UAW leader lauds occupy movement, calls for economic justice

[mettech]

..."King expressed his displeasure with what he says is a concentration of wealth with 1 percent of the population and an attack on the working class.

 

"We should be angry about that," he said. "I know we're angry about that. Look at unemployment in this country. Thirty-five straight months of 8 percent or higher unemployment, and that's counting those that are reporting. We should be outraged."

 

He urged the audience to speak up for immigrant rights and to not accept unemployment and foreclosures."...

 

 

 

Detroit News

 

 

:reading:

Interesting statements.

 

 

 

[SNEEKY]

Thank your friend OBAMA

[cal50]

King make close to 200 grand a year, he is part of the 1%.

 

 

He is lucky to voice his opinion.... on our union dues paid dime.

If he wants to play in politics he should run for public office.

[retro-man]

It's not just union bosses finally starting to admit that there's a problem.

 

"We need to rebuild the middle class. Business should be embarrassed that this happened to the middle class, so should government." ~ John Chambers, CEO of Cisco

[Mark B. Morrow]

Thank your friend OBAMA

 

The advancing concentration of wealth in the top 1% and the flatline of middle class income has been going on for 30 years, since Reaganomics took hold. Obama had nothing to do with creating this problem.

[grbeck]

The tax rate is irrelevant. What matters is what people actually PAY. Today, the "rich" pay more in federal income taxes, both in the raw amount and in the percentage of total federal income taxes paid, than they did in the 1950s, when the upper rates were set at 90+ percent. The problem is that, in the 1950s, there were more loopholes, and the rich took advantage of them. That is why, since that time, there has been a bipartisan effort to reduce the overall tax rate and close the loopholes. This effort began with President John. F. Kennedy in 1962. His tax cuts are widely credited with sparking the mid-1960s economic boom.

 

At any rate, when over 47 percent of all taxpayers do not have to pay federal income taxes, it should be evident that our current federal income tax structure is highly progressive. If progressive income taxes really did help the economy, then California, New York and New Jersey should be booming. They are, however, in serious trouble, and becoming MORE polarized in regards to income distribution among residents.

 

And please note that real wages for American workers peaked in 1971 (at about $34,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars), or long before Ronald Reagan became president. By that time, the postwar boom was truly over, as the rest of the industrialized world had caught up with the United States. And the president at that time, Richard Nixon, was no conservative, nor was he a supply-sider. He only LOOKED conservative when compared to his opposition (Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972).

 

And middle incomes have not "flatlined" since 1980. The figures that supposedly prove this are flawed. An analysis of income growth from 1979-2007 shows that incomes have increased by the following amonts for each quintile:

 

Bottom 20 percent - 26.4 percent

Second 20 percent - 29.1 percent

Middle 20 percent - 36.9 percent

Fourth 20 percent - 40.4 percent

Top 20 percent - 52.6 percent

[retro-man]

The tax rate is irrelevant. What matters is what people actually PAY. Today, the "rich" pay more in federal income taxes, both in the raw amount and in the percentage of total federal income taxes paid, than they did in the 1950s, when the upper rates were set at 90+ percent. The problem is that, in the 1950s, there were more loopholes, and the rich took advantage of them. That is why, since that time, there has been a bipartisan effort to reduce the overall tax rate and close the loopholes. This effort began with President John. F. Kennedy in 1962. His tax cuts are widely credited with sparking the mid-1960s economic boom.

 

At any rate, when over 47 percent of all taxpayers do not have to pay federal income taxes, it should be evident that our current federal income tax structure is highly progressive. If progressive income taxes really did help the economy, then California, New York and New Jersey should be booming. They are, however, in serious trouble, and becoming MORE polarized in regards to income distribution among residents.

 

And please note that real wages for American workers peaked in 1971 (at about $34,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars), or long before Ronald Reagan became president. By that time, the postwar boom was truly over, as the rest of the industrialized world had caught up with the United States. And the president at that time, Richard Nixon, was no conservative, nor was he a supply-sider. He only LOOKED conservative when compared to his opposition (Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972).

 

And middle incomes have not "flatlined" since 1980. The figures that supposedly prove this are flawed. An analysis of income growth from 1979-2007 shows that incomes have increased by the following amonts for each quintile:

 

Bottom 20 percent - 26.4 percent

Second 20 percent - 29.1 percent

Middle 20 percent - 36.9 percent

Fourth 20 percent - 40.4 percent

Top 20 percent - 52.6 percent

I'm confused: did real incomes peak in 1971 (which is what I believe by the way - yes, long before Reagan took office - and due in no small part to fallout from the Arab oil crisis) as you say in paragraph 3, or have they been steadily increasing according to your figures at the end (which I believe are the result of some selective accounting, like leaving out what a lot of things actually cost)?

 

Secondly, with your discussion of Nixon, Humphrey, and McGovern, you inadvertently make a point that I have often stated: that the US has drifted far to the right politically over the last 40 years. It is not descending into [shudder] Socialism and [horrors] liberalism as one would assume to hear the hysterical squealing from this largely Conservative-populated forum. And that drift to the right has happened in parallel with our economic and geopolitical decline.

[Mark B. Morrow]

The tax rate is irrelevant. What matters is what people actually PAY. Today, the "rich" pay more in federal income taxes, both in the raw amount and in the percentage of total federal income taxes paid, than they did in the 1950s, when the upper rates were set at 90+ percent. The problem is that, in the 1950s, there were more loopholes, and the rich took advantage of them. That is why, since that time, there has been a bipartisan effort to reduce the overall tax rate and close the loopholes. This effort began with President John. F. Kennedy in 1962. His tax cuts are widely credited with sparking the mid-1960s economic boom.

 

They pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than they did previously. That is simply a fact. They pay a larger percentage of overall tax because they have increased their percentage of all income received. If Capital gains were capped at $1 Million or even $5 Million the top 1% would pay significantly more in taxes.

 

There is a reduction in the utility of cutting taxes on the rich. Tax cuts from the current, or even Clinton era rates do not result in an economic benefit as the rate cut from 70% did in Kennedy's time. If that were true, then cutting taxes on the top 1% to Zero would result in more revenue.(It won't)

 

In addition, there were many reasons for the mid 60s economic boom that had nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich. The middle class was the driver of the boom, buying cars, homes sending their kids to college, along with government spending on the Vietnam War, completion of the Interstate Highway System and the Space Program.

 

At any rate, when over 47 percent of all taxpayers do not have to pay federal income taxes, it should be evident that our current federal income tax structure is highly progressive. If progressive income taxes really did help the economy, then California, New York and New Jersey should be booming. They are, however, in serious trouble, and becoming MORE polarized in regards to income distribution among residents.

 

The percentage of Federal tax revenue from income taxes and withholding taxes in nearly even. The 47% who's allowable deductions equal their liability, and those who are retired, disabled or unemployed, still pay other taxes.

 

And please note that real wages for American workers peaked in 1971 (at about $34,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars), or long before Ronald Reagan became president. By that time, the postwar boom was truly over, as the rest of the industrialized world had caught up with the United States. And the president at that time, Richard Nixon, was no conservative, nor was he a supply-sider. He only LOOKED conservative when compared to his opposition (Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972).

 

And middle incomes have not "flatlined" since 1980. The figures that supposedly prove this are flawed. An analysis of income growth from 1979-2007 shows that incomes have increased by the following amonts for each quintile:

 

Bottom 20 percent - 26.4 percent

Second 20 percent - 29.1 percent

Middle 20 percent - 36.9 percent

Fourth 20 percent - 40.4 percent

Top 20 percent - 52.6 percent

 

By limiting your analysis to quintiles, you ignore the huge gains made by the top 1% and .001% in comparison to the bottom 99%. You are ignoring the real income inequality argument. Compared to the top 1%, the gains by the lower groups are flat.

[grbeck]

Secondly, with your discussion of Nixon, Humphrey, and McGovern, you inadvertently make a point that I have often stated: that the US has drifted far to the right politically over the last 40 years. It is not descending into [shudder] Socialism and [horrors] liberalism as one would assume to hear the hysterical squealing from this largely Conservative-populated forum. And that drift to the right has happened in parallel with our economic and geopolitical decline.

 

I should have been clearer - average hourly wages peaked in 1971. What has also changed since that time, however, is the affordabilty of various items. Housing has become much more expensive - particularly in California and the New York metropolitan area. So has medical care.

 

Meawhile, food prices were actually dropping in inflation-adjusted dollars until recently, as were clothing items, and you can buy much more car in 2012 than you could in 1971 for the same inflation-adjusted price, if you look at features, safety and durability (although not in size or "flash"). A 2012 Fusion, for example, is a better all-around car in every way than a 1971 Eldorado or Continental Mark III. It is not, however, as flashy or highly "styled." Ford probably put as much effort into styling the Mark III's grille and spare-time hump as it did into styling the entire Fusion.

 

Secondly, with your discussion of Nixon, Humphrey, and McGovern, you inadvertently make a point that I have often stated: that the US has drifted far to the right politically over the last 40 years. It is not descending into [shudder] Socialism and [horrors] liberalism as one would assume to hear the hysterical squealing from this largely Conservative-populated forum. And that drift to the right has happened in parallel with our economic and geopolitical decline.

 

It's more complicated than that, and you have to consider social issues.

 

On social issues, we've gone to the left, except for gun control. When I was in high school in 1977-80, we never even talked about homosexuality, and any student who came out as gay or lesbian would have lasted about five minutes before he or she was forced to leave the school for his or her own safety. And no one in the town would have done much about it. Today, that same school has a Gay and Lesbian Student chapter.

 

When the ABC sitcom Soap featured primetime television's openly gay character in the fall of 1977, there were protests and viewer boycotts. Today, sitcoms have so many gay characters that surveys repeatedly show that Americans OVER-estimate the number of gays in the country (they place the figure at 25 percent of the population, when it's really under 5 percent).

 

Abortion is still legal, but what has changed is that, in the 1970s, many feminists were praising it as a wonderful procedure, and one even waxed poetically about her "first abortion." Some compared it to extracting a tooth, not just for its level of complication, but for its emotional effect on the woman. Today, the feminists I know regard it as a regrettable procedure that has to remain legal because it's too dangerous to do outside of a medically safe environment. They would also raise an eyebrow at any woman who has multiple abortions, and suggest that she have her tubes tied. And those are the liberals. I call that "growing up and accepting reality."

 

We've become more conservative in our ideas regarding nudity and sex in some respects, but that is the result of feminists and liberals as it the result of Jerry Falwell and his followers. Many feminists have equated pornography with sexism, and mainstream ads no longer feature scantily dressed women to avoid offending anyone. Dodge, for example, would never launch an ad campaign on the order of the 1966-67 "Dodge Rebellion" theme today, with its sexy blond models draped provocatively over the cars. That's not because Chrysler is worried about offending evangelical Christians or heterosexual men. If anything, such a campaign would probably increase sales to the latter group.

 

And we are much more careful regarding children and what they are exposed to today, but you can thank the Jerry Sanduskys of the world for that. That is neither a "left" or a "right" issue.

 

Regarding the economy, people are more used to government spending and intervention in the economy, to the point that a Republican administration stepped in and propped up GM and Chrysler in late 2008. I doubt that the Kennedy Administration, for example, would have propped up Chrysler Corporation in 1961-62 if it had managed to go broke in that time (the corporation was in one of its periodic tailspins during those years, and market share had actually dropped to under 10 percent for 1962).

 

When it comes to things like welfare, what I sense is that the left has been pretty much reduced to defending the status quo. Off the record, the liberals I know will admit to welfare's corrosive effects, and that many people are poor because of their own behaviors and attitudes. But they don't want to cut spending on programs. The public, as a whole, is tired of hearing about how we need to spend more money on various programs, or even education. We already DO spend lots of money on various programs. The idea that we need to expand the welfare state is dead...which is why many on the left are unhappy, or think that the country has moved sharply to the right.

 

Liberals, in some respects, are victims of their own success. They wanted extensive federal regulation of virtually every industry, and a web of government programs. Ronald Reagan's presidency to the contrary, they got what they wanted at the federal and, in most cases, state levels, and now we are dealing with the good and bad fallout of that effort. And we've already regulated so much of virtually everything that the left is either reduced to dragging out old ideas that didn't work the first time around (gun bans for law-abiding citizens, the 55 mph speed limit), or introducing new ones that are just plain silly (the impending ban on goose liver paste in California, or the proposed Big Gulp ban in New York City).

 

Hence, most of the vitality comes from the libertarian right when it comes to intellectual critiques of the current state of the government and economy. Which makes it seem like we've moved to the right. But in terms of what has been actually done, we haven't.

Edited June 20, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

They pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than they did previously. That is simply a fact. They pay a larger percentage of overall tax because they have increased their percentage of all income received. If Capital gains were capped at $1 Million or even $5 Million the top 1% would pay significantly more in taxes.

 

There is a reduction in the utility of cutting taxes on the rich. Tax cuts from the current, or even Clinton era rates do not result in an economic benefit as the rate cut from 70% did in Kennedy's time. If that were true, then cutting taxes on the top 1% to Zero would result in more revenue.(It won't)

 

What matters is how much in federal income taxes they actually PAY. Most upper income people in the the 1950s were not paying the federal income tax at the often-quoted 90+ percent rates, because they used loopholes to greatly reduce their tax burden, or eliminate it completely. We've lowered rates and eliminated loopholes.

 

This has been the result of a bipartisan effort among Democrats and Republicans, the claims of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann to the contrary. And it has worked in the past. This is the correct approach.

 

The refrain that I hear is that the rich need to pay their "fair share." Based on who actually pays taxes today, they are. They pay the lion's share of federal income taxes. That is what matters.

 

Rich people also pay a smaller percentage of their income for food, cars and clothes than poor people do. In the name of "fairness," should we require them to pay more for these items?

 

There is a reduction in the utility of cutting taxes on the rich. Tax cuts from the current, or even Clinton era rates do not result in an economic benefit as the rate cut from 70% did in Kennedy's time. If that were true, then cutting taxes on the top 1% to Zero would result in more revenue.(It won't)

 

You can't cut taxes for people who don't pay them. When 47 percent of the population already don't pay taxes, and even receive a check from the federal government through the federal Earned Income Tax Credit program, it's obvious that they have already received their tax cut.

 

In addition, there were many reasons for the mid 60s economic boom that had nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich. The middle class was the driver of the boom, buying cars, homes sending their kids to college, along with government spending on the Vietnam War, completion of the Interstate Highway System and the Space Program.

 

We had many of those programs in 1958-61, when the economy was in a serious recession (the interstate highway program was signed into law in 1956). Yet, the economy boomed after 1962 for a few years.

 

And every analysis I've read says that the Vietnam War was ultimately a drag on the economy. The economy, for example, was already sputtering by 1969 from the effects of increased spending on social programs along with continued high expenditures on defense (Nixon would boast that he was the first president whose budget spent more on social programs than on defense). The 1970s were not a good time from an economic standpoint. I remember lots of talk of inflation, and high unemployment, even though I was in grade school and high school during that decade.

 

The question with new car prices in the 1970s, for example, was how much higher the price for the same basic car would be in the next model year. And, no, the higher price did not buy you a better car. Most cars got WORSE during the 1970s. Compare a 1975 LTD to a 1965 Galaxie, for example, in terms of build quality, materials and workmanship.

 

The percentage of Federal tax revenue from income taxes and withholding taxes in nearly even. The 47% who's allowable deductions equal their liability, and those who are retired, disabled or unemployed, still pay other taxes.

 

They still don't pay any federal income taxes. The debate has centered around that particular tax - remember, it was President Obama who singled out that tax as one that needed to be raised in the name of "fairness." He wanted to raise it on families with an annual income of over $250,000, as did several pundits and legislators. He didn't mention the other taxes.

 

The real problem, of course, is that in many "blue" areas, a $250,000 annual income does not make a family rich. Several legislators, including many Democrats, along with many taxpayers, figured out this one, hence the loss of momentum for raising the federal income tax.

 

By limiting your analysis to quintiles, you ignore the huge gains made by the top 1% and .001% in comparison to the bottom 99%. You are ignoring the real income inequality argument. Compared to the top 1%, the gains by the lower groups are flat.

 

But incomes in the lower quintiles still increased.

Edited June 20, 2012 by grbeck

[Imawhosure]

Grbeck------->Do you remember ever watching Leave it to Beaver, The Dick Van Dyke Show, or Ozzie and Harriet? How about Bewitched?

 

The thing that all of these shows showed was family Americana in different situations. The one thing they had in common was------->the WIFE DID NOT WORK, and the husband provided a decent home for her and the children on 1 salary.

 

What changed?

 

Many things did, lol.........but one of the biggest changes was tax rates along with new taxes caused the women of this country into the job market, even if they didn't want to be there, as the taxes sucked money out of the family budget. Now, while it is a true statement that the women entering the workforce made household income rise as a total after taxes, it also is never spoken about that the tax burden has screwed single people who would like to live alone, but need a room mate, etc, to live.

 

Let me put it this way---------->If back in the day before liberal tax increases across the board........not just federal mind you.....all of the hidden ones included.......were put in; a one income earner household was seen as regular, normal, expected, for both white and blue collar workers. Our fathers could support their familys alone.

 

So if that is the case, then 1 earner alone could live quite well, wouldn't you say! He/she could buy a house easily, buy a new car, move out of their parents home, travel, enjoy life.

 

No longer is that true. The tax burden has become so heavy, what used to require 1 income, now requires 2.

 

If you look back in modern history, you will see where the tipping point occured, as the women of this country no longer had a choice for the most part, but had to farm out their children so they could earn a paycheck at work.

 

So now, the liberals have done it to us again. The last time, they basically forced the women of this country out the door to help their husbands bring home the bacon. Now that they need more money to keep their liberal nirvana, socialist ideas afloat. Are they thinking about changing the child labor laws so households can have more income the libs can tax?

 

I remember a place I lived when I was in grammar school. It was a wonderful city, a great state. I remember going with my father to the small corner store, and the people talking about an upcoming tax being put in, TEMPORARILY........to help pay for something. As I remember, it was supposed to last 2yrs, and the debt would be paid off. The governor promised the state tax would drop at that time.

 

My father, and the small store owner, talked about it for quite along time. They also talked about some new city tax, politicians, etc.... I didn't care, I went and played with the store owners son till we were ready to go.

 

Today, the place I grew up in.....Chicago Illinois.........is a sewer, and taxes its working people like Europe. The state Chicago resides in is 50th in retirement debt, and will probably have to default within 18 months if their favorite son, Barack Obama; isn't re-elected to bail them out. What started out as 1 or 1 and 1/2% state tax, is now outrageous, and if you live in Cook County, they have special taxes too........and then Chicago has to ding you also. All of those entities are BROKE, but they know what to do, keep raising taxes!

 

On the other hand, Indiana doesn't have a deficit, it is in the black.....so is Wisconsin, but they are run by Republicans, Illinois hasn't learned....yet!

 

The President.......Barack, Hussein, Obamas only political job was in Illinois; and there he learned how to DEFICIT SPEND to keep his constituents happy; and he learned this from his pals in the Illinois democratic party. He took what he learned to Washington, and in 3 and 1/2 years, added 5 trillion dollars to my, my childrens, and my childrens childrens, debt!

 

If that is someone to vote for, I got some swampland in Florida I will sell you, or part of the Brooklyn bridge if you are a liberal elitist who can't stand swamp critters and mosquitos in your Prius.

[grbeck]

Imawhosure,

 

You can't blame tax increases for the increased number of women in the workplace. More women wanted to work. They wanted careers outside the home, along with their own source of spending money. Betty Friedan railed against the idea that a woman's primary role was that of a housewife, which was supposedly the postwar ideal, in her book The Feminine Mystique. She called the suburban home a "comfortable concentration camp." (Remember that phrase the next time someone accuses Rush Limbaugh of inventing the use of over-the-top comparisions or examples to make a point.)

 

Improved technology made the movement of more women into the workplace possible, as electricity and affordable labor-saving appliances reduced the amount of time that a woman had to spend on cooking and cleaning.

Edited June 20, 2012 by grbeck

[Imawhosure]

Imawhosure,

 

You can't blame tax increases for the increased number of women in the workplace. More women wanted to work. They wanted careers outside the home, along with their own source of spending money. Betty Friedan railed against the idea that a woman's primary role was that of a housewife, which was supposedly the postwar ideal, in her book The Feminine Mystique. She called the suburban home a "comfortable concentration camp." (Remember that phrase the next time someone accuses Rush Limbaugh of inventing the use of over-the-top comparisions or examples to make a point.)

 

Improved technology made the movement of more women into the workplace possible, as electricity and affordable labor-saving appliances reduced the amount of time that a woman had to spend on cooking and cleaning.

 

I am not suggesting that many didn't want to work. I am saying also that they were FORCED to work because of the tax burdens put in.

 

All you need do is look at the recessions and see the percentage of working women when we went into it, and the percentage when we came out. I am here to tell you---------->that if you look, employment for men has been pretty constant, rising and falling with the economic indicators. But female employment as far as percentage did not. More Women going to work has helped on more than 1 occasion to pull our country out of economic hard times, the problem is, they had to stay there even if they didn't want to.

 

I don't want you to think I believe a woman should/should not work. It is her choice as an American, just as it is for everyone else. What I am trying to point out is---------->that as the tax burden rose to support liberal give aways, they almost had to enter the workforce as the drain on family income to help support the welfare state was to much for 1 person to overcome; especially in a blue collar job.

[retro-man]

I think there were a number of factors - the social ones that grbeck mentions being one of them. There was also I think a chicken and egg effect: women entering the workforce increased the supply of labor - and we all know the law of supply and demand - so that had a downward effect on the price, which then set up a feedback loop of people trying to maintain a certain standard of living on decreasing real wages, and sending more household members into the workforce to do it. Add to that the introduction of foreign labor on a hitherto unknown scale - be it coming into the country from Mexico, or outsourced to China and elsewhere - both in the supply of labor available expanding, and in the "unit cost" of that labor falling. No doubt there are a number of factors. The one thing I wouldn't blame is taxes, since the actual amount paid has barely changed over 50 years. Tax Freedom Day this year was April 17th - exact same as it was in 1967 - 45 years ago. Spending has gone up - hence the deficit - but total taxes collected as a percentage of GDP has barely budged in 50 years. What we're getting for it hasn't gone up as fast as spending - because an increasing portion of expenditures is going only to service the debt we are creating by under-collecting and over-spending.

Edited June 21, 2012 by retro-man

[Edstock]

The one thing I wouldn't blame is taxes, since the actual amount paid has barely changed over 50 years. Tax Freedom Day this year was April 17th - exact same as it was in 1967 - 35 years ago.

 

Goppers always forget this. Somehow, Reagan got 'em all brainwashed into believing that the taxes imposed are the source of the problem. So the rich got tax cuts, and they get to pee on everybody: Trickle-Down, the Golden Shower of Success!

[Imawhosure]

I think there were a number of factors - the social ones that grbeck mentions being one of them. There was also I think a chicken and egg effect: women entering the workforce increased the supply of labor - and we all know the law of supply and demand - so that had a downward effect on the price, which then set up a feedback loop of people trying to maintain a certain standard of living on decreasing real wages, and sending more household members into the workforce to do it. Add to that the introduction of foreign labor on a hitherto unknown scale - be it coming into the country from Mexico, or outsourced to China and elsewhere - both in the supply of labor available expanding, and in the "unit cost" of that labor falling. No doubt there are a number of factors. The one thing I wouldn't blame is taxes, since the actual amount paid has barely changed over 50 years. Tax Freedom Day this year was April 17th - exact same as it was in 1967 - 45 years ago. Spending has gone up - hence the deficit - but total taxes collected as a percentage of GDP has barely budged in 50 years. What we're getting for it hasn't gone up as fast as spending - because an increasing portion of expenditures is going only to service the debt we are creating by under-collecting and over-spending.

 

I am going to investigate this claim before I tell you that I think you are smoking something retro.

 

I would like to believe you are 100% correct, because as long as the taxburden stays constant, ways to tax become a mute point to discuss. But somehow I think you have either been misled, thus misleading me. I will investigate fully, but logic says that if the effects of taxes do not change income for government, nobody would argue about rate changes or where/whom to tax.

 

We shall see!

[retro-man]

I am going to investigate this claim before I tell you that I think you are smoking something retro.

 

I would like to believe you are 100% correct, because as long as the taxburden stays constant, ways to tax become a mute point to discuss. But somehow I think you have either been misled, thus misleading me. I will investigate fully, but logic says that if the effects of taxes do not change income for government, nobody would argue about rate changes or where/whom to tax.

 

We shall see!

Well ..... thanks for being open to it. I really appreciate that. Here is a link to The Tax Foundation website: LINK . They generally have a Conservative (anti-tax) tilt, which is why they established themselves, and the concept of Tax Freedom day - to raise public awareness. They attempt to take into account all taxes at all levels: federal, state, local, sales, luxury, licensing fees, etc. etc.. Thus, the data is only useful as a national average and will vary by state and locale. There are people who dispute the accuracy and completeness of their data - but there are people who dispute that the earth is round and Elvis is dead too. Scroll down to the "Historical Tax Freedom Day" and roll your mouse over the graph to see the dates. By the way, I lied: Tax Deficit day was April 17th in 1967, Tax Freedom day was on the 12th. So they had a 5 day budget gap that year (we had a 30 day budget gap this year). Tax Freedom day was, however, April 18th in 1968. The big rise happened in the Depression and WWII. There was a steady rise from the end of the war till the late 60s - but always within the first 3 weeks of April. Since 1969 it has been pretty flat, on average. The earliest that Tax Freedom day ever occurred during the Reagan administration was April 17th (same as this year), in 1984. I think it's the labor economy that has squeezed the middle class more than anything.

[fmccap]

I am going to investigate this claim before I tell you that I think you are smoking something retro.

 

I would like to believe you are 100% correct, because as long as the taxburden stays constant, ways to tax become a mute point to discuss. But somehow I think you have either been misled, thus misleading me. I will investigate fully, but logic says that if the effects of taxes do not change income for government, nobody would argue about rate changes or where/whom to tax.

 

We shall see!

Look into what changed in 1971 also since that is around the time frame you guys are talking about. I say that is the root of the problem that you guys overlook.

[retro-man]

You'll have to tie something together for me fmccap: Nixon's abandonment of the Bretton Woods system of convertibility (dollars to gold), and the effect on the labor economy. I - sort of - understand the objection to "fiat (fix it alla time) currency", but it seems to me the real danger that represents is inflation. Or hyperinflation. What we are talking about here is a sort of de-inflation - at least of the value of labor. How does the one lead to the other?

 

The other thing I want to add - to Ima's point - is that the tax burden may not have changed over 40 years, but the distribution of that burden surely has.

Edited June 22, 2012 by retro-man

[fmccap]

You'll have to tie something together for me fmccap: Nixon's abandonment of the Bretton Woods system of convertibility (dollars to gold), and the effect on the labor economy. I - sort of - understand the objection to "fiat (fix it alla time) currency", but it seems to me the real danger that represents is inflation. Or hyperinflation. What we are talking about here is a sort of de-inflation - at least of the value of labor. How does the one lead to the other?

 

The other thing I want to add - to Ima's point - is that the tax burden may not have changed over 40 years, but the distribution of that burden surely has.

This whole thing is a giant tangled web that has us stuck on different ends. When you say inflation as far as prices isn't that what we have? You are older than me so tell me from life experience what has changed with prices(up, down? more up than down or vice versa?)?

 

When you talk about deflation I think it gets tricky. Back then the money supply was based on sound money for the most part(physical money and savings). Now it's a credit based money supply(fantasy as I like to call it).

[fmccap]

 

The thing that all of these shows showed was family Americana in different situations. The one thing they had in common was------->the WIFE DID NOT WORK, and the husband provided a decent home for her and the children on 1 salary.

 

What changed?

 

[Imawhosure]

and I applaud the UAW for speaking about economic justice since they used to be my union.

 

By the way----------->did they tell GM to pay back the BILLIONS they haven't paid the taxpayers back yet? Have they told them to quit buying green patents that haven't added a dollar yet to their bottom line? Have they told GM that Ford, American Toyota workers, American BMW workers, American Honda workers, and all the rest of the American autoworkers have paid to save them, and the best they can do is build a volt that sells squat, and intend to come out with another non sensical vehicle that fits into the government green, green, baloney machines narrative that doesn't make a cent?

 

I as a taxpayer, want my money back! They have had enough time, and as we can see, if they can't get their share price up anytime soon, they need to fold up like a house of cards!

[Langston Hughes]

and I applaud the UAW for speaking about economic justice since they used to be my union.

 

By the way----------->did they tell GM to pay back the BILLIONS they haven't paid the taxpayers back yet? Have they told them to quit buying green patents that haven't added a dollar yet to their bottom line? Have they told GM that Ford, American Toyota workers, American BMW workers, American Honda workers, and all the rest of the American autoworkers have paid to save them, and the best they can do is build a volt that sells squat, and intend to come out with another non sensical vehicle that fits into the government green, green, baloney machines narrative that doesn't make a cent?

 

I as a taxpayer, want my money back! They have had enough time, and as we can see, if they can't get their share price up anytime soon, they need to fold up like a house of cards!

 

As a reader I would like the time i spent reading this back.

[Cocheese]

As a reader I would like the time i spent reading this back.

 

So you spent more time commenting on it?

 

You went to the trouble of creating a new account when your last one was getting kicked around. Don't try and sound like you are super busy and have limited time to embarrass yourself on BON.

 

Here is that plant in Harlem?