More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bill Quigley

Bill Quigley

GET UPDATES FROM Bill Quigley
 

Robin Hood in Reverse in US: Seven Examples

Posted: 04/ 7/11 09:12 AM ET

The rich have been getting richer and the poor and middle have been getting poorer in the U.S. recently. Here are seven examples that show how the US is going through Robin Hood in Reverse.

Between 1948 and 1979, the richest 10 percent of families in the US claimed 33 percent of average income growth. Between 2000 and 2007, the richest 10 percent claimed a full 100 percent of average income growth in the U.S., according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Business taxes were cut from 46 to 34 percent 25 years ago, according to ProPublica. But today 115 of the big 500 companies listed on Standard and Poor's Stock Index paid federal and other taxes of less than 20 percent over the last 5 years according to David Leonhardt of the New York Times.

General Electric's tax rate for last year was 7 percent, according to ProPublica.

The top 5 percent U.S. households claim 63 percent of the entire country's wealth. The bottom 80 percent hold just 13% of the growth, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Last year, John Paulson, a hedge fund manager "earned" $4.9 billion, according to the New York Times. Ten years ago it took 25 such managers to collectively earn that much. Last year the top 25 hedge fund managers pocketed (a much better word) a total of $22 billion. It would take over 440,000 people each earning $50,000 a year to match that amount.

A federal development program intended to help poor communities, the New Market Tax Credit, instead funnels up to ten billion taxpayer dollars to big corporations like JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs and Prudential to build luxury hotels, office buildings and a car museum. Bloomberg Markets Magazine pointed to the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago which was renovated for $116 million. Prudential got $15.6 million in tax credit from the US Treasury for helping fund the project because the hotel was in a census zone that included two colleges which housed a lot of lower income students.

According to the Financial Times
, there are now more people living in poverty in the US than at any time in the last 50 years. Foreclosure filings were nearly 4 million in 2010, up 23 percent since 2008 according to RealtyTrac.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 270
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kamact
Market Observer
01:19 PM on 04/10/2011
Reintroduce progressive taxes and estate taxes, tax capital-gains income at the same rate as work-based income, clawback the TBTF banksters' bonuses,...reduce CEO compensation,...even if this means off-shoring this position, which will free up resources to hire millions of working Americans
03:41 PM on 04/08/2011
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=0e5d0b11-bca6-406f-a6fd-dfea7cf373b4

"In 2010, a family with poverty level wages ($14,570) and two children under age 17 can increase its income by more than 50 percent with tax credits. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is worth $5,036, a Child Tax Credit (CTC) totals $2,000, and a Making Work Pay (MWP) credit provides an income boost of $400 for a single parent or $800 for a married couple with at least one worker."

"In cases where a family does not owe income taxes, refundable credits are received as a tax refund. If the CTC reverts back to being largely nonrefundable, few low-income families will benefit from it since they do not have positive taxes that the credits can offset."
03:59 PM on 04/08/2011
For all the people that are under the false assumption that the poor dont get more refunded than what they paid in, there it is in black and white.
12:54 AM on 04/09/2011
Why, the poor are getting such a good tax deal, I don't know why we don't all just get poor so we can all get those lavish tax benefits.

Wait a minute, if the tea partiers and the neocons all get their way, WE WILL ALL BE POOR BEFORE YOU KNOW IT!
11:12 AM on 04/08/2011
I would prefer the suggestion of Dudley Do-Right as the tea party, riding his horse backwards, bugling off into absurdity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:01 AM on 04/08/2011
Be careful with the Robin Hood compairison as Robin Hood did not take from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood took from the government and gave back to the tax payers. This is all an idea we can support to end the current greed of government.
kellygreen
"Ideology is the Science of Idiots" John Adams
10:15 AM on 04/08/2011
The government WAS the rich during that time.

Any comparison between a democratically-elected government that VOTES upon what its taxes will be....and an authoritarian, hereditary ruling aristocracy that simply IMPOSED taxes upon a populace that had no recourse and no rights whatsoever....

....is an absurd argument.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:30 PM on 04/08/2011
At least you agree that Robin Hood stole from the government to give back to the taxpayers.

Our government is rich honey, they are also greedy with no end in sight for their appetite for even more money.

Your're right, we do have recourse. It's called "The Tea Party"
09:26 AM on 04/10/2011
The rich are the US government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
06:30 PM on 04/10/2011
Either the government is wallowing in debt, or they are rich, you cannot have it both ways
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
08:49 AM on 04/08/2011
I spend a lot of time telling this same story from different angles, but as far as who is rich and who is not, I wonder, how do they know? I've looked at government data about net assets, but I don't know how they know.

The IRS has records of our income, but not our expenses. It has records of our realized gains and losses, but not our unrealized ones. Reporters and agencies do not know whether we lose $10K on new cars every year, or are still driving the used one that cost $8K 15 years ago.

It appears to me that the loss of pensions means that people need to be somewhat rich to afford retirement. We see a lot of declarations about the state of affairs. Government may know the values of 401K's and IRA's, but reporters cannot invade privacy and make declarations about individuals, not even in aggregate. I can imagine that a bank might be required to reveal data to the IRS, but how would they know about after-tax savings at a brokerage, or collectible ownership, for instance? I see assumptions about retirement preparedness based on aggregate 401k figures, but paying taxes as you earn instead of delaying is a legitimate hedging and saving tactic, so who knows, really, how many are rich?
Vyslichajici
private american citizen
08:17 AM on 04/08/2011
reverse robin:
extend bush tax cuts
outlaw collective bargaining

also called: sheriff of nottingham
kellygreen
"Ideology is the Science of Idiots" John Adams
10:11 AM on 04/08/2011
....and "Robber Barons"
08:15 AM on 04/08/2011
phyveaux said "If you shared all of the income of the 500 richest CEOs, it would mean a $35 pay day for each American."

Whoa! $35 per day for each American is $12,000 per year for everybody.

The average household has 2.3 people so that $35 per day amounts to $29K per household.

30% of households make less than $29K so spreading those 500 CEO salaries would DOUBLE the annual income of about one hundred million people!

That's a BIG DEAL.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts.
10:16 AM on 04/08/2011
Wrong! Original poster is right.; NOT $35 per day!

Sorry!
kellygreen
"Ideology is the Science of Idiots" John Adams
10:20 AM on 04/08/2011
Yep.

Nice work.

You just beat one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book: chop the data into such small pieces, that the Big Picture falls apart....and the propogandist then uses it to say whatever he wants it to say....

...figuring that no one would do what you just did. Put the pieces back together again, and put them back into context.

Twelve thousand dollars, annualized is NOT a big deal for someone earning millions or billions of dollars per year.

But to someone who is middle-class, that money can mean the difference between a child being able to afford to go to college....

....or not.

Be able to afford a home...

...or not.

Being able to live in a neighborhood with good schools....

...or not.

That money IS a big deal, and it is why life is getting harder and harder for most people, as more and more of our wealth is allowed to concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:17 AM on 04/08/2011
Would just like to add that tens of millions of people in poorer countries DIED as a result of the global bust - the greatest crime against humanity since WWII.
10:03 AM on 04/10/2011
Very well put! Fan! Thank you very much for thinking of these people. The Wall Street meltdown was more lethal than any tsunami, yet the DOJ does nothing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Craig2
Living in the great State of Jefferson
12:43 AM on 04/08/2011
Good evening, Oligarchs rule!
12:15 AM on 04/08/2011
Someone clearly doesn't understand Robin Hood. He stole from those who had stolen from others in order to repay them their stolen property. These businesses have stolen nothing from the poor and are receiving nothing which has been taken from the poor. If anything they are getting back their own taxes.
01:29 AM on 04/08/2011
You stole my thunder, mate.
Vyslichajici
private american citizen
08:19 AM on 04/08/2011
these business have stoeln nothing from the poor? are you serious?

oh, yes, they have!
02:28 PM on 04/08/2011
Name something they stole.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
two 'alves of coconut!
10:08 PM on 04/07/2011
Gentrification is upon us. Aren't you late for WORK, 'citizen'?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:14 AM on 04/08/2011
Interesting comment. In Stalins Soviet Unions just before you were drag off to the gulag you were addressed as a citizen and not a comrade.
09:17 PM on 04/07/2011
Fact. The top 100 highest paid CEOs made 2.3 billion dollars. That sound outrageous until you consider that if they made 0, and that money was distributed equally to all Americans, each American would get $7. Feel free to rail against CEO pay and be angry about it, but their pay isn't contributing to anyone being poor. If you shared all of the income of the 500 richest CEOs, it would mean a $35 pay day for each American.
09:43 PM on 04/07/2011
So QED, the top 5 percent U.S. households does not control 63 percent of the entire country's wealth?
12:16 AM on 04/08/2011
wealth does not equal income.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
06:33 PM on 04/10/2011
and that number is going up each year exponentially. Not too hard to figure out they will have all the wealth and soon now (republicans want to give them help, want to lower the top tax rate by ten percent)
TheBluesGuy
Annoy a Conservative: Think!
12:36 AM on 04/08/2011
Had there been no bailout, this might have been a valid point. Unfortunately, there was, and it's not. The top 100 CEOs are responsible for the economic mess. They should be redistributing their salaries.
02:59 PM on 04/08/2011
Which would mean you would be $7 richer. Exactly what does that accomplish?
10:08 AM on 04/10/2011
Exactly! Fan! They were in key positions, and their actions had a snowball effect and lost the world tens of trillions of dollars at the very least. It's inexcusable. In some countries they would be held responsible, but not in the US, it seems.
09:02 PM on 04/07/2011
When I make similar comments to yours, Mr. Quigley, they never see the light of day on HP.

I'm reading over the CBO's 29-page letter to Rep. Paul Ryan. In that document...

...convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments

...People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program

...Beneficiaries of the premium support payments would choose among competing private insurance plans

...The premium support payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary.

...The payment for 65-year-olds in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, on average, which is approximately ... blah blah blah.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf

I think I'm going to be sick. It's all very clear to me now. We are being shafted. Those of us who have been paying into Social Security and Medicare for decades, they just keep moving the carrot. The banks already wiped out the middle class investments that would have allowed us to be financially independent (with our taxpayer dollars - you're welcome, banks!), then the government turns around and says "and don't come looking to us for handouts, either!" While all the fat cats stroll away to play bocce ball or go yachting or whatever the idle rich do to while away the hours.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:31 PM on 04/07/2011
From the Economic Policy Institute...

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ryans_budget_would_undermine_economic_security_for_millions
Ryan's budget would undermine economic security for millions

"...This plan puts money directly into the pockets of insurance companies, which are much less efficient than Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted on a few occasions that spending for beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans—the program on which Ryan’s proposal is modeled—is higher than spending for beneficiaries in traditional Medicare plans. In a June 2007 report, CBO noted that “Medicare’s payments for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans are higher, on average, than what the program would spend if those beneficiaries were in the FFS [fee-for-service] sector—so shifts in enrollment out of the FFS program and into private plans increase net Medicare spending.”2 In a letter in August 2007, CBO also noted that “the federal government spends about 12% more on beneficiaries in [Medicare Advantage] plans than it does on beneficiaries in FFS.”3 Ryan’s plan prioritizes sending funding directly to insurance companies over pursuing efficiency in Medicare..."
10:09 PM on 04/07/2011
OT... I have a relative who is disabled, yet does not want to ever live in a nursing home if she can avoid it. Not that she could, under this proposal. She collects her deceased husband's SS and pays for medicare now. But, her annual income hovers somewhere around 12k annually. Well under the poverty level. Paul's scenario... paints a very bleak picture. She will turn 65 in 2021. What in the heck is she supposed to do? Sell her house to pay for medications and other very expensive medically necessary items? *Then* what??? Either I am not understanding the proposal, or folks are sc**wed. Thank you for the link, more studying, although it seems like it just affirms my suspicions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Under Fed yet Fed Up
Always great distaste for both political parties
10:14 PM on 04/07/2011
If you are concerned about gross inefficiency and excessive insurance company profits you must be strongly against ObamaCare. Right?
08:50 PM on 04/07/2011
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

We really need to be talking about what people and companies really PAY in taxes, just not what the tax rates are. Note this link outlining the difference in the marginal tax rates for the 400 richest Americans, the long term capital gains rate, and what tax rate they actually paid -- the 16.5% effective tax rate the wealthy pay is really pretty close to most of ours -- or even lower. That's how you accumulate wealth, and until the wealthy understand that this is wrong, we will never fixer deficit problem.
12:17 AM on 04/08/2011
Explain how it is wrong.
12:48 AM on 04/08/2011
i suspect your value system is very different from mine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
09:22 AM on 04/08/2011
and mine
08:42 PM on 04/07/2011
The bottom line is that the tax system today rewards a wealthy, sophisticated taxpayer due to the complexity of the tax code. Note this chart concerning the wealthiest 400 Americans -- their marginal tax rate, the long term capital gains rate, and actual rat paid by these individuals. While they have a marginal tax rate of 35%, they are actually paying only at a 16.5% rate. A very low capital gains rate helps exacerbate that problem.

We will not get ourselves out of this problem until we realize that everyone who enjoys the fruit of our country has to pay their fair share -- that includes individuals like corporations and the very wealthy. If corporations have the right to donate all they want to election campaigns, they should pay their fair share of the tab. Right now , they aren't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
11:54 AM on 04/08/2011
I consider myself decently educated (degree in econ) and capable of understanding what I read. I used to have a tax office and when I try and decipher the tax code that applies to those superrich, I find it out of my abilities. What I clearly understand is that the bonuses for these moguls are not taxed anything like the bonuses the rest of the wage earners receive, that the tax loopholes are convoluted and open to interpretation of tax attorneys (the five hundred or more an hour guys) Since the republicans are adamant about not raising the taxes, what about just eliminating the loopholes?