All right, so we have a story here about the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor based on one one-thousandth of the population: 145,000 taxpayers. “The average income for the top 0.1% was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast. The share of the nation’s income earned by those in this uppermost category [the top 1/1000th percent] has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4% in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10% rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90% fell,” and they go on. They’ve got stats. “Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400% since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27%. The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.” So it’s an attack on the Bush tax cuts; it is an attack on the “hyper-rich.” A new category has been created now: The hyper-rich — and, by the way, those of you in the 150 to $250,000 income range are now being called “rich.” Now, I wonder if when you were making say 65 or 70 if you considered rich to be 250 thousand dollars. I don’t know if you did or not but I bet far fewer people did consider it rich than the New York Times would like us to believe.
But basically what we have here is a class envy story designed to depress and anger people over Bush tax cuts to continue to give the left ammo. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the super-rich…? I betcha these numbers are no different from the superrich categories of old days. There have always been the super-rich, the hyper-rich. We’ve always had the Kennedys. We’ve always had the W. Averell Harrimans. We’ve always had these people, the George Soroses. I mean, who are we talking about here? We’re talking about a bunch of rich Democrats, largely a number of people who inherited their money, are we not — from old time families that started railroads or imported 159 whiskey or whatever it was that they did? But the premise that is missing here — or the element that is missing is this. The New York Times and obviously a bunch of liberals consider all of this to be a zero-sum game. They look at the pie that is the American economy as a finite pie. “It’s of one side, and it never changes. All that changes is some people get a bigger piece than others, and that’s not fair, so we need income redistribution. We need tax increases on the superrich, and all of these things that are designed to lower their share of the pie.” Well, there’s another word for this. They look at the US economy as a
In fact, the truth probably is that American prosperity is increasing across the board, contrary to what the New York Times would want you to believe. Taxes for the middle class basically don’t exist, not income taxes. You can look at the income taxes collected. For all this talk about the 90% whose share of the pie went down, take a look at their share of the income tax bite. The bottom 50% pays something like 10% of the total income tax bite. We’ve got the table on our website. It’s never going away. Just on to counter stories like this, and it’s got much more recent data than what the New York Times was able to get. So we’re back to the same old page in the playbook: Class envy. “The rich are getting richer; you’re getting screwed. The rich are taking money from you and putting it in their back pockets because Bush is cutting their taxes.” It’s the same old thing, and it’s not working, and it hasn’t worked for the Democrats for a long time.
RUSH: And, by the way, one other thing about this New York Times story. Don’t fall for this. They are making a comparison with one one-thousandth of taxpayers to all the rest, one one-thousandth. They’re taking 145,000 taxpayers, getting their data, and then compare it to everybody else. I’ll bet it’s never been done that way before. By the way, the bottom 50% pay only
They’re called new money, and it’s new money because they’re earning it, and the new money crowd is moving into the neighborhoods of the old money crowd — and the old money crowd has their nose in the air, a little snooty about this because the new money people don’t bring a legacy, a family legacy that can be traced to their money. No, they’ve gone out and earned it, actually worked, they’ve actually worked? Some of the old money crowd, W. Averell Harriman, his father was big in the railroad business and he was one of Lyndon Johnson’s big advisors. You never hear these people get ripped to shreds but they inherited it all. What’s wrong with this New York Times story is the money we’re talking about is earned income on which taxes are being paid. If you read the story, it’s
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.