Shhh! Americans Getting Richer

August 26, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (9)

Jimmy P. at the DNC— A common economic critique from liberals is that people are poorer today than they were in 2000. I have heard that statistic repeatedly here in Denver. (Dems pick that number because it was the peak of bubble boom.) But new IRS numbers show that isn't the case. A few factoids:

1) Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006, adjusted for inflation, averaged $58,029, up 1.2 percent from 2000.

2) Some 60 percent of the increase in total income went to those making more than $75,000, but less than $1 million a year.

3) Average income rose $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005, and $1,369 in 2006—the slowdown because of the effect of inflation.

4) Salaries fell by almost 1 percent among taxpayers whose total income was $1 million or more.

Me: I am not surprised by these numbers. Although you almost never hear about it, incomes began growing strongly starting in 2003. (This is a big reason Bush got re-elected.) Here is what real disposable personal income did from the first quarter of 2003 through the first quarter of 2007: 1.7 percent, 5.0 percent, 6.3 percent, 1.7 percent, 3.7 percent, 2.4 percent, 2.9 percent, 7.5 percent, (-4.7 percent), 2.5 percent, (-1.3 percent), 7.5 percent, 5.1 percent, 1.3 percent, 2.3 percent, 5.8 percent, 4.4 percent. Then came the credit crunch and oil price spike. Again, it seems to me that when we keep the economy growing at a good clip, concerns about income inequality and wage stagnation fade. The big problem with the economy is not enough hypergrowth quarters of 5 percent or more.

Tags:
IRS,
income

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

1) Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006, adjusted for inflation, averaged $58,029, up 1.2 percent from 2000.

The increase in adjusted gross income (AGI ) can be attributed to changes in the definitions for items qualifying for subtraction (phase out) from gross income. Also, the average is biased by some higher income individuals.

2) Some 60 percent of the increase in total income went to those making more than $75,000, but less than $1 million a year.

One hundred percent of the increase in total income went to those making more than $75,000 of which 42 percent went to those making more than $1 million in 2006.

3) Average income rose $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005, and $1,369 in 2006—the slowdown because of the effect of inflation.

These figures are correct but if one takes the average wage in 2006 it is actually lower by $101 than the average wage of the year 2000.

4) Salaries fell by almost 1 percent among taxpayers whose total income was $1 million or more.

True again. However, most of that decrease was among those who had their wages fall to an average of $3.5 million a year. Yeah... unless I'm wrong, it looks as if the modestly wealthy are getting No Richer.

Me: I wait with bated breath to learn just how much our country has prospered in 2007 and what we might expect in 2008!

SEM of IL 3:47AM August 29, 2008

Sorry, that really makes me wonder wth you're spending your money on. I am in the low 40s and have been the last 4 years and am doing better than just fine.

In fact, if I'd stop wasting 2/3 of my paycheck every month, I'd have a real chunk of savings or investment money put together right now.

But then, I don't "need" that Hi-def TV or that new computer or the most expensive steaks to cook for dinner for my friends (I would recommend learning how to marinade cheap steak). I don't need an SUV or luxury car, or...

God, Honestly, even after subtracting the 35% of taxes (or is it more?) that you have to pay, I Still can't figure out how to spend all that money without buying stupid, frivolous junk. LOTS of stupid, frivolous junk (or really, REally good vacations).

Taran of PA 4:11PM August 27, 2008

"Yes, I know "cost of goods" is general -- that's why I said "cost of goods in general," which we all know is impacting everyone at every level. Of course things scale differently as your income increases - but it doesn't mean that someone making $100K isn't feeling pinched right now. When I examine what I could change to cut back on my monthly costs, I'm looking at commuting via public transportation rather than driving, not cooking dinner for friends as often, etc. I realize I am fortunate not to have to choose between putting food on the table and paying for medication -- but when I say living paycheck to paycheck, I honestly mean that."

Which goes to my original point. If you are feeling the "pinch" (and believe me, I sympathize. I am about to lose my house and my wife and I are going down to one car!), then now is not the time to be talking about "taxing the rich". The government ALWAYS have a broad definition of who is rich, and when revenues are not coming in, that definition only gets broader. We can't always have it good: having it always good then gives us a sense of entitlement. And that then leads to contempt for others who are doing better. I am obviously not doing as well as you, but I don't want what you have because it's not mines to take. So instead of wanting to take other people's earnings, I look within at what I can cut and ask family for help.

Chris of AZ 5:56PM August 26, 2008

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement