispanics were more insulated from the downturn than blacks, so they took less of a hit. For example, Hispanics made employment gains in lower-paid, lower-skilled areas such as the service and construction sectors.

Blacks were hit hard by job losses in the manufacturing industry and in professional fields, where they were victims of "last hired, first fired" policies, he said.

Only relatively recently were large numbers of blacks and Hispanics able to make investments and accumulate wealth. They were slower to enter the stock market during the 1990s rush and then had less of a cushion when the market began its decline in 2000.

Another factor affecting disparities is that whites are far more likely to own their homes; homeownership is among the most common ways to build wealth.

Census figures released in August showed the national median household income remained basically flat between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318. Median incomes for whites ($47,800) and blacks ($29,600) also were stagnant, while the median income for Hispanics fell about 2 percent to $33,000.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
No doubt some are better off than they were four years ago but the huge problem that exist is that when folks are laid off they cannot find employment that is paying nearly what their previous job paid. You have a naturaul bump in your numbers for the wealthiest 2% as they are no doubt better off by paying less taxes.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
hopefully the government comes in and sets prices, fixes wages, reduces productivity, sets limits on hard work, eliminates incentive for innovation, and provides us all everything we need and want
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
How many hispanics are in the top 2 %??

You could take a poll here of business owners that are not in top 2 % and think most would say they are the same or better off---
Not bad considering inheirited dot com disaster--recession and then 911 on top of it.

I will agree with you on those laid off and sympathize with their plight.--but loss of manufacturing jobs has been the trend for years do to industrialization--
What gets me is the typical liberal,spin tactics--as they only want you to know 1/2 the facts--oops there is that word again--the liberals achiles heel--FACTS---

Summary
The Democratic National Committee released an ad Aug. 6 saying 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost under Bush. That's true, but ignores the fact that manufacturing jobs started their decline three years before Bush took office.

The ad also says "Bush protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas" and that Kerry would "end job-killing tax loopholes." But as we've said before , "offshoring" accounts for just a small fraction of jobs that are lost, and even Democratic economists say changing the tax code won't end the overseas job drain anyway

Read the whole article--it might enlighten those that have just a tad of anopen mind.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=234.html
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
Manufacturing jobs are down all over the world due to increased productivity and I agree that the President and his policies have very little to do with job loss/growth.

But if that?s true, then why sell a tax cut as being a job stimulus? It?s pretty similar to the administration selling the Iraq War as a retaliation against Al Qaeda.

I just wish that we were able to debate the issues that effect the country based on their merit (and not the sell job) so we could discuss things like whether earned income should be taxed more than unearned income so that we (or our representatives) could decide what values we have as a Country.
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
From georgewbush.com

Three years. Three tax cuts. An economic recovery?American ingenuity?unleashed. At a critical moment in the Nation?s economic history, while a recession was taking hold, America was attacked, and corporate fraud was exposed. In response to these challenges, the President acted decisively to strengthen the economy and create jobs. The President?s leadership resulted in Congress returning taxpayer money to the families, entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors who earned it.
In his second term, President Bush will focus on building a more prosperous, competitive economy that will continue to be a strong engine for jobs and prosperity for years to come. The essential elements of his plan include: taking the next bold steps in reforming education; building a skilled and effective workforce; encouraging a pro-growth, fair, and simpler tax system; promoting research and development in both the public and private sectors; opening markets for American goods around the globe; meeting our energy needs and lessening our energy dependence; reducing the regulatory burden; and reforming Government to be smaller and more efficient, responsive, and effective. President Bush is committed to making sure America has the best prepared, best educated, and highest skilled workforce in the world.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
BBC I agree with you and have stated previously I do not think tax cut had much to do with it nor do I think any pres has that much to do with economy--
Primary reason for or economy and being wealthiest country in the world is free enterprise. Our business sector is quite resilient and adaptable (if left alone) ONLY when you take control from them and put more in govs hand will our country falter as so many have--- aka socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Tax cuts almost gone paying for higer Milk and Eggs and Gasoline.
Local taxes up 13% to help with short fall from Feds.
Feds pass a law then half or three quaters fund it. Thats not new tho been doing it for years.
As for stock/mutual funds. I like how they put it. Most have made up what they lost. That only leaves them behind the normal 4%to 5% per year they should gain. They for got to mention that 12%. And the way the markets are going don't see any relief. Market today looks like it did in Feb and March. Tax cuts wont get it done anymore there all figured in.
The only way to do it is put more folks to work to share the load.
And we been very poor at doing that last 4 years. No matter what excuse they wish to use. Excuses dont get it done.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Wild and Crazy Guy
John Kerry and his billionaire wife pay lower taxes than you do.

BY STEPHEN MOORE
Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, get a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn't pay your taxes, just remember two simple words: "I forgot."

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this: You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it's reality. According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.51 million last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not against people paying a 12.8% tax rate. Far from it. I just believe that all Americans--even those who can't afford to hire tax attorneys to set up complicated trusts and find legal ways to stash income in other tax-sheltered investments like municipal bonds--should have a shot at that kind of non-confiscatory tax rate.

Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate--combined payroll and income tax--for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%.


Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.

The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
Great article from the National Review. Don?t you think it?s pretty hard to blame Kerry for paying a 12% effective rate when he?s not the one that pushed through tax cuts that reduce the tax that you pay on unearned income.

While this author ?served as a Senior Economist at the Joint Economic Committee under Chairman Dick Armey of Texas? and obviously has some background of what he?s talking about, he still resorts to hacksaw journalism by insinuating that the Kerry?s may not have filed a legal return, states that muni-bonds are a ?tax shelter,? and then compares income tax to federal tax (income and payroll tax) to compare apples and oranges, and stating that Kerry and his wife would have paid more if there was a flat tax in place. No flat tax proposal that I?ve ever seen has ever proposed taxing unearned income, only earned income and based on the Kerry?s effective tax rate, I can assume that much of their income is unearned ? and that under a flat tax plan their income tax liability would have been much less.

The worst part of this article is that based on the author?s background, he already knew that, but he has such a low opinion of his readers that he blatantly lies to try and make his point ? that the poor keep too much of their money.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Actually it came from the Option Journal, but I guess the National Review would probably have it as well. The point to the article is that rich folk can afford to pay accountants to ?hide? income to ?shelter? gains from taxes.

I personally don?t have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn, nor am I advocating the flat tax. The problem I have is folks telling other folks, ?They aren?t paying their far share.?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
Turf You might have added Edwards.While campaigning he was constantly dissing the Republicans for neglecting the aged while he managed to avoid paying $597,000 in medicare tax.Remember in debate right after he made comments about Cheney's daughter.Dick dropped dime on him and his face turned redder than a foxes ass and he couldn't swallow for a few minutes, and for 1st time I've seen had no reply.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
I guess you could say...It's just money...No big deal.

Just trying to keep a boot on the poor man's neck...that's all.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top