More Evidence Of "Trickle-Down" Unfairness

I have presented many graphs and charts on this blog from reliable sources showing that the "trickle-down economic policies, instituted by the Republicans over thirty years ago, have favored the rich, while leaving most Americans stuck in a rut and falling further behind with each passing year. And the richer a person is the more the Republican economic policy favors them.

Now the Economic Policy Institute, using figures from the U.S. Census, has produced a graph showing what has happened with hourly wages in the last 36 years (from 1973 thru 2009). As you can see on the above chart, the median hourly wage for workers has grown from $14.73 in 1973 to about $15.96 in 2009 -- a growth of only $1.23 (or 8.4%) in 36 years. The growth was much worse for lower-paid workers. A worker in the lowest 20% of earners had an average wage growth from $9.29 to $9.83 -- a rise of only $0.54 (or 5.8%). And a worker in the bottom 10% saw growth from $7.70 to $8.05 -- a rise of $0.35 (or 4.5%).

But the higher on the wage scale a person is, the better they are treated by "trickle-down" policies. A person in the highest 90th percentile of wage earners saw their wages go from $28.19 to about $37.49 -- a rise of $9.30 (or 32.99%). And a worker at the 95th percentile saw wages climb from $35.37 to $48.08 -- a rise of $12.71 (or 35.9%). But even these salaries pale in comparison to the rise experienced by the richest Americans of all -- the top 1% of earners. The Congressional Budget Office pegged their rise in after-tax income at a whopping 275%.

And the congressional Republicans, and all of the Republican presidential candidates, feel that the richest Americans pay too much in taxes (even though their after-tax income has risen by 275%). They want to give these richest Americans even bigger tax cuts than they've already received (from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy).

A perfect example of this is the ridiculous tax plan recently proposed by candidate Rick Perry. His plan would drop the rate on earned income (income actually worked for) for the rich from 35% to a flat rate of 20%. But it gets even worse. His plan would completely eliminate the tax on capital gains income (income derived from stocks, bonds, and other investments0 which is how most of the super-rich make their money. Under the Perry Plan, an investor like Warren Buffett (one of the richest men in the world) would only pay an effective tax rate of 0.2%. How can it possibly be fair for someone that rich to pay less than a 1% tax rate, when people who actually must work to earn an income much pay a much higher rate?

How much more evidence do voters need before they finally realize that the Republican Party cares only for the rich, and their policies benefit only the rich?