With all this heated debate about Obama's remarks about "spreading the wealth" and "redistribution of wealth" and the questions raised about whether Obama is a socialist - laughable as they may be - the discussion regarding the facts of how wealth and income in this country are currently spread are going by the wayside.
These uncomfortable facts, for some, show that the wealth in this country has been and is continuing to be redistributed - from the bottom and middle to the top.
It begs the question - whats wrong with spreading the wealth around through a more progressive tax system?
Particularly when it seems like the top few percent have been the beneficiaries, in so many ways, for so long.
I found a few interesting facts just cruising around the internet. These figures aren't all totally up to date (as far as I can see) but the facts show how unequally the wealth and income of this country is spread, with the trend towards further inequality - something a lot of "regular folks" would be shocked to discover.
This site has an easy way of explaining it -
http://zfacts.com/...
One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:
50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)
The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).
The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)
The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).
Combined, you have $100.00.
In addition, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities comparing income growth between 1979 and 2004 ...
http://www.cbpp.org/...
*
The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 — for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper were adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.)
*
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004.
*
The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, over the past 25 years, reaching $14,700 in 2004
In all of these contexts, doesn't it seem fair ( dare I say patriotic) that the top few percent can have their income tax levels rolled back to pre-Bush levels and the rest of us get a tax break?