Home | About | Donate

A Sweet New Century for America’s Most Privileged

A Sweet New Century for America’s Most Privileged

Sam Pizzigati

The United States ended the 20th century on a roll — for the rich. Between 1973 and 2000, the nation’s most prosperous 1 percent tripled their incomes, after taking inflation into account.

The even more prosperous top tenth of that 1 percent did quite a bit better. Their incomes more than quintupled between 1973 and 2000, rising an amazing 414.6 percent.

1 Like

Hmmm… the top 20% got 65% of the tax breaks. They pay roughly 80% of the taxes and earn roughly one-half the income. So I guess they didn’t get their fair share.

The top 5% got about 30% of the tax breaks, and pay 60% of taxes and earn 36% of the income. So I guess they didn’t get their fair share.

The top 1% got 22% of the tax breaks, and pay 39% of the taxes on 20% of the income. So I guess they didn’t get their fair share.

The bottom 60% got 19% of the tax breaks and pay maybe 12% of the taxes on about 25% of the income. They got their fair share.

When the Supreme Court made Bush President and Bush rewrote the Constitution (Patriot Act) and FISA court rules to favor the domination of the President under his friend and helper he selected in Chief Justice Roberts the US started its slide into rule by global corporations and billionaires. Perhaps Trump/Putin and the loyal GOP are the result, but fascism was fought against by my Father in WWII and will be fought against again when it is obvious the persecution and many deaths of sheeple are the result of their looting.


get a life… The top 1% inherits 50% of their wealth and a lot of that is tax free… besides that 1% also gets 80% of the increase in capital gains every year…

And in any other country it would be aknnowledged that they do NOT PAY 80% of the taxes…The top 20% only pay 5% of the state and local taxes…iMAGINE that… 5% and they get tax breaks we can only dream of… read anything by David Kay Johnston…and when they are audited, the fact was back in 2014 that they underpaid taxes by about 50 billion EVERY YEAR…

Read about Dickens and the Workhouses…They continued under the great Queen Victoria who also raped and pillaged India and all the colonies…


Ahhh, the ‘fair share’ argument - buried within it is the extremist notion that money IS human value and those that don’t have $$$$ don’t deserve it.
I’ll pass on such extremist, brutal ideology that has commodified humans and human minds.

Well,what do you consider a “fair share” allocation? How much of a person’s income do you think they should be allowed to keep?

as to @Mary_Wold, please, tell me where they’re paying 80%?


Also, a citation on the 5% of state and local taxes?

And you do realize that Dickens was commenting on conditions more than 150 years ago? Times have changed…

Here is the other Buchanan who instigated the Kochs:

Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America

1 Like

The number of supportable elite drops dramatically as austerity squeezes the population to subsistence plus procreation bonus.

How many multibillionaires do example countries like Greece support compared to a country without imposed austerity? Sociologists are studying that.

Infighting among the elite will become intense as the feeding trough shrinks. Everybody duck when the shit hits the fan.

Not sure you are interested in truth.
Question: why do you support a monetary system that intentionally impoverishes millions?

It’s the system we currently have. Therefore assuming that you’re not going to be able to achieve a fundamental change what is the appropriate incremental position?

The system we currently have in no way justifies the system we have. It merely testifies to the dominating undemocratic tradition, highlighting its inherent corruption.
Why assume we cannot achieve fundamental change?
And then, why resort so quickly to the status quo position which maintains said authoritarian tradition?
And why continue, again, to ignore the plight of millions caused by said machine when you make such a suggestion?

Hmmmm. Trapped inside the box you were taught and believed?
As a wise man once said, “If you don’t know you’re sick, then you’ve got the disease.” People die unnecessarily, every day, because of tradition and conformity.

First you still haven’t bothered to answer my question- what’s a “fair” way to allocate the return of people’s money? Since, after all tax revenues are not the government’s money, it is merely money that the government has taken from taxpayers.

As to why I don’t believe we can achieve “fundamental change “ it’s simple - I do not see any combination of events that would support a revolution. If you have evidence to the contrary I’d love to see it.

A man asked, “What is the fair way to allocate taxes?” while millions suffered needlessly regardless of tax distribution.
Apparently he thought this was a reasonable question.

A man refuses to answer a question. Apparently he lacks an answer. Or perhaps he feels all income should be confiscated.