Average Income Remains Below 2000 Level
Tuesday August 21, 2007
Average US income in 2005 remained below the 2000 peak (adjusted for inflation) according to IRS data, and the top 0.25% taxpayer group (those making more than $1 million) "reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000."
The reason 2000 is a considered a base year by analysts is that "[t]otal income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001."
Bill Clinton's presidential campaign capitalized on economic unease (It's the economy, stupid) when he unseated George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Obviously, most Americans felt something else was more important than average income in 2004. Will that be the case in 2008?
Comments
From an article in the ‘American Thinker’:
The average number of people per household was 2.62 in 2000 and 2.57 in 2005. A 2% decline. Do the math: if you spread the same people with the same income over more households, you get lower “household” income. In fact, we would have expected a 2% decline in household income. But there was less than 1% decline. In simple terms, there was no decrease in income at all. In fact, there was a healthy increase. The NYT simply spins a story about average household size into a class warfare story.
Any chance on a comment re:
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ — A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
Another story that debunks your cited story. I encourage all to read it and understand it:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/08/21/new-york-times-twists-data-to-make-great-personal-income-news-appear-awful/
LOL. I posted the Congressional news before I saw this.
Re your data — I think that they are a little flawed. They assume that everyone in the “house” is working. How much of that increase in size is due to a) more babies or b) more single parents?
And it’s NOT household income — it’s tax filings. Some married couples file individually, not jointly.
my last 3 posts (assuming that they were posted…???) were lifted wholesale from bizzyblog.com. I don’t want to be accused of pulling a Joe Biden
Alex, those prior three posts have been deleted. Feel free to post them again — IF you put a link to the source AND show that you are coping-and-pasting someone else’s words.
I let the first one stand because you referenced a source, athough I would have preferred it to be a link.
For the record, I posted the link twice before and it was never posted. Then I took 3 excerpts and followed them with a cite to the site that they came from. I am perplexed by your gatekeeping…maybe you should post it. To read your latest response I would’ve thought that my link should’ve been posted rather than censored. Ah well, it’s your site obviously.
Alex, I don’t “gate-keep.”
Comments are held only if there are two links — I didn’t check to see if those were being held. Will do.
The server has been slow the last 24 hours — a long lag between posting and showing up. But that’s headquarters, not me.
One post was being held — by auto-magic software algorithms, not a human — as possible spam. I’ve approved it.
Hi, Alex … one more thing. Additional census data on income show more full-time workers per household, not less.