Why do the Dems not sound bite the fact the top 20% own 83.4% of USA

[papau]

blowing away the idea rich pay too much in tax - - If richest 40% own 95.3% of everything, and do not pay 95.3% of the cost of government, then the tax system is biased against the poor - Proving once again that our media does use Google:
Search terms were: 1 distribution of wealth in us, 2.wealth and distribution. 3. us distribution of wealth, 4.us and 1998 and stat or statistic or statistics gini coefficient

Here is a summary of the statistics for the distribution of wealth in the US as of 1998, the most recent information available that has been fully analyzed:

% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%


You can find this illustrated in a graph at United for a Fair Economy (UFE):
http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

You can also find additional graphs and charts on US income trends at the UFE site:
http://www.ufenet.org/research/income_charts.html

These figures are based on research by New York University Economics Professor Edward N. Wolff. In his April 2000 working paper titled "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998", Wolff used statistics from the Surveys of Consumer Finances to address several issues surrounding the concentration of wealth in America.

Working Paper No. 300
http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/300.html

According to Wolff's figures, about 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population. He also notes that the disparity
between the distribution of wealth rose from 1989 to 1998, although the pace of the inequity was slower in the 1990s.

In addition to the Surveys of Consumer Finances, there are two other major
sources of data on American wealth:

The U.S. Bureau of the Census Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP): http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/pubsmain.htm

The Institute for Social Research's Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID):
http://stat0.isr.umich.edu/psid/data-center/dcmain.html

The data and methodology for each of these sources varies. As a result, the
distribution statistics produced by each of these sources may also vary.

For the purposes of his analysis, Wolff defined wealth as "marketable wealth" or "net worth," meaning the current value of all marketable assets (real estate, cash, savings, bonds, stocks, pension plans, trust funds, etc.) minus the current value of debts. He excluded durable goods like automobiles and house wares and social security benefits from his definition of marketable assets.

While researching your question I found other graphs that detail the
disparities in income. It's important to remember that although wealth and
income are strongly correlated, they are different. More factors are taken into consideration when calculating wealth and as a result, it is probably a more accurate indicator of how money is distributed in the US.

Here are some additional resources on wealth and income:

US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/dusd/MAB/wp233.pdf
1999 report on the wealth of US families

US Census Bureau -- Census 2000
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?
_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP4&_geo_id=01000US
Detailed table on income and poverty statistics

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/sf2.html
Additional statistics on households and families arranged by state

Understanding the US Distribution of Wealth
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2122.pdf
Comprehensive report based on 1997 data

Century Foundation
http://www.policyideas.org/Issues/Social_Economic/Household_Wealth.pdf
Graphs and analysis based on 1998 US Census data

Review of Income and Wealth
http://www.iariw.org/articlelinks.htm

Survey of Consumer Finances
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ABSTRACTS/03155.xml?format=ICPSR
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2001/scf2001.information.html
Comprehensive survey on consumer income, assets, debt, and major transactions

Unequal Income Distribution in the United States
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/income.htm
This is based on 1995 and 1996 data. Scroll down to the bottom for information on distribution by country

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/2-26-01tax.htm
IRS data on after-tax income trends

The L-Curve By David Chandler
http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/
Based on 1997 data income. Includes easy-to-understand graphs on income
distribution

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences
http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=LORENZ%20CURVE
A definition of the L-Curve

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences
http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=GINI%
20COEFFICIENT
A definition of the Gini Coefficient

If you are looking for a geographical breakdown of the distribution of wealth in the US, here are some additional links:

US Census Bureau
http://landview.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-189.pdf
An analysis of income, poverty and benefits based on results from the 1990
census

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.epinet.org/studies/pullingapart/1-18-00sfp.pdf
A January 2000 state-by-state analysis of income trends. Based on data from
1978 to 1988

Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/22/2001maps.html
Search for the world's richest people and click on the map for more information

[papau]

1. Or at least note that the Top 1% own 38.1% of the USA - and pay a lot

less than 38.1% of the total US payroll plus FIT Income Taxes in the US.

If an income tax can not be fair, isn't it time for an asset tax instead.

[EVDebs]

2. Related post at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1534246&mesg_id=1534246

Also note that when repubs say 'the wealthiest deserve the tax breaks since they pay most of the taxes' they are lying ! The wealthiest may be paying most FEDERAL taxes, but as David Cay Johnston shows us in "Perfectly Legal", the US has what amounts to a 'flat tax' of about 20% of total income.

When you add up state, local and federal taxation, the wealthiest are NOT paying their fair share !

[papau]

4. Amen - That is a fact - RICH DO NOT PAY THEIR SHARE - that we

must get the media to understand!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. The stats are on our side, but look at your post --

does that look like a sound bite?

Great material, good links, but unless that is included in the statement, the repukes scream "class warfare", though they have been waging war on the lower classes, and winning, for forever. And if it is included, there goes the sound bite.

[papau]

5. Granted - one needs a clever writer's touch - which I do not have -but

there must be some Dem out there that can soundbite this.

[MARALE]

6. Love this post

I found this information:

snip>
* The CBO report shows that while the top one percent paid 36.5 percent of federal income taxes in 2000, it paid much smaller shares of certain other taxes; in particular, the top one percent paid only 4.3 percent of payroll taxes. Overall, the CBO data indicate that the top one percent paid 25.6 percent of total federal taxes in 2000.<5> The CBO data also show that the top one percent received 17.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2000.

* The CBO data thus show that the share of federal taxes that the top one percent paid in 2000, before the recent tax cuts, was larger than this group’s share of the national income, but not dramatically so. That the share of federal taxes which the top one percent paid exceeded its share of the national income reflects the fact that the federal tax system is progressive. It should be noted, however, that the degree to which the federal tax system is progressive is offset somewhat by the regressive nature of state and local taxes. In the vast majority of states, the share of state and local taxes that the top one percent of the population pays is less than its share of income.<6>

* Finally, the CBO data show that although the share of federal taxes that those at the top pay rose from 1979 to 2000, this increase was primarily the result of the increased concentration of income among the very affluent, not of increases in tax rates imposed on high-income households. High-income households received a much larger share of the national income in 2000 than they did two decades ago, and that naturally resulted in their paying a larger percentage of the nation's taxes. As noted above, average tax rates on those at the top of the income scale were lower — not higher — in 2000 than in 1979

<snip

interesting...they say that the wealthy paid more taxes because they received a much larger income, not because of tax increases.

[MARALE]

8. Also this chart is interesting

Look at the wealth percentage in 1929-this is where we are headed because we are on the same trend. This is the main reason behind privatizing social security, it may help keep the market from crashing. At least it will make the losses be burdened by the lower and middle class.

[H2O Man]

7. The simple answer

is that the democrats in a position to say something about this fall into that 20% of which you speak. I liked John Kerry just fine, but he surely isn't going to advocate massive changes in the economic system in America. Multi-millionaires who are registered republicans do not socialize with other democrats; they socialize with other multi-millionaires.

[Ken Burch]

9. Kerry's personal wealth isn't the sole problem...

After all, FDR was filthy rich and HE still denounced the "malefactors of great wealth."

There were also the speeches on economic and social justice that RFK gave in his last years and during his presidential campaign.

The real reasons they don't soundbite things like that are

1)The DLC obsession with not talking about "class warfare"(and look at all the good THAT's done)

2)The party's toxic reliance on corporate donations.

[H2O Man]

10. True.

In the last 50 years, there have been two rich democrats who have had the ability to move beyond self-interest in a memorable way. And there are a half-dozen others who have come pretty close, such as Humphrey. I agree that there are a few exceptions. But the truth is that those in the DNC etc who wimper about avoiding class warfare almost always are the same who benefit from keeping itr a secret. There are more than two Americas, and no matter how we might want to sugar-coat it, the rich do not face the same problems as the majority of America.

[Wilms]

11. Don't expect "Liberal" Hollywood to say anything about it. n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

12. They don't want to be accused of "Class Warfare" nt

[gottaB]

13. Because 19% of Americans believe they're among the top 1%

And another 20% expect to be get there one day.

[harpo]

14. the same reason they didn't use this video before the election...

Link to other post...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1560311

[Melynn]

15. Because the top 20% own the Democrats. n/t

[rucky]

16. Bookmarked...and THANKS

this information is harder to find than you may think.