Posted on 05/30/2007 10:59:09 AM PDT by grundle
Imagine a line composed of every household with children in the United States, arranged from lowest to highest income. Now, divide the line into five equal parts. Which of the groups do you think enjoyed big increases in income since 1991? If you read the papers, you probably would assume that the bottom fifth did the worst. After all, income inequality in America is increasing, right?
Wrong. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study released this month, the bottom fifth of families with children, whose average income in 2005 was $16,800, enjoyed a larger percentage increase in income from 1991 to 2005 than all other groups except the top fifth. Despite the recession of 2001, the bottom fifth had a 35 percent increase in income (adjusted for inflation), compared with around 20 percent for the second, third and fourth fifths. (The top fifth had about a 50 percent increase.)
Even more impressive, the CBO found that households in the bottom fifth increased their incomes so much because they worked longer and earned more money in 2005 than in 1991 -- not because they received higher welfare payments. In fact, their earnings increased more in percentage terms than incomes of any of the other groups: The bottom fifth increased its earnings by 80 percent, compared with around 50 percent for the highest-income group and around 20 percent for each of the other three groups.
Low-income families with children increased their work effort, many of them in response to the 1996 welfare reform law that was designed to produce exactly this effect. These families not only increased their earnings but also slashed their dependency on cash welfare. In 1991, more than 30 percent of their income was from cash welfare payments; by 2005, it was 4 percent. Earnings up, welfare down
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How much of this increase was from EITC?
How did the middle 60 percent do?
FACTS like this are the enemy of Democrats and the left. Without enslaved voting groups, who the hell would vote Democrat anymore?
This same pattern held through the “Decade of Greed,” the Reagan ‘80s. The lowest quintile showed the greatest gains. Both periods of prosperity fuelled by a round of tax cuts.
Hillary was just blaming the growing gap between the rich and the poor just yesterday. Facts truly are inconvenient things for the shysters..
And, just like in the Reagan era, you will NEVER see this mentioned in an MSM broadcast.
CBS.ABC.NBC wouldn’t DARE to say this aloud.
Better living through government.
Unless you're a working stiff in the middle class and get taxed everywhere you turn. Including a higher marginal tax rate if you make $65K a year than if you make $130K a year.
Do you believe George Bush would have signed the bill to end welfare, given his current behavior?
bookmarking, thanks for sharing
Those are good questions that you ask - I don’t know the answers.
Of course Bush would have signed welfare reform. Ne never vetoes anything.
It wasn’t its purpose, it was its result. The purpose was honest.. but good intentions and all. It certainly became that, as people tried to protect their cushy government jobs, but it wasn’t its original purpose.
Quinn’s Law: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
The Democrats declare war on everything but America's enemies.
LOL!
Well TECHNICALLY if the poorest’s income (say 10,000) rises 35% (to 13,500) and the richest guy’s income (say 1,000,000) rises 50% (to 1,500,000) then the gap between their incomes is rising (both in absolute terms and %age-wise).
However in non-crazy land the important thing is that the poor’s income rose 35% and that fewer of them are on welfare. This is just good news!
The whole socialist ideology relies on envy. It’s not that the poor have two TVs and one car, it’s that some other person has 5 HDTVs and three sports cars. How dare they! Of course the elite socialists who would like everyone equally poor allocate to themselves 2 jet aircraft and 6,000 square foot homes, but they’re the anointed.
Oh wait - I do know. The article says it went up about 20% for the middle 60%.
Which makes my point - the current structure hoses the middle class.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11060191/
I think that's the best yardstick - middle 60 or middle 80, since the top and bottom 5-10% will always be pulling away from the pack in oppoisite directions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.