Skyrocketing income inequality in America over the past 30 years


Return To Article
  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Nov. 24, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    The tax cuts of the early 80's and Bush tax cuts produced the largest increases in tax revenue in the history of the country. The problem is that we spend it faster than we raise it. Our problems are spending problems not tax revenue problems. I agree with the commentator that the richest counties vote blue. These are the Beverly Hills ultra/ubber rich type of counties (low population). The blue is made of the bottom 1/3 urban class, the 1/5 social blue (more fiscal red but socially blue) and the small elite rich. Remember that what makes someone blue isn't necessarily agreement with economics but social agreement. I know lots of people who voted for Obama because of social liberalism. If they had their way they would like a fiscal conservative and socially liberal candidate. When they make their mind up they go for the social issues.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 24, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    @ Stalwart Sentinel

    I am suspect you to be a school teacher the way you jumped on my typo. I will leave school teachers alone in this post. Dang those are impressive numbers but I have heard them before from California folks.That must be a cookie cutter reply out there. I didn't care then and I don't care now. Dang you folks must be busy out there. You are 125% more productive than I am.Here are some stats you might want to see. CA. is upside down some $300 billion. Your unemployment is over 10%. You have one third of Americas welfare recipients while being one eighth of the population. Americas highest state or in other words the Welfare Queen.You have the lowest credit rating of all the states according to S&P.Over 4 million on food stamps.You better get a lot more productive cause it appears you will need it. You need to point your finger at Sacremento and Washington D.C and most of all yourselves. I do not think that SLC has that much to do with your problems.I am glad you are there and I am not.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 23, 2012 5:23 p.m.

    @Stalwart Sentinel

    All you have verified is that The Federal Government via socialistic programming has made:

    ALL States dependent on the government for federal funding,

    has put all schools under federal control via dependence on federal funds, ( a hundred years is was socialists idea to push all children into public schools where they could be taught what they wanted the children to be taught, before that most children were in private schools, or locally funded and controlled schools)

    and has 50% of the population dependent on federal funding from EIC to welfare, from headstart to SS, from food stamps to obamaphones,

    the government is now dictating over bake sales, light bulbs, the size your soda, and on and on,

    How is all this control in the hands of few such a good thing?

    If the federal government controls all income then they have all control over all things and all people. Tyranny.

    You don't effect change with federal power, you effect change by changing minds and hearts.

    But the left will not allow true change because they will not allow the teaching of morals, values, and principles.

    It's ALL about power not change.

    HOw is this good thing.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    Capitalism is not a perfect but it has provided the incentive for the prosperity we have enjoyed over many many years.

    "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty". Winston Churchhill

  • slpa1 West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 12:01 p.m.


    "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift..."

    Abraham Lincoln never said that. It was written by John Henry Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister, in 1916.

    Since you got that wrong, how much of the rest of your argument is similarly flawed?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 22, 2012 10:54 a.m.


    1 - That quote was first penned decades after Lincoln's death, he never said it. If you're misinformed about a simple quote, where else are you misinformed?

    2 - The "whining class envy soclialists (sic)" that kept Romney out of the White House literally pay for you to live. Since 1981, the State of Utah has received more than $22billion USD in Federal dollars that it didn't pay into the system. In other words, your entire state has been subsidized to the tune of nearly a billion dollars a year while my state, CA, paid out more than $489billion more than it received. We literally bail your state out every single year. Further, our GDP per capita is more than 125% of Utah's. On any given work day, the average Californian will produce 125% of the wealth you do. So, I'll make you a deal, you can start accusing the productive members of society of being "soclialists" when a) you pay off your $22billion tab, and b) catch up with the rest of us in productivity. Deal?

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    A lot of people are struggling in today's economy. It is not fair to label all the poor as lazy and unmotivated. I just turned 57. I am buried in debt and just getting by. I have worked since I was fourteen. I earned money for an LDS mission by bagging groceries and farm labor. I served 25 years in the Army National Guard. Yes I have made mistakes, I freely admit it. The issue I have with conservatives is they are so judgemental of others. Americans are not lazy people, never have been and never will be. Conservatives need to stop buying into all the stereotypes and start being more charitable towards others. Charity is not socialism. The Book of Mormon warns us of the dangers of pride, materialism, inequality and turning our backs on the poor and needy. I am conservative myself. Conservatives need to stop blaming the poor for being poor. That was Romney's problem. He has no clue what it is like to be poor or even middle class in America. Assigning character flaws to others is hypocritical. We all have faults and shortcomings.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    To all the whining class envy soclialists. Lincoln said it best :"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
    You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
    You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
    You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
    You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
    You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
    You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
    ... Abraham Lincoln
    Reading all this whining proves to me Obama has been succesful in tearing down the Country.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 22, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    One thing I forgot to mention, and given what today is, I would be remiss. I work throughout the world, helping many of these companies being referred to figure out ways to make yet even more money through sharpening their margins and increasing productivity. Focused on energy and exploration, I get to go to a lot of remote locations through the world well off the tourist beaten paths.

    In doing so, I witness real poverty, what having the chance at jobs really means to some What rings home is despite our differences, our flaws, and all our problems , there are many in this world that would exchange their problems for ours in a heart beat. We truly do live in a blessed time and place. We need to keep those "issues" we think we have in perspective, and give thanksgiving for the many things we have. The graft, corruption, and despair experienced through out the world should remind us that our differences are far less than we imagine, and our problems are ever so much more solvable - if we just remember and give thanks for those things we do have.

  • DVD Taylorsville, 00
    Nov. 22, 2012 7:59 a.m.

    I'm not worried that someone will make a ton more money than I, my concern is when it comes from using that extreme financial power to keep the masses from having a general choice to make a decent living wage. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair shows an example of what can happen with unregulated corporate behavior. Freedom disappears, anything that matters beyond the next meal disappears for most of the working classes.

    In the last 20 years, we've had a shift away from 'socialism' policies in the U.S. It seems we have also increased permanent poverty. Humans are always going to create inequality, the trick is to not let it get so far that your whole system turns into masses starving vs. a few ultra-rich. That's a recipe for revolution and not progress for freedom.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 22, 2012 6:38 a.m.

    @statman - it is an interesting theory, and at some level seems to make sense. But do you really think executives have become 300 percent more productive? And do you really think their compensation is tied to economic value generated? For example, locally our garbage people have gone from 2 people on a truck to a single person, with an automated arm that dumps the cans. The process is probably 25 to 40 percent faster. The productivity of the truck has gone up several fold because you have reduced the human cost, and increased the number of residences served per hour. Do you think the remaining driver of the trucks wage has increased in any relationship to the increased productivity? I doubt it. But maybe.

    If you try building models around this "survival of the fittest" mentality as one proposed, it becomes difficult because using education as a constraint, you end up an inordinate number of outliers. There are far more factors that predict future wealth. Anyway.... first person to truly figure this out will surely do very well financially.

  • statman Lehi, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:55 p.m.

    Why in the world is this supposed to be a bad thing?

    Basic economics tells us that people are paid based on their productivity. In the past 30 years, the productivity of the least productive workers in our society - unskilled labor - has certainly gone up a bit. The work of personnel in retail, unskilled manufacturing, fast food, etc has gotten more productive as computer-controlled systems were co-mingled with their traditionally low-tech jobs.

    But the productivity of our nations highest 20% of productive workers has skyrocketed with the advent of personal computing. Desk-top computing has made members of this group be able to do the work of multiple workers that had the same job description 30 years earlier, whether they are financial analysts, physicians, pharmacists or physicists.

    If you increase productivity of the least productive segment of society by say 50% over 30 years, but increase it by 300% in the top segment, how could you not expect an increase in income inequality?

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    My brother and I were born in a home with no plumbing or electricity. Our family was dirt poor. Used an outhouse. No phone in the home until I was 20 and long gone. My older brother and I had equal opportunity. I chose to work hard and graduate high school. He quit in 9th grade. I joined the LDS church and served a 2 year mission. He never set foot in church and spent his time drinking, smoking and partying. I chose to go to college. He chose to wander from one job to another, just getting by. I worked very hard, set goals and moved up in my career. He never made much more than minimum wage. I invested my money, never buying needless things. He spent every available dollar on lottery tickets. Today I am 54, debt free, own my own business, have a very comfortable life and looking forward to retirement. My brother lives with one of his kids in a trailer, bumming money from them for smokes. Can't work because of lung cancer. Can't take care of himself.

    Choices have consequences. My brothers poor choices were his choices. HE CHOSE THE LIFE HE LIVES.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:39 p.m.

    As much as I like your views it is kind of funny to see all the normally conservative commentators commenting and justifying income disparity.

    I agree with what you are saying that someone who because of their hard work earns more than someone else, but look at it this way. Obamacare is forcing employers to cut some employees from full-time to part-time. I would propose that a lot of those people needed those hours that are being cut. Are you OK with that?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:35 p.m.

    @frugalfly - you propose that the top wealth in Blue states is held by Red people. And yet in this last election, 8 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in the nation voted blue. he data just doesn't support that proposition. If you look in your own state of washington, it is the deeply affluent areas that voted Blue the heaviest, where as eastern side of the state that voted in higher rates conservative. Point is there is just a lot more issues at play than just rich versus poor... and the Republicans need to figure that out.

    @Worf - perhaps you believe that this country is about survival of the fittest... and maybe that really is the direction we are headed. But in my opinion and faith, it is to become higher than the carnal man that is our commandment. I pray we are not devolving into a dog eat dog world.... but perhaps.... you are right.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:06 p.m.

    "...Skyrocketing income inequality in America over the past 30 years...".

    This is news?

    The purpose of reagan republican trickle down economics has nearly been achieved.

    The current bumper crop of reagan wannabees are falling all over themselves helping the job creators NOT create jobs faster than ever.

    Dutch would be proud.

  • liberate Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    It seems many posting here don't realize significant wealth disparity is bad for all, not only those at the bottom. If you don't understand, study basic antitrust law for a few minutes. It's actually fairly simple to explain why significant wealth gaps are not good for society. But there will always be those who argue based on the extremes and don't realize they are making points that nobody disagrees with (e.g., we should be rewarded for our hard work! -- fyi - nobody disagrees with you and nobody is saying it shouldn't be this way...).

  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    The reason that blue states are so economically advanced has less to do with the fact that they are "blue" and more based upon history and geography. The reason many of them are "blue" is that they have massive takers of unemployment and welfare. There are so many low income individuals that are on the government dole that they skew the voting. An interesting experiment would be if you took away all the urban welfare out of states like New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, I think many of those states would be far more red than you think. My theory is that wealth of the blue states is highly "red created". There are the blue elites and then the blue bottom 1/3 as well as blue 1/5 based upon social issues but these people are fiscally "red". Blue is explained by race as well not because of economic philosophy. Blue is explained many times by social issues not economic issues. The blue's shouldn't take too much "fiscal credit" for the state of their economically powerful states. Probably a lot of red energy and red fiscal contribution moving those blue states.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    "At the same time, over the past 12 years tax rated for the richest 400 Americans have effectively been cut in half, according to data from the IRS. In 2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400 Americans paid a tax rate of 16.63 percent."


    Hmmm. I wonder why an article about differences in income ends by talking about tax rates? Particularly when the quoted tax rate for the richest 400 Americans of a mere 16.63% is obviously NOT related to the type of income of people in the lower income ranges. This is obvious partly because we all know that our income tax rates are "progressive", meaning that people pay a higher percentage tax as their regular earned income goes up. So much so that the people earning the top 10% pay more than 50% of the income tax in the country.

    So, clearly, the 16.63% figure, must mean that it is mostly from -investment- income, making the use of it here more than a little misleading and disingenuous. Or, put more bluntly, it is used dishonestly.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 6:59 p.m.

    One of the major problems in America today in Entitlements, and it affects both ends of the class system. Many in the Upper Class believe that they are entitled to all they can get regardless of who it hurts or kills. For example, the banking CEO's that received millions in "bank bail-out" funds, after helping to cause the banking crisis, just because they donated to some politicians campaign. Many in the Lower Class have been taught that they are entitled to everything for nothing. There are more special programs, for low income people everyday, i.e., the new cell phone programs, that enable the Lower Class to have cell phones.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 21, 2012 5:17 p.m.


    I can't say it any better then frugalfly. In this country, we are free to succeed.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 4:44 p.m.

    We are (or were until this election) a land of opportunity, where those who studied hard, worked hard and played by the rules really could get rich. Richer than those who did not bother studying hard, did not work hard, or only loaf around waiting for the next Santa Claus gift from the liberals to their reliable dependency class voters.

    Thus the disparity of results clearly comes from a disparity of effort.

    I am not one of the "evil rich" but I object to those who think that by stealing from those who work hard they will somehow enrich everyone else.

    The Pilgrims tired it that way, and nearly starved, until they abandoned the communal socialist experiment and instituted private property and keeping the fruits of one's labors.

    How about the NBA players making millions while the rest of the people in the basketball industry only make peanuts? Let's take away from those rich guys! Or the trial lawyers who make more than their secretaries? Or union bosses who make more than their members?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    To all those who think that regulations and laws are the reason for income inequality let me ask you a question. Would the standard of living go up if labor laws like, ot after forty hour work weeks and minimum wage laws were repealed? What if unions were outlawed? Would this nation be better off or would we be more like china?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    Worf - Precisely right. Which explains why California, NY, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, etc... are all such weak economies while Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc... are economic powerhouses. Er, wait.... Your analogy does help explain why nearly every single conservative state in the Union receives more in federal tax dollars than it pays in while nearly every single liberal state in the Union pays more in federal taxes than it receives back. Conservative state politics create a weak and dependent society. Please, look it up.

    killpack - No, I'm pointing out the ironic fact that people think media organizations, often owned by corporations, that have made decent fortunes advance socialism.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:35 p.m.


    General Electric is a perfect example of why we should NOT pay more taxes. If I'm rich, poor, middle class, I don't want to send another single dime to the inept and immoral den of thieves in Washington DC so they can pay off special interests keeping them in power. General Electric is just one of many. AIG, GM, Solyndra, etc., etc. The list is endless. If I could get away with it, I would hide every cent I made in the Cayman Islands. How many of the poor and hungry in this world go without because the wealthy are forced to send their money to Washington DC to fund graft and corruption when the money could have been used for food, clothing and shelter. No wonder there is inequality in this world.

  • NYJazzFan East Elmhurst, NY
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:33 p.m.

    @Mountainman - you should inform yourself before you go on your rants - Corporate Welfare in any form is bad news, so in principle we might agree. Unfortunately our government is controlled by wealthy aristocrats, in both parties. I believe Obama gave tax cuts to the green builders yes, but the process of stirring and investing in innovation is nothing new. As a matter of fact the 5 big oil companies recieve US subsidies - corporate welfare - that reduces what they owe to zero and in fact get money back fom the govt. They receive those breaks to, uhm, stir innovation but of course they just pocket it. The corporate tax rate was even higher in the past and some great companies paid it because they know that nowhere in the world will the find innovators and dedicated employees like in the good ole USA! If they dont have the wherewithal and patriotism to stay here and invest further into our country than they can leave. @killpack - there are 6 institutions that own 85% of the media outlets in the country. Uhm im pretty sure poor lefties dont own them.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" if GE using tax loopholes to get out of paying corporate income tax means that they receive corporate welfare, doesn't that mean that the 50% of the US that pays no income taxes because of tax loopholes also recieve welfare?

    Wouldn't you consider a nation where 50% of the population receive welfare to be headed in the wrong direction? Shouldn't we be working towards minimizing the amount of welfare given out?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:00 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel,

    I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Are you making note of the ironic fact that NBC, whose parent company is non-income tax paying General Electric, is and has been for decades a propaganda mill for left wing, liberal, authoritarian, tax and spend politicians in our centralized federal government in Washington DC? Or were you referring to state media outlets PBS and NPR, who themselves have made a decent fortune off of advancing socialism on behalf of their benefactors? If you were, then noted.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    Survival of the stongest is the common, in the animal world.

    If a lion grows old, get injured, or raised by humans,--it starves to death, in the real world.

    In our country, it's the survival of the weakest that's destroying our society.

    Liberal ideas promotes weakness, and dependence.

  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    GDP has increased 250-300 percent in the last 30 years so it isn't like the wealthy top 1/5 are taking any more than the same percentage of increases they have created in the economy...I'd have an issue with the wealthy taking a higher percentage if they hadn't grown the economy but they have and thus they are taking directly in proportion to the growth of the economy. The real question is if you didn't have the tax relief of the 1980's would you have ever had the GDP growth of the last 30 years? I would postulate NO! The difference between views in this country is that liberals think that "fair share" means that those who save and produce should provide more because of "fairness" which is really envy/entitlement. I don't care how much the rich make or pay. What ever they can do to earn wealth and save on expenses (taxes) the more power to them. The move toward Socialism/Communism has only produced more poverty. Liberty and opportunity doesn't guarantee outcome, it never has. It only guarantees potential incentive for talent, skill, ambition, good fortune, and risk.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    @Mountainman - let me explain corporate welfare for you then. When a corporation the size of GE pays next to no income tax because of specially craft tax credits - that is corporate welfare. When a friend of mine owns over 30 properties, but gets to show a negative income through tax loop holes - that is corporate welfare.

    I don't see how anyone can't see this as a problem. 30 years ago the average exec made 40 times his average employee. The number currently is 400 times. I don't care what justification you try, that change is going to have a drastic impact on how employees see their employers.

    @worf - again, you have completely missed the point here. We are not talking about top exec to the janitor wage differences, we are talking top to even middle management and professionals. The gap is hitting every level of organizations. I don't know anyone is saying that the lowest ranking person should be raised to the upper level incomes... the is a pure red hearing argument. It is that companies used to be about products, long term viability, and serving their customers. Long term investments have been replaced with short term returns.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    This article points out the disparity of wealth but does not point out the value and possession of the current wealth base.

    The question I would ask is not what the wealth gap is, but rather, what is the current average value of the wealth currently possessed. In other words, is the average income family of today more or less wealthy in terms of resources they have access to versus the same family 50 years ago.

    I would suspect in terms of housing, medical care, nutrition, transportation, entertainment, and many other metrics, that the average family in our country today has greater access than at any other time or place in history.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    Reality - There is factual, demonstrable increasing income inequality since Reagan's policies have been enacted. Poor are doing worse, rich are doing better, rich have effective access to Congress via lobbyists while the poor do not, the rich heavily skew rules/laws in their favor to the detriment of the poor. Union strength is down, income disparity is up. CEO pay is up, share of respective tax burden is down.

    Conservative group think - Complain corporations are taxed too much while those same corporations own the media outlets, complain the media outlets have anti-business, anti-conservative bias even though they are owned by the corporations. Somehow don't consider the leading news outlet to be "mainstream." Consider what was once a patriotic act when it was a higher rate (paying taxes) to be stealing and looting now that the amount for wealthy Americans is far less, complain that an unfair system kills work ethic (have they no pride or honor?), and then accuse the poor of having no work ethic in the most unbalanced society America has ever seen. The irony is palpable.

  • PGVikingDad Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    Oh, good grief. OF COURSE there is greater "inequality" between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of earners in the U.S. than in Pakistan and the Ivory Coast. In those two countries, 97% of the population is poverty-stricken. The top fifth makes nothing, and the bottom fifth makes nothing. But at least they're equal, right? Absolute nonsense. How 'bout we compare the bottom fifth of the U.S. to the top fifth of Pakistan and the Ivory Coast? Does that put things in a different light?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:50 p.m.


    News Flash. Corporations do not have police power. Congress does. Huge difference. If there are unfair policies in place, like 'corporate welfare,' only CONGRESS is to blame. Congress makes the laws of this land. Congress writes the ridiculously unfair, complex and special-interest serving tax code. Corporations have absolutely ZERO authority to make laws and throw people in jail. That authoritarian, police power lies strictly with Congress and The White House. Of course, corporations, however unsavory, will respond to the incentives placed in front of them. They'll pay whatever bribes for the lawmakers to get out of their way or even give them a handout like AIG, GM and Solyndra. But ultimately it is the lawmakers who decide the law of this land and the consequences for breaking it, not corporations. Corporations own the media? Are you nuts? Excepting FoxNews, the mainstream media is the propaganda arm of our authoritarian, anti-business, class warfare-inciting central government in Washington DC. Take the above story for instance. Maybe you should reread it.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    To correct an imbalance, do you tear down one or build the other up? You can't build one up by taking from the other, only by increasing the opportunity for the lesser. And is this inequality leading to envy and jealousy or to a determination to work smarter and harder? If our system doesn't reward the later, it will spawn the former.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    NYJazzFan. Let me try again! 80% of all federal income taxes collected by to IRS comes from the wealthiest Americans while nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all! Therefore, in America, if you work hard, are innovative,creative and produce wealth, you are punished with taxes and your money is redistributed to others who are produce nothing. I hear this term "corporate welfare" thrown around by liberals but they never explain it. By corporate welfare do you mean the tax breaks Obama gave to "green energy" corporations like GE that has never produced any energy? The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world! Do you think, maybe, just maybe that's why so many corporations leave the US and take their business to China? I hope this helps you.

  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build courage and character by taking away man's initiave and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them that which they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln.

    What did we get for 16 trillion? Corporate Bailouts/stimulus packages that didn't work. More debt in the past 4 years than the entire preceding 230 years of the country's history. We need a flat tax. What the story doesn't say is how much GDP has increased. Though the discrepancy is higher now than 1970's, the GDP is much higher too. Tax cuts raised tax income more than any other thing in the last 50 years (economy grew!). We aren't dividing up the same pie. Though discrepancy is more the pie is much much bigger per capita.

  • Mark3054 Lehi, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    What this article describes is NOT income inequality; but rather, earning disparity. Income inequality would be differing pay for the same work. Earning disparity simply means that some occupations earn more than others. And the problem with this is......? If someone invests time, money, sweat, loss of sleep, and whatever it takes to build a successful business into an extremely profitable empire; why should they not make substantially more than the high school drop out who wants nothing more than a simple job with no stress. This is actually income equality not inequality. You get back what you put in. The whining by those who are willing to risk nothing is destroying this great country. And the politicians that listen and pander to them only need to be held accountable. There is plenty of wealth to go around; but, it needs to be earned and not just yearned.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    In a school classroom, there sre inequality in grades.

    Why take points from honor rolls students, and give it the students with lower grades?

    Why should students with low grades, gain the honor of being an honor roll student?

    Why would an honor roll student be lowered to a lower status? Doesn't make sense.

  • NYJazzFan East Elmhurst, NY
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:59 p.m.

    killpac and Mountanman, what?? The story spells out the issues for you but yet you still dont get it? The press is liberal? Haha, the press is CORPORATE OWNED!! Anyone who earned a dime more than another is punished? Punished how? By being given raises and tax breaks and corporate welfare?? The article states that income inequality in the US is worse than Pakistan. Pakistan is a country with super-elites on one side and millions of super poor peasants on the other.. they have better income equality than we do!! Either you guys are on the payroll or you both are blind....

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    There will always be income inequality and there needs to be. If one person works harder, is more innovative and takes calculated risks more than another, shouldn't he receive the benefit? America used to be a country where everyone had an equal opportunity to increase their income. That's the only incentive to improve, invent, invest and create; that they themselves will receive the reward for their efforts! Now, Democrats have arranged it so anyone who earned a dime more than someone else is punished, his dime and all his incentive to create wealth is confiscated and redistributed to someone who didn't earn it! It certainly wins elections for Democrats but how long can our economy exist? It isn't politically correct to ask this but why are most (not all) people in America poor? Could it be that they have chosen not to improve their marketable job skills, chosen not to improve themselves so they are capable of earning more income? There will always be some among us who will choose the easier path in life, and lust and envy the property of those who were rewarded for choosing a more difficult road of personal achievement!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:26 a.m.

    The funny thing is that the liberals are trying to reduce income inequality through laws and regulation, and it is all of the laws and regulations that are making the problem worse.

    You can't legislate away poverty, that only happens when people and employers can concentrate on their jobs and not the next regulation coming down from Washington.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Have no fear, egalitarians. Income inequality will soon disappear in this country. Since the wealthy are repeatedly vilified by politicians and media talking heads and since they are threatened more and more with higher taxes and more regulation, they will likely close up shop here and take their business and wealth abroad. Actually, they have already been doing this in droves and will only continue to do this if anti-business rhetoric continues. Latin America and Asia would kill for all of this 'inequality.' Why do you think they have so many business friendly incentives? Low or no taxes. Low regulations. Why would any business in this country not want to relocate abroad? But, hey, at least when that happens, we will have achieved that equality that everyone wants. At least every one will be paying there fair share. Forget the fact that we scared away all of the good businesses. Ah, what do I care, I'll probably move to Taiwan or Hong Kong anyway. Good luck to the rest of you. Enjoy your equality.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Those with a good education (and the intellingence gained via genetics) were in a position to gain from the existence of Chinese peasant factory workers. Those with a poor education (and less intelligence) got to compete with Chinese peasant factory workers.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    DesNews, let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan's policies... oh, I see you've only just met.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    They were suppose to invest those tax cuts into new jobs for other Americans! You mean they kept it and also raised their wages at a much higher rate than they did for their employees? Color me surprised!

    Greed is NOT a good word.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    What did we get for a sixteen trillion dollar debt? We got 2 extended middle east wars, Medicare Part D, and forgiveness of all Wall St. mistakes so that bankers didn't have to go to jail.

    What we should have purchased instead was single payer health care, heavily subsidized higher education, and a new power grid.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    Who'se fault is that?;

    * we all had free schooling
    * Head Start program was there to help the poor
    * many benefits created to help people become successful
    * war on poverty was declared, with trillions of dollars being spent.
    * and now Obama care is going to help? I pay for my insurance, and now will pay more. Not fair.

    And the inequality gap Skyrockets?---Why?

    What did we get for a sixteen trillion dollar debt?