110% versus 350%! No, the graph represents a percentage of income increase over the last 30 year. Taa-Daaa! Huge Profit/small bump! 10% versus 350%! How? It's a simple graph, my friend. The datum is 1979 income--all lines begin at 100%. Whatever ones income is, the datum is the same. 1979 is the year before the Reagan tax cuts appeared. Then in 30 years: The lowest 60% of earners is essentially flat, a mere 105% of 1979 income. The next 20% have income increased to about 110%. The next 15 % have income increased to about 115% The next 4% have income increased to about 120% And the top 1% has income increased to over 350%.
The middle and lower class incomes were greater in years where the upper class income was at its highest and lower when the upper class income was at its lowest. How can you dispute that? What you seem to be arguing is that the increase in income of the upper class prevents the lower classes from making that income. The data does not show that. If it did, in the years the upper class had significant decreases in income, the middle and lower class would have substantial increases. But the graph shows just the opposite. This graph leaves out a mountain of data and you can't come to any firm conclusions about the question at hand with only this graph but it certainly supports my interpretation over yours.
exactly. liberals dont care how much the poor make. they care about the gap between the rich and poor. if the poor are doing well, they are still angry if the rich are doing really really well. because they generally just dont like the existence of the rich. so they want to narrow the gap by bringing the rich down. and they do not care that punishing the rich punishes the poor even worse. what actually matters is how poor the poor are. and that is not to be judged by the gap between them and the rich.
The graph is specific, not subject to interpretation, and it addresses the question, which was about trickle-down economics, a policy that Reagn started in 1980. It shows that increased wealth for the rich did not trickle down at all. The gap steadily widens and the vast bulk of the increase has gone to the top 1%. No trickle. Supply-side economics simply never worked as advertised.
Exactly. If the trickle-down theory actually worked then when you rain money on the top 1% it would lift all income brackets in kind. But in fact, when we rained money down on the top 1% they got immensely richer while the other 99% of us endured the same small steady rise that we always have. Who'd have thunk? This is why the gap has obvious significance.
