Report: Income of Wealthiest Tripled Over Past 30 Years, Far Outpacing Middle Class Growth

By Corey Boles

The wealthiest Americans saw their income nearly triple in the three decades to 2007, substantially more than all other segments of the population, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency said in a report that after-tax income on average grew by 62% during the 30-year period. But that growth wasn't even. The wealthiest 1% of Americans saw their incomes skyrocket by 275% during that stretch, while after-tax income for the one-fifth of households with the lowest income grew by just 18% from 1979 to 2007.

For the richest Americans excluding the top 1%, household income grew by 65% during that period, while for the 60% in the middle of the income scale, the growth in after-tax income was just under 40%, the CBO said.

Read the rest on the Wall Street Journal


More from the Wall Street Journal:

• World's Richest Man Attacks Wall Street Bailouts

• Individual Bonds Yield a Niche Market

• Bon Jovi's Priceless Restaurant Could Go Platinum

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Investing in Startups

The lucrative and risky world of startups.

View Course »

Finding Stock Ideas

Learn to do your research and find investments.

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

306 Comments

Filter by:
cray542464

I see the percentage numbers, but would someone please state what the ACTUAL numbers are. For instance, what were the number of millionaires at the start and then the number at the end. Same holds true with the lower income. How many are the "begin numbers" and how many are the "end numbers".

November 02 2011 at 12:25 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
savemycountry911

Libs hate the productive.

November 01 2011 at 8:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to savemycountry911's comment
sfamilyent

While cons exploit the productive...

November 02 2011 at 3:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
dabrownman

One must thank God that no poor person ever gave you a job- not once - not ever. Otherwise you would always be working for a whacked out Wall Street Protester high on drugs, raping people for sport and crapping on cop cars. Who wants to clean that up that persons mess

November 01 2011 at 12:17 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
frank1946

Inflation Tripled the cost of Houses, Cars and Food...................so the Rich break even ?

The DEMS and the have nots got flleeced by their own Games, DEBT and Promises !

November 01 2011 at 8:01 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to frank1946's comment
tmachine2

Did you read this article? The rich saw a 30% income over the last 4 years, while the rest of suffered. Keep sticking up for the rich because they care nothing about you. It was conservative economics that allowed this: trickle-down, bad trade policies, and deregulation. The income disparity is continuing to rise because of corporate and Wall Street greed. If it continues to rise there will be more civil unrest.

November 01 2011 at 10:37 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to tmachine2's comment
savemycountry911

How do you like Obama's trickle up poverty?

November 01 2011 at 7:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down
sfamilyent

And all of the plans from the conservatives will serve to increase the income of the wealthiest even more - at the expense of the rest of us...

November 01 2011 at 7:27 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to sfamilyent's comment
tmachine2

GOP = Greedy One Percent

November 01 2011 at 10:37 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
savemycountry911

Translation: Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme.

November 01 2011 at 7:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to savemycountry911's comment
sfamilyent

Yep, the GOP mantra...

November 02 2011 at 3:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down
granaryst

Who cares how much anyone else makes as long as our standard of living keeps rising? When you are jealous and envious you only hurt yourselves.

October 31 2011 at 3:25 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to granaryst's comment
sfamilyent

The standard of living for the majority of Americans is declining, or stagnant. If the general standard of living was improving, you would be right that it shouldn't matter that the rich are getting richer. But, the fact that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are lucky is we are not getting poorer, is reason for concern about our economic structure and policies...

November 01 2011 at 7:31 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
tmachine2

That's the problem. Wages have been stagnet for over 32 years for the middle class. Millions of American who were once in the middle class are now poor due to no fault of their own. Millions and millions of middle class Americans use credit cards to pay expenses and buy food. This is not jealousy or envy because we know it is greed that is driving the wealthy elites. Didn't your mommy tell you to share when you were a kid and it isn't right to take from the less fortunate? These people didn't learn that lesson. Americans are unhappy at the greed and unethical and moraless business practices. No one cares if someone is rich, but they expect them to contribute to society. That's how society works. If you keep listen to millionaire radio hosts, like Limbaugh and Beck, you will hurt yourself.

November 01 2011 at 10:43 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
jkcow

Minimum wage was $3.35 cents in 1989. Today it's $7.25. This means the lowest income workers actually had an increase of 116%. This means they had the largest increase in percentage over other catagory.

October 31 2011 at 2:25 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to jkcow's comment
ccm989

Actually the 18% is probably even lower. Why? In 1979, women began returning to work full time. Previously, most moms stayed home and took care of the kids. Now its takes 2 adults working full time to pay for the mortgage, health insurance, etc. Back in 1979, it didn't. So add a second adult working full time to the equation and that only lifts income by 18%? That sucks. It should have gone up by 50% minimum. So the rich really did get richer and the middle class suddenly had to shell out big bucks for childcare (hence only 18%).

October 31 2011 at 9:14 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
dabrownman

Nothing changed in the oil markets this week except that Libyan oil should soon start flowing again which would increase supply and drive down prices. Oil started the week at $76 and is up $19 a barrel at $93 . Why? The dollar got clobbered, being long Euros was a great trade as was any commodity, and the speculators are back in force after pumping and dumping gold and silver. I sold half my BP yesterday, that I bought as a dividend play, after it ran up from 35 to 44.

This is how the 1% got rich and will continue to get rich, They speculate , taking huge risks, and when they are right they make piles of money or lose it as the case may be.

October 28 2011 at 2:04 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to dabrownman's comment
granaryst

Yeah, they don't refund the taxes when you lose your money do they?

October 31 2011 at 3:37 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Michael

Am I reading this article incorrectly. Every income group saw on increase in income so we are all better off than we were. That's good news. I am assuming that the percentage gains are adjusted for inflation otherwise even the top 1% would have experienced a reduction in income of about 50%. Finally, since there is no upper limit on what can be earned but there is a lower limit, zero, a better measure of the top 1% would be the median increase and not the mean average because a few dozen outliers are skewing the statistic. For example . Bill Gates went from almost 0 income to billions, as did other Microsoft founders. The same is true for Oracle, Cisco, even Beany Babies. The median measure would demonstrate that almost everyone in the top 1% had an increase closer to 65% than 275%.

October 27 2011 at 5:41 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to Michael's comment