The curious absence of class struggle
It's not so much the rich getting richer; it's the very, very rich
Statistics Canada reported recently that the earned income of the "average" Canadian — the so-called median income — was the same in 2004 as in 1982. After we subtract inflation to keep the purchasing power of a dollar roughly constant, it turns out that median income, before taxes, did not rise at all over those 22 years. Yet during that same time the Canadian economy grew, in real per capita terms, by more than half. But only the very well-paid — those above the 90th percentile of the income distribution — saw any significant increase in earned income; and the higher up the earnings ladder, the greater the growth. What has been going on?
Canada's experience is certainly not unique. We are following the same pattern as the United States — as usual, a bit more mutedly and a few steps behind. In the 30 years after the Second World War, the U.S. income distribution did not vary much, as the average American worker's earnings grew in tandem with a robustly expanding economy. Things changed abruptly starting about 1973; productivity growth collapsed, and the economy lapsed into a long inflationary stagnation. Eventually, North America recovered, but the fruits of growth no longer flowed in the same proportion into the average worker's pocket. Between 1975 and 2005, median family income in the U.S. increased by only 28% (with most of that coming in 1993-2000) while the economy overall grew by 86% in per capita terms. Between 2000 and 2005, median U.S. family income actually declined slightly.
Meanwhile, those at the top of the heap have been doing better than ever. The average earnings of the highest 1 per cent of the U.S. income pyramid rose a very healthy 160% between 1975 and 2005, while the income of the rarefied top 10th of 1 per cent soared 350%, in real terms, from $800,000 (U.S.) in 1975 to some $3.6-million by 2005.
2 comments:
that's because the very wealthy have the power o influence, such as in the case of Bush who gave huge tax cuts to the very top 2% of the population.
Here in Canada, the tories actually rolled back the tax cut proposed by the liberals that died because of their fall, in order to pay for the gst cut that really only benefited those with large sums of disposable income.
No it isn't a crime to be successful and only a fool would suggest such a thing.
It also isn't a crime to suggest that the average hard working Canadian with families deserve a little more too. It isn't like they don't try or work hard. In my business, I hire local Canadian talent, and try to pay them as well as possible. I may lose money by not using overseas talent at half the rate, but I sleep well at night.
If you want to be a Philanthropist then that is your choice, although the minimum you would HAVE to pay is scale, but having said that I would have to see some proof of your contribution to promoting Canadian talent and what type of talent.
If you want more GIVE more......
Post a Comment