Seeking Alpha

The Census Bureau estimates the real median household income for U.S. families fell 2.3% in...

The Census Bureau estimates the real median household income for U.S. families fell 2.3% in 2010, to $49,445. Meanwhile, the poverty rate increased for the fourth straight year to 15.1%, its highest level since 1993. (previously)
Comments (20)
  • Ouch. I had a good raise but it was more than eaten up by gas, groceries, and health insurance, so things are tighter than they were last year. The American consumer is taking a beating.
    13 Sep 2011, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Consumers are taking a beating and now this data shows why we are in a recession. It's all about personal income and debt. Until we solve the debt problem, the economy will not improve.
    13 Sep 2011, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Cart before the horse. The economy won't get better unless the consumer has disposable income, not declining income.
    13 Sep 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • I would suggest all US citizens write Obama and ask for their FREE money!
    13 Sep 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Free money only goes to wealthy and bankers.
    13 Sep 2011, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • There has been a great transfer of wealth from middle-class to wealthy over the last 40 years.
    13 Sep 2011, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Thats cause the wealthy do the proper activities to make them wealthy. I grew up poor, worked my way through middle class, and because of MY choices, I am now wealthy. Im not special, making the right choices will carry one far in the US.
    13 Sep 2011, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • This news is a victory for Tea Partiers and Republicans all across America!
    13 Sep 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Things have gone downhill since the democrats gained control of congress.
    13 Sep 2011, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • It makes for a real freaking vibrant economy when 95% of the population gets poorer every year just so the other 5% can buy larger megayachts. So let's tax the bottom 95% more.
    13 Sep 2011, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • How many people do you think are employeed by the mega yacht builders. Frankly I would be very happy to have the "rich" spend more and more of their money. It will bolster the economy.

     

    What would happen if the rich spent 90% of their money on stuff? Would it be any different if the rich were taxed 90% of their wealth? I'd much rather have people deciding to spend than government deciding to re-allocate wealth.
    13 Sep 2011, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • I have family catering to the 'ultra rich'.

     

    Small shop. Few employees.

     

    How many do you think are employed by companies catering to the middle class?

     

    Would it be better if there was no middle class? Why should the middle class continue to bear the greatest burden of the social contract while the folks on either extreme end get to benefit on its back?

     

    I'd much rather have a strong middle class, period.
    13 Sep 2011, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • We can, and we have talked about this over and over again. How do you conclude that the middle class bears the greatest burden of the social contract? Is it their Federal tax burden? Their state and local tax burden. Is it the regressive nature of taxes on consumer staples like food, etc.

     

    If the bottom 1/2 of the federal tax payers pay no federal income tax, then their burden is placed on them at the local level - by people they have much more control over putting in office. The school boards, the city council, the state legislators. Surely the middle class has influence with those guys....and yet....my property taxes go up despite my house value going down, because the local laws say regardless of valuation they can raise the tax rate to maintain revenue.
    13 Sep 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • Mark,

     

    The bottom 10-15% live below poverty. This means they can't afford to eat. I don't understand what rationale you use to opine that they should pay taxes.

     

    The top 5% pay LESS in taxes as a percentage of income than the next 80%. Meanwhile, those two demographics - the top 5 and the bottom 15% - derive the most benefits out of being in the US. They invest less into the overall system than the benefits they derive from it.

     

    And today, middle class america makes less than it has historically in decades, even while paying a larger percentage of its income to tax and necessities than ever before, while you have the top 5% taking larger percentages of the wealth, and at the bottom you have increasing pressure on social programs from people who shouldn't qualify for them since its the only way they can make ends meet.

     

    You know why we give out food stamps? Cause folks don't make enough to EAT. What rationale makes you think folks who can't afford to eat can afford to pay taxes? 47 million folks can't afford to eat in the US and you want them to pay taxes?

     

    Yeah 'let them eat cake.'
    14 Sep 2011, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Wealth is not that relevant. More critical is the cash flow.... and in a low-interest rate environment like now, the wealthy can't generate much cash-flow with their assets, generally.

     

    90% tax leads to flight of capital. Maybe Hollywood would move to Asia than, like the Jews moved to the US during WWII.
    16 Sep 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • What nonsense. Of course wealth generates lots and lots of cash flow. Even if a billionaire only is invested in Treasuries at 2% that's still about $20 million/year in cash flow. Think the poor and middle class could pay off debts and live pretty well on $20 million/year.
    16 Sep 2011, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • That's the argumentation of an extremist. Fact is: the low rates have altered the capital flows on a global basis *extremely* -- in a relative manner. Everything is relative. You are arguing like these guys who are always wondering how large debts are when written as 8,000,000,000,000 $, although it is only a bit more than 50% of, for example, the US GDP.
    17 Oct 2011, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • "The bottom 10-15% live below poverty. This means they can't afford to eat. I don't understand what rationale you use to opine that they should pay taxes."

     

    First.. "they can't afford to eat" is unsupported by the fact that no one dies of malnutrition in the US.

     

    Next. I don't believe I suggested that the poor SHOULD pay taxes, only I stated that if the poor pay taxes, they pay state and local taxes, which are imposed by local elected officials upon them. The poor should have more control over the state and local taxes by virtue of their ability to influence local elections much more than national elections (which don't impact their taxes anyway since they don't pay Federal taxes.) Conclusion: If you want to lower the burden on the poor, it must be done at the local level.

     

    You would'nt be aware of this, but several years ago, we had a $1.6 billion budget surplus in the state where I live. Our governor worked to disburse most of that to the local teachers and schools. In so doing he raised the ongoing cost of paying teachers and administrators. I advocated in writing that that money could have been used to provide free college education to more than 100,000 students.... Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between education and income. Poverty is associated with poor education. The reasons for the poor education are many....but if you want to change a life, then education is critical.
    14 Sep 2011, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • A lot of bad info here Mark. I'll take a minute, here is the first link of a google search on malnutrition in the US:

     

    www.worldlifeexpectanc.../

     

    The poor have -less- control over taxes. This is clearly influenced by education and evidenced by low voting rates among lower income folk. In fact, the correlation between wealth and power and influence in the US is higher than its ever been. I guarantee it, I spend time in City Hall advocating for my own interests (which are primarily real estate related as it is my primary business)

     

    Also, your arguments are all 'us against them' rich versus poor. I don't advocate for the poor. And I don't advocate for the rich. I advocate for the middle class, the productive, consuming, producing folk. No one really gives a crap about the middle class anymore cause it's dying. When it's gone, America as you and I knew it will also be gone.
    15 Sep 2011, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • "Poverty is associated with poor education."

     

    Poverty is assosiated with behavior
    15 Sep 2011, 02:53 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)