Boy, they economics of income distribution has hit full crescendo in favor of the wealthy.
Given the top-heaviness of the economy, one could make the case—one could, but I'm not—that the continuing upward redistribution of income is good for the economy and good for all of us. As they earn more, and keep more of their income, the rich and the very rich spend more, thus keeping the growing number of residents of Richistan gainfully employed. The fact that the rich are getting richer is one of the reasons that federal tax revenues—which are much less progressive than they were in 2000 but still somewhat progressive—are growing so smartly, up 7.4 percent year over year. Today, analysts are likely sifting through the jobs report and ratcheting down their forecasts for the Christmas season. It may well turn out to be a glum one for many retailers. But as long as the lights are on in the mansion on the top of the hill, the growing number of stores and businesses that cater to their residents will be busy. [More]I fall in that despised category. I know, you are not supposed to acknowledge you are "rich", but numbers are numbers. And if a few more farmers would look more closely at their own AGI's we might see a different attitude about what's going "wrong" in agriculture today. Besides, the rich aren't the ones carrying the water to protect our advantages. Amazingly, it's the rank and file of agriculture who stand squarely against estate taxes or payment limits or pretty much anything I think might help level income.
Which leads me to suspect there are more of us in Richistan than even I imagine.
That, and the fact farmers are buying farmland with (gasp!) cash.
[Update: we're not the only ones whose economy seems to depend in the ultra-wealthy]