Yes, at current levels of entitlement spending.
Surprised? A common bias among the smart is to overestimate how smart everyone else is.
Any luck finding data for the fifties?
This isn’t exactly what we’re looking for but it is instructrive to a believer like myself:) Yourself?
The Gini index has been published for the US since 1967. Here are two looks at it. The first only goes to 2001 but has some interesting commentary. The second runs to 2007 and includes W’s tax cuts.
A look at the timeline for each presidency makes the point. Nixon -up, Reagan - up more, Bush II - way up. Draw your own conclusions.
I remember a couple quotes from “The Great Communicator”:rolleyes:
“Thank God I live in a country where a man can become rich.” (crowd cheers)
Talking about cutbacks to school lunch programs, “Isn’t ketchup a vegetable?” (kids go hungry)
F**k these guys and the electorate they rode in on.
Nice. Nice language there at the end.
Really makes it painfully, crystal clear what your true intention and mindset are, when you are ‘debating’.
You keep trotting out the Gini coefficient as the be-all, end-all of the discussion. As if the fact that the distribution of income and wealth is proof that
-
The middle class were better off in the 1950s, and that
-
The reason that they were better off was because of higher levels of marginal taxation on the top end of the income scale.
Not only have you NOT proved point 1 above, you haven’t proven the connection between points 1 and 2. And yet, you resort to four-letter words to emphasize your devotion to a particular concept.
Like Rumor_Watkins, your contempt for a certain segment of people in the socioeconomic spectrum, and your misguided notions of how wealth and improved living standards are created, are the real reasons behind your contribution to the forum. Not any real interest in debating the pros/cons of tax policy.
Here’s a couple of charts that are interesting. They don’t exactly give me what I’m looking for, but they are a start.
First, here are some charts that show the overall tax burden on the median income family. It was small in the 1950s, rose during the 60’s and 70’s and then started to drop during the Reagan era. It dropped dramatically during the Reagan era and Bush II era.
The latter eras, I believe, was when you wished to F*** some people, and the horses/electorate they rode in on. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The same document shows how the middle quintile has been paying a smaller and smaller share of the tax burden since 1979. The data doesn’t go back to the 1950s.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1797
In this second document, we see how marginal tax rates at the upper end were extremely high during the 1960’s, 1970s and early 80s. Apparently, this is what you are advocating in your posts above.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000875_Tax_Fact_02-13-06.pdf
But wait…wasn’t that the same time period that
- The overall effective rate for median families went UP and
- The share of federal income tax receipts went UP
for median families? Hmmmmm. Interesting. That would seem to be some sort of validation of that whole Laffer curve, incentive thing wouldn’t it? It seems like when high marginal tax rates were the norm, the middle class ended up paying MORE, didn’t they?
Of course, I don’t have data all the way back to the 1950’s yet. Which is a bummer. But I’ll keep looking.
You should probably keep throwing out 4-letter words at your leisure, since it reveals your true state of thinking and motivation.
Whatever your motivation is, it’s not to create jobs. It’s not to improve the lot of the middle class. It’s not even to maximize federal tax receipt revenue. It’s to ‘punish’ some segment of society that you don’t happen to like (or understand), probably to address a myriad of personal inadequacies that you don’t feel comfortable discussing in this public forum.
Sorry if I offended.
Any l**k finding that '50s data?
ETA just saw your post
The reason was that America as a whole was swimming in money. We won WWII, everybody else lost. And lost bad. An accident of history which we, naturally, attribute to our superior virtue. That, and living in a country bursting with resources, from shining to shining.
The wonder isn’t that we’re rich. The wonder would be if we weren’t.
Good Heavens. We agree. We totally, completely, 100% agree.
So to follow…the fact that we had reasonably high tax rates then, probably had nothing to do with the middle class ‘prosperity’ that certain posters allege.
Thanks for the post.
A major step up from the apartments they used to live in.
No computers? No jet packs either. As for TVs, you are wrong.
This table
shows TV ownership going from 44% in 1953 to 85% in 1959. This had nothing to do with income, but a lot more to do with falling prices and “killer apps” like I Love Lucy.
I found a cite showing ownership of telephones was a bit below that of TV - but that is not due to poverty, but to the larger number of farm families. A big effort began in 1949 to bring telephone service to farms.
As for cars, I couldn’t find a cite for car ownership in the '50s. But that we invested in the interstate highway system then should indicate that it wasn’t low. My family was lower middle class, living in a place with good public transportation, but having a car was no big deal.
totally irrelevant.
Nice job of moving the goalposts, by the way. The argument is not that high tax rates automatically cause a better standard of living, but that an increase in taxes - on the well to do - does not cause an economic calamity. Displaying your ignorance about life in the 1950s does not address that. Do you agree that higher taxes on the rich can be compatible with a vibrant economy?
Well, you’re not always wrong.
The best I can make of your accurately quoted first part is that given an equal division of government spending (including interest) across all families, poor families pay less in taxes on that than rich families. Duh. They also pay less in taxes than they supposedly get - assuming you consider they get something from war spending. Also duh. The cite mixes up general government spending with direct transfers to low income families, so there is not enough information to tell if they pay more than they get. I’d assuming that if they really were on the gravy train the cite would have said so, instead of dishonestly counting all government spending.
As for the intelligence of the American public, you and your libertarian buddies should get your stories straight. That much of the American public is stupid is no surprise to me - look how many Creationists there are. My wife taught math to students at a school for nannies, who were very nice people, excellent caregivers, but who needed a lot of help to learn how to balance a checkbook and calculate discounts. I’m not a professor because I found when I taught at my second grad school that not all students were as smart as the ones I taught at my first school. But all this is irrelevant. What counts is whether even high school dropouts who are working as hard as they can at whatever job they can do deserve to not worry about doing without food to pay a doctors bill. Unless you think human worth is somehow directly proportional to IQ you should think so.
And you should send your link to those who are against regulations and the FDA, who are convinced that everyone can evaluate the efficacy of a drug themselves. I don’t think it is demeaning to this class of people not to expect them to read and understand complex mortgage contracts.
BTW, the reason for the very high tax rates in the '50s was not ideological - it was to pay off the massive amount of debt incurred during WW II. Two times GDP if I remember correctly. There was a certain feeling that paying taxes was a patriotic duty, since the debt kept us free.
No, actually, it was not my argument. My “argument” such as it is:
My only only mention of the '50s was in this paragraph.
I will correct myself. I am all for returning to the confiscatory tax schedule that was in place before that … #%@*% …Ronald Reagan rode into town on the backs on those idiots who mistook style for substance.
Sir, you were the one that opened the IQ door by saying “moronic trogs” instead of simply saying “unworthy humans”
I think you’re willfully mis-stating the position. The idea was to allow the individual to choose between following the approval of the FDA, a 3rd party laboratory (such as Underwriter’s Laboratory), or willfully ignore those 2 options and evaluate the drug himself. I thought one of the ideas in the FDA debate was to keep them around but let them be optional. Why do you ignore that?
That would seem to be another defense mechanism, wouldn’t it?