There are some Republicans, however, who aren’t subscribing to this agenda. According to a new poll, a majority of low-income Republicans believe that the America’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy and that the government does not do enough to help the poor:

In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early October, 57% of lower-income Republican and Republican-leaning voters said the government does too little for poor people. Just 18% said it does too much.

By contrast, higher-income Republicans took the opposite view; by roughly two-to-one (44% to 21%) Republicans with incomes of $75,000 or more said the government does too much, not too little, for poor people.

Indeed, while sharing the public’s general distrust of the government, 70 percent of low-income Republicans agree with the 99 percent movement that “a few rich people and corporations have too much power in the U.S.” And given that nearly half of all Americans are one financial shock away from falling into poverty, it is no wonder that even Republicans are questioning their party’s priorities.

Though the law expanded the legal remedies available to women who have been victims of discriminatory pay, little has been done to address the pay gap that exists between male and female employees. Since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed into law, the pay gap has closed at less than half-a-cent per year. That trend is continuing, as the pay gap barely closed from 2009 to 2010.

Women made 77 percent of men’s earnings in 2009, the year the law passed. In 2010, that was virtually unchanged, as women’s wages rose to 77.4 percent of men’s. The gap is even larger for African Americans and Latinos: black women made 67.5 percent of all men’s earnings in 2009, while Latino women made 57.7 percent. In 2010, those figures ticked up to 67.7 percent and 58.7 percent, respectively.

Women make up half of the American workforce, and in two-thirds of American families, the mother is the primary breadwinner or a co-breadwinner. But they make less than their male counterparts in all 50 states, though the size of each state’s wage gap varies. While the gap continues to close in places like Washington, D.C., where women make 91.8 percent of men’s earnings, it is growing in others, like Wyoming, where women’s earnings dropped from 65.5 percent of men’s in 2009 to just 63.8 percent in 2010.

Because of the gender pay gap, women with the same education doing the same job as men earn far less over their working lifetimes. The wage gap costs $723,000 over a 40-year career for women with college degrees. In some industries, the gap can cost women close to a million dollars.

In November 2010, Senate Republicans killed efforts to close the pay gap when they unanimously voted to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have updated the Equal Pay Act, closed many of its loopholes, and strengthened incentives to prevent pay discrimination.

In an interview with the BBC, Gates noted “taxes are going to have to go up” and thus he’d prefer that they “go up more on the rich than everyone else.” There needs to be “a sense of shared sacrifice,” he said, adding, “right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should”:

GATES: Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.

BBC HOST: Is that a message you think that works with other people as wealthy as yourself, or is it just a small circle of friends — yourself, Warren Buffet, a few others.

GATES: Well, I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.

Watch it:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has declared that people with Gates’ view are just riddled with “envy.” But considering that Gates’ wealth dwarfs Romney’s millions, it’s highly doubtful that Gates is envious. He, like an increasing number of millionaires, just views paying his fair share as the right thing to do.

Not surprisingly, this tax cut will benefit the wealthy significantly more. While a family making $600,000 would keep $4,000 of their income, a middle-class family making $50,000 would save only $130:

High-income families would get the biggest boost from his proposed tax cut. Families making more than $500,000 now pay just under 9 percent of their incomes in state taxes. Under Christie’s plan, the highest rate would drop to just over 8 percent, meaning that the annual state income tax paid by a family with $600,000 in taxable income would drop from about $39,000 to around $35,000.

A family making $50,000 would see its tax bill fall from about $1,270 to about $1,140.

Noting that millionaires would reap $7,200 from the tax cut, New Jersey Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D) said, “A 10 percent across-the-board income tax cut might make a nice sound bit, but ultimately it benefits the wealthiest far more than low and middle income earners.” State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D) just called it “a B.S. tax cut.” “This is another windfall for multi-millionaires at the expense of schools, because that’s where the money comes from,” he said.

Indeed, Christie took an $820 billion bite out of public education in 2010, a cut so severe that it violated the state’s constitution. Christie merely labeled the court “crazy” and complained that he had no way of balancing the budget without gutting education, even when atwo percent tax increase on millionaires would completely plug the hole.

Even now, Christie has not mentioned how he plans to pay for the 10 percent income tax cut that could cost the state over $1.1 billion. But he still managed to blast the state Supreme Court regarding his education cuts. He called on the court to “admit” that its ruling “requiring poor, often urban schools to get increased funding was ‘a failure‘ because pupil performance at those schools has not improved.” Judging by his past and future plans, neither has the governor’s.

Understandably, in today’s economic climate any job is often perceived as better than no job at all. After all, unemployment remains at 8.5 percent, and 8.1 million people are involuntarily working part-time because their hours have been cut or they cannot find full-time work.

But while getting people back to work is an important goal, it is also important that workers be employed in positions where they can earn a living wage and receive benefits.

Case in point, nearly a quarter of a million jobs were added in the retail trade in 2011, and retail is projected to be one of the fastest growing industries though 2018. According to the National Retail Federation, “Retail Means Jobs,” as the industry supports 1 in 4 jobs in America.

On the surface this looks very promising. But a new report released by City University of New York and the Retail Action Project illustrates how the wages and working conditions of retail workers in New York City are often less than ideal — especially for women and people of color.

They surveyed retail workers in New York City — a major retail hub in the United States — and the findings of their study are stark. While about one-third of the survey respondents were economically supporting at least one family member, the median wage was only $9.50 an hour, with about 12 percent earning only the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

More than half of the retail workers surveyed were employed part-time, with only 29 percent receiving health benefits, and only 44 percent were entitled to paid sick days. Of those workers who did not receive health benefits from their employer, a quarter had no health insurance and slightly more than a third depended on government programs like Medicaid.

The findings were even more disheartening for women and people of color employed in retail, particularly given the fact that they comprise the majority of the workforce. Women earned less money, were more likely to be employed part-time, were less likely to have health coverage, and were less likely to be offered promotions than men.

These same patterns were true for people of color as well. Black and Latino retails workers are far less likely to be offered promotions, and as a result the wage gap increases significantly with job tenure. For example, white workers who had been on the job for six months or less still earned more than Latino workers who had been at the same job for more than two years.

As our nation’s economy continues to recover, we will be well served to remember that getting people back to work is not enough in and of itself. A strong middle class creates both economic growth and stability. The demand for goods and services that grows the economy comes mostly from the spending patterns of middle class consumers. Jobs that pay less than a living wage and that result in high levels of dependency on government services like Medicaid are not the answer to our economic problems.

CEA Chairman Alan Krueger With President Obama

However, there are real negative consequences to income inequality. Studies have shown that inequality can severely restrict economic growth. Today, ThinkProgress asked Alan Krueger, chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, to respond to Romney’s assertions. Krueger replied by noting that addressing income inequality is “not about envy at all,” but about ensuring that all segments of the population share in economic growth:

The trends that have taken place in the U.S. over the last three decades are particularly of concern to economists and others. We’ve seen a steady decline, erosion, in the size of the middle class. That’s not good for the economy. That’s not good for all segments of American society. And I think some of [the government's] policies have exacerbated that…There are certainly legitimate policy issues, and as the President’s economic adviser, it’s certainly something that we’re focused on. I don’t think this is an issue about envy at all. I think we’d like to see all segments of society do well. The President has said ‘when all Americans do well, America does well.’ The accumulating evidence suggests that the erosion of the middle class has been bad for the economy.

Watch it:

According to Krueger, the shift in income inequality over the last three decades is the equivalent of moving $1.1 trillion of income from the 99 percent to the top 1 percent every single year. This has led to a severe shrinking of the middle class:

Romney though, would prefer that these facts stay in “quiet rooms,” rather than be discussed by lawmakers and the public.

Now even members of his own party are damning the callous nature of his work. Chafing from the criticism, Romney blasted his “desperate” opponents yesterday for joining President Obama in “put[ting] free enterprise on trial” and engaging in “the bitter politics of envy.”

This morning on the Today Show, host Matt Lauer asked Romney — twice — whether he truly believed any questions regarding the practices of Wall Street or the distribution of wealth and power is merely “envious” or more about “fairness.” Both times, Romney insisted that it was solely an “envy-oriented” attack on “millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street”:

LAUER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word ‘envy.’ Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

LAUER: Yeah but envy? Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as ‘envy,’ though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.

Watch it:

The exchange is indeed shocking in what it reveals. In a time when income inequality is at its worst level since the Great Depression and Americans are increasingly concerned over the shrinking middle class, Romney is insisting that anyone who questions — let alone tries to reform — the unfair advantages of the extremely wealthy or the destructive practices of the financial industry that single-handedly shoved America into a recession is nothing more than “envious” of these people’s success.

Perhaps his answer shouldn’t be so surprising given how myopic the view is from his high perch. Romney is, after all, a millionaire who is still making money from the predatory equity firm while paying little in taxes and owes much of his political viability to Wall Street’s pocketbook. Indeed, he suggested the public office should be the province of rich people. Perhaps he’s just defending his own.

As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out, “Romney was twice given a chance to nod in the direction of saying that concerns about these problems have at least some legitimacy to them, that they are about something more than mere envy or class warfare, and that they are deserving of a public debate. And this is the answer he gave.” Fellow candidate Newt Gingrich had another description for Romney’s answer: “baloney.”

Flush with cash as other rivals limped through the summer and fall, the Romney team poured resources into data: Operatives mined reams of consumer information — from the number of purchases voters made at Williams-Sonoma to their range of financial investments — to build a model that would allow them to find and identify potential supporters. [...]

Romney’s operatives paired the voter data with several hundred thousand paid and volunteer calls. They knew his sweet spot was among older, higher-income voters — those with annual household incomes of between $75,000 and $150,000 and with upscale interests like gourmet cooking. He was particularly appealing to older women and did best — as they knew from 2008 — among self-identified Republicans.

Indeed, as BuzzFeed points out, Romney gained only 4 percent from voters earning less than $100,000 between 2008 and 2012, but he gained 14 percent from people making more than $100,000 in the same time span.

The fact that Romney relied on the wealthy to win is not surprising. His economic plan is set to deliver a massive $6.6 trillion tax cut to the richest 1 percent and corporations, a cut that is 100 times more than what his plan offers middle-income Americans. Indeed, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less a year would get “literally nothing” from his plan which — incidentally — actually raise taxes on half of middle-class families with children.

In a time when income inequality is at its worst level since the Great Depression, Americans are increasingly concerned about the shrinking middle-class. If the most Romney cares to do for the middle-class is unknowingly quote a poet who was concerned with income inequality, he’ll need to rely solely on the wealthy vote to get through 2012.

– HOME DEPOT CO-FOUNDER BERNIE MARCUS: “Who gives a crap about some imbecile? Are you kidding me?”

– HOME DEPOT CO-FOUNDER KEN LANGONE: “I am a fat cat, I’m not ashamed…If you mean by fat cat that I’ve succeeded, yeah, then I’m a fat cat. I stand guilty of being a fat cat.”

– FORMER BB&T BANK CEO JOHN ALLISON: “Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let’s call it an attack on the very productive. This attack is destructive.”

– PAYCHECX INC. FOUNDER TOM GOLISANO: “If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit.“

But it’s simply undeniable that the richest 1 percent have seen their income explode in the last few decades, and that many of them are not paying their fair share in taxes, taking advantage of loopholes, tax havens, and the preferential tax treatment of investment income to drive their tax rates down below the rate paid by middle-class families. In just the last few decades, taxes on the richest one percent sunk dramatically. At the very top of the income scale, share of income of the 400 richest Americans quadrupled in the last 12 years, while their effective tax rates were halved:

As Reuters’ Felix Salmon put it, “let’s not kid ourselves that the men with the billions…are in any way hard done by. Not when there’s so much real hardship in America.” Indeed, last week the Census Bureau reported that about half of Americans are either living in poverty or qualify as low-income.

In the United States, the top 1 percent controls roughly 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. According to the study, which examined Roman ledgers, previous estimates, imperial edicts, and Biblical passages, Rome’s top 1 percent controlled less than half that at the height of its economic power, as Tim De Chant notes at Per Square Mile:

Their target was the state of the economy when the empire was at its population zenith, around 150 C.E. Schiedel and Friesen estimate that the top 1 percent of Roman society controlled 16 percent of the wealth, less than half of what America’s top 1 percent control.

Of course, the millions of Romans at the bottom of the empire’s class structure — the conquered and enslaved, the poorest Romans, and the women who had little civic or economic empowerment — would probably disagree with the study’s conclusion. Still, it serves as yet another highlight of how large the income gap in the United States has become over the last three decades.

Photo by Flickr use Kyle Ford.

“We are the 99%”, the slogan of Occupy Wall Street, is a reference to the rising wealth of the top 1 per cent of US income distribution. But an equally valid slogan might be: “We get 58%”.

That figure is the share of US national income that goes to workers as wages rather than to investors as profits and interest. It has fallen to its lowest level since records began after the second world war and is part of the reason why incomes at the top – which tend to be earned from capital – have risen so much. If wages were at their postwar average share of 63 per cent, workers would earn an extra $740bn this year, about $5,000 per worker, according to FT calculations.

This decline in workers’ share of income is actually holding back the national recovery, as “workers on lower wages consume much of their income, while higher wage earners and those with capital income are more likely to save.” Instead of going to the people who are likeliest to spend it, and thus boost the economy, more income is going to corporations and rich people who are just sitting on it. Corporations are actually holding trillions of dollars in cash reserves (and clamoring for more tax breaks), money that could create millions of jobs if it were deployed in a different fashion.

In fact, a recent report from New York City’s Independent Budget Office found that the richest one percent of New Yorkers make more than one-third of the Big Apple’s income:

– The bottom half of the city’s income distribution has 9% of total income; the bottom 80%, 29%. Comparable figures for the U.S. are 19% for the bottom half and 44% for the bottom four-fifths.

– The richest 10% of New Yorkers have 58% of total income, and the richest 5%, 49%. The national average is 42% for the top 10%, and 32% for the top 5%.

– And here’s where the action is, the proverbial 1%: it has 34% of total income, compared with 19% for the U.S. as a whole.

The fact that New York City is the epicenter of the U.S. financial services industry — which now makes up a bigger portion of the economy than it did before the Great Recession — surely drives a lot of this divide. A new Pew Research poll out today finds that “61% of Americans now say the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy,” while 77 percent “say that they think there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.”

The triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is one of the best sources for data on wealth in the U.S. And, of course the Forbes 400 estimates the worth of the wealthiest amongst us—all 400 wouldn’t be captured in the SCF. If we look at both the SCF and the Forbes 400 we can glean some interesting insights.

In 2007 (the most recent SCF) the cumulative wealth of the Forbes 400 was $1.54 trillion or roughly the same amount of wealth held by the entire bottom fifty percent of American families. This is a stunning statistic to be sure.

Upon closer inspection, the Forbes list reveals that six Waltons—all children (one daughter-in-law) of Sam or James “Bud” Walton the founders of Wal-Mart—were on the list. The combined worth of the Walton six was $69.7 billion in 2007—which equated to the total wealth of the entire bottom thirty percent!

Not only have the Waltons gathered a fortune equal to that of the bottom third of the country, but they spend it lobbying to cut their own taxes. For years, the Waltons have been supporting efforts to cut the estate tax, the tax levied on inheritance. Conservatives intent on cutting this tax — which they’ve brilliantly dubbed the “death tax” — led to President Obama agreeing to a “compromise” last year that lowered the rate and increased the tax-free exemption, giving a senseless tax break to extremely wealthy families.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, “for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007,” while it grew by just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent of the income scale. In a given year, the richest ten percent of the country takes home about one quarter of total income. But Congress still saw fit last year to give a tax break to the very richest families, who have collected fortunes that dwarf anything the rest of the country will ever see. (HT: Huffington Post)

The gap between rich and poor is widening across most developed economies as skilled workers reap more rewards and top executives and bankers benefit from a global job market, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

The average income of the richest tenth of the population is now about nine times that of the poorest tenth, the Paris- based OECD said today in a report. The gap has increased about 10 percent since the mid 1980s.

Mexico, the U.S., Israel and the U.K. are among the countries with the biggest divide between rich and poor, while Denmark, Norway, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among those with the smallest gap. The earnings multiple is 14-to-1 in the U.S. and Israel, compared with about 10-to-1 in the U.K., Italy and Japan and 6-to-1 in Germany and Denmark.

In the U.S., “the rising incomes of executives and finance professionals account for much of the rising share of top income recipients.” The OECD recommends that the U.S. both increase taxes on high earners and boost benefits for low-income people, which average just 6 percent of household income in the U.S., compared to 16 percent across the developed world.

“The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries,” OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said in a statement. “This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility.”