Benjibear
  •  Benjibear
  • 80.26% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:33:19 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/p...iddle-class-study-finds/ 

So the top 1% had an income increase of 275% from 1979 to 2007 while the middle class only had a 40% rise in income and the bottom class has a 18% increase. Looking at a few inflation calculators I found on line, inflation has been 175% between those years. So the top 1% had income that has outpaced inflation while the rest of us 99% have our incomes dropped. So let's just keep giving that top 1% larger tax breaks.

For me, I just took a 10% pay cut. It was announced yesterday and starts next week.

I don't know what the answer is but things aren't working and they haven't been working for a long time.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
Sponsor
indianacarnie
Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:33:29 AM
You beat me to it, posting I mean. I'm sure our more rabid republican friends will try to skew these figures to show us why we should give the 1% even more money in the form of tax cuts. (Don't insult my intelligence by blathering about "job creation", most of the increase has been since the Reagan tax cuts...... where are the jobs?)
An end, even with terror, is better than terror without end. F.Neitzsche
john777
  •  john777
  • 67.28% (Friendly)
  • Ride Supervisor
Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:02:37 AM
👏 our republican brothers must be watching fox news and getting their brains programed before they can post a reply.[banghead2 [bdh]
with it and all for it
john 777

UserPostedImage
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:30:47 AM
First of all, you don't know how the CBO scored it. A lesson I learned with Obamacare. The HHS sec stated the part that was supposed to 40% now finds it will cost money, not save it. There are less millionaires now than 4 years ago. So I don't know where they got their numbers from. Maybe worth a shot seeing just what the reality is.

Now, where are the jobs? That's a little easier. The question should be, where did they go and even more important, why? Right now jobs are flying to India and China. Now the why, what are the wages and bennies paid by those those 2 countries not to mention subsizidization. What regulations do they have? In the case of China how much industrial and intelecual property have they stolen with no repercussions? I can give you a list of what our businesses have go to through that they don't. In time it will level out but can we last that long? Look long and hard at China. Our jobs for years were built on a non sustainable therory, houses for everybody. Fannie and Freddie made the housing bubble possible but when it burst it killed jobs all over. BHO was going to create millions of high tech jobs in the green sector, where are they? Solyndra costs over $400,000 a job and we don't have those now but drilling for natural gas has created over 150,000 jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. BHO is sitting on the Transcanada pipeline, 20,000 immediate jobs with another 100,000 spin off or support jobs, again at no cost to the taxpayer, what is he waiting for?
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Benjibear
  •  Benjibear
  • 80.26% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:43:30 AM
I do agree about not knowing how the data was accumulated and analyzed. I feel that most studies are flawed and usually studies have an agenda before they even start. However, my complaint is I keep hearing throughout my life about giving tax breaks to the wealthy because of the trickle down theorey. It didn't work in the 80s and it didn't work in the 2000s. The theorey doesn't take into account greed and as you mentioned us importing goods from places like China.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:24:18 PM
I am doing a little research and what I have found thus far is inflation is out running miminum wage. In 60 it was $1.15 in todays dollars its $8.81. At $7.25 today its a dollar loss. We are paying 6 times more for the same thing in we bought in 60. What caused it? I suggest it was gvt spending.

In 60 the gvt spent 151 Billion, in todays money it would be 1157 Billion
In 2010 it had grown to 5806 billion, that's 5 times the rate of inflation.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Bowler Roller
Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:01:52 PM
Quote:

It didn't work in the 80s



Then what did work to turn around the economy in the 80's?
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:28:11 PM
If you stay at an entry level job and never progress your wages won't increase by much. If you move from entry level up the ladder to jobs requiring higher skill sets your income reflects that. That skill set advances with experience. I started as a production painter 2@ $1.80 an hour, as my skill sets increased my hourly rate reflected the same. When I retired I was getting $18 an hour in the lower bracket for my field. But over all my hourly rate went up more than 10 times what I stated at. Far above the inflation rate. This is what was not included in that study. How does Bill Gates and his income figure into this?
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Benjibear
  •  Benjibear
  • 80.26% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:51:13 PM
You have a point there. I started working in 1998 at even after my pay cut I will be getting twice of what I started with. I have invested in a master's degree, certificates, and licenses so that may be some of it.

Maybe the numbers are a little skewed because people especially the lower class may expect something for nothing and are lazy. The other thought I had was how many people in 1979 were two income households compared to 2007.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:26:01 PM
I don't know what the numbers are but I know in the 40s and 50s there were very few dual income families, those numbers changed in the 60s and early seventies. Back then credit wasn't so easy and people lived within their means. Mom not being home has had an adverse effect on families. Again look at the gvt spending, they lead the way. The more they spend the more they tax the less we have to keep the economy going. And just where does all that money go?
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
indianacarnie
Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:07:17 PM
Wars is the short answer. Unwarranted subsidies... you know where it goes. Money is the only thing that doesn't roll downhill.

This is the CBO by the way.

http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/ 

Lot of interesting stuff there if you take the time to wade through it.
An end, even with terror, is better than terror without end. F.Neitzsche
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman
Friday, October 28, 2011 10:22:00 AM
Originally Posted by: indianacarnie 

Wars is the short answer. Unwarranted subsidies... you know where it goes. Money is the only thing that doesn't roll downhill.

This is the CBO by the way.

http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/ 

Lot of interesting stuff there if you take the time to wade through it.


You have to be careful with what the CBO scores. They are given stict guides on how to score something and their scoring is static, not dynamic. Case in hand would be Obamacare. It was scored to save money but according to the HSS Sec. the part where 40% of the savings was to occur will cost money, not save it. They almost always come up up short reguardless of which party submits the bill. No business would ever rely on their projections.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Skywheelrider
Saturday, November 5, 2011 12:21:55 PM
Here are questions for our liberal left friends....you all say that the so-called 'rich' need to pay their 'fair share.' Okay, well, what exactly is their 'fair share?' Is it a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? What exactly is it? And what exactly makes a person 'rich?' Who makes the determination that someone is 'rich?' Again, is it a specific dollar amount that they are worth or what they earn each year, and if so, what is the cut off number? And in paying their 'fair share,' where exactly should that money go, to whom should it go? Please be specific. Let's see if any of you can answer these questions. (The same questions have been asked of liberal columnists, folks protesting at occupy protests, liberal congressmen/women, and none of them, NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.)

Oh, and why is it okay for someone on the left to call out wealthy conservatives or wealthy folks in general, but when it's pointed out to them that they, too, are wealthy (AHEM, Michael Moore), they call the reporter who does it a 'punk' and a 'liar' when the reporter has his facts in order, with figures?

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain
Bowler Roller
Saturday, November 5, 2011 12:27:34 PM
I'd say 20% for high earners is fair.

On a related topic, and friend of mine, who drives a hi-lo for Ford, just got his 6G's for a signing bonus. After the government and union were done with it, he got just over 3G's. Almost 50% for a guy who makes under 100G's.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
Skywheelrider
Saturday, November 5, 2011 4:14:59 PM
Originally Posted by: Bowler Roller 

I'd say 20% for high earners is fair.

On a related topic, and friend of mine, who drives a hi-lo for Ford, just got his 6G's for a signing bonus. After the government and union were done with it, he got just over 3G's. Almost 50% for a guy who makes under 100G's.



A flat, or fair, tax of 20% for EVERYONE, regardless of income level, sounds fair to me. No deductions, no loopholes, no allowances up to $600, everyone pays their share. No more stories like GE earning billions of dollars and not paying any income tax. That 47% of Americans who don't pay income tax? DONE, NO MORE. Of course liberals will probably froth at the mouth at this idea....

On Ford, sure, that's why the UAW wanted high signing bonuses, so they could get their chunk to use in 2012 to try and get their king re-elected, and Dems elected/re-elected. And 'bonuses' are taxed at a much higher rate than regular income, I found that out when I worked at a plastic factory and we would get a CHRISTmas 'bonus' check each year. Again, the government feels the need to get their hands on more of that money. And those on the government dole of course were hoping this would happen, they need their gravy train to keep on rollin'....

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain