The Reality Of American's Personal Economics


GryHounnd

Banned
So your intellect is name calling? Did you learn that on the debate team? Show me where, anywhere, that name calling is a tactic for winning an argument or debate? So you're here to argue with nearly every person and call them names? Can you tell me what that makes you? Can you affirm the psychology of such acts? Do you understand what that says about you? Do you know how crazy it is to have multiple personalities on a chat forum? It's amusing to say the least. What I find most fascinating is that you stay here fighting each and every person with the same whine. It's old. Get a job. Earn your own way. Stop humping other peoples' legs.

First off, if I were posting from multiple accounts you might have a leg to stand on. My posts are my own, I don't control what others say. Second, you're not debating me, you're debating someone else, so I have no problem calling you a turd because you are a turd. Third, I don't really care what everyone else thinks, I just love seeing you trying to justify your parasitic & psychopathic point of view and existence. Carry on.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
How many ID's are you using at this time? I know this is gonna piss you off but I'm not a conservative.
.
Are you saying we're not educated? I hold an MS in Comp Sci and a BS in Mathematics. Columbia and Brown. Stop with the generalizations.

I use one ID.
.
So you're not a conservative? Good for you. Could it be because you're educated? Your background is math, mine is business, my wife's is fixed income analysis (bonds). I wouldn't doubt you on math, don't doubt me on business.
.
You wrote in an earlier post how when you were a kid how only one parent worked and the family did quite well. You must be referring to the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Want to know what changed? The top tax rates were 91% to 70%, Corporate Top tax rates were 48-52%. Union membership peaked in the 1950's and assured a strong and well paid blue collar middle class. The government had the financial resources to build enormous infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System. To create NASA and give a major jump start to jobs in R&D and the products that the new technologies would bring.
.
Further, the 1950's saw excellent growth partly because our economy was in the best shape compared to war ravaged countries, but because all those troops coming home had the GI Bill, they bought houses, got college educations, got small business loans, etc. That primed the pump for the economic growth of the 1950's and 1960's.
.
Then in the 1980's Reagan and "Trickle down" came in. He lowered the Federal funding of state governments, froze the minimum wage for a decade, lowered the top tax rate down to 28%, cut corporate taxes from 46% to 34% while increasing the US debt 189%, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation. He cut Pell grant's, Guaranteed Student loans, he cut funding for new student loans by 35%, putting a far bigger burden on those seeking to go to college.
.
Outsourcing of US jobs overseas has caused the permanent loss of millions of jobs, and has put pressure on those who wish to keep their US based jobs to keep their pay requirements low. And with the weakening of unions they have less power to raise their wages. Further, the disparity in pay between workers and CEO's has grown dramatically. In 1983, the average S&P CEO earned 46 times what their average employee made. Todays it's 331 times more. How much more could the employees make if the excess of CEO and executive pay went back to the 46 to 1 ratio?
.
Technology has also changed they way we spend money and our discretionary spending. Back in the 1950's to 1970's you didn't have the costs of our modern day technology. Computers, cell phones, internet access, cable TV, video games, etc. College and health care was far cheaper. In 1970 the median cost of a house was $140k (inflation adjusted) in 2005 it hit $270K, right now it's about $190k and rising, so the cost of owning a home is a much bigger chunk out of a paycheck. So more money going out, less money coming in, bye bye to what life was like when we were kids.
.
What's been happening since the 1980's is the biggest transfer of wealth from the masses to a very small percentage since the 1920's. There's still a lot of money out there, it's just that fewer people have much more of it.
.

A chart of US tax rates broken out by quintiles going back to 1960
Whose Tax Rates Rose or Fell - NYTimes.com
.
A chart showing the decline in unions and the decline in middle class wages
Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart
.
Federal Corporate Income Tax Rates, Income Years 1909-2012 | Tax Foundation
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Yes. But not for the reasons you might think. It's because you're a D!ck.


Oh wow, you're so clever. Gosh to be called a **** by an ignorant fool just really hurts me so.

So I just went and reread you post about how horrible it is for people now and how on earth are they going to retire. Well it's a good thing they have Social Security and Medicare, two commie programs. Before there was SS old people literally ended up in the poorhouse if they didn't have kids to live with or weren't affluent. This was especially true during the Depression so FDR to insure that people had some money put away for old age created a safety net that would provide at least a basic standard of living. Given the enormous stock market losses during the 2008 crash it's a good thing that Bush wasn't able to privatize SS, or all of that money would have been lost and those people wouldn't even have SS.

And of course you blame the "commies' for the financial situation, but if you actually look at the facts you'll see this trend started somewhat during Nixon, and really took off during Reagan, and that's when the transfer of wealth went from people like you to people like me.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
FactsNotFiction said:
You wrote in an earlier post how when you were a kid how only one parent worked and the family did quite well. You must be referring to the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Want to know what changed? The top tax rates were 91% to 70%, Corporate Top tax rates were 48-52%.
So you are saying that reducing taxes made it necessary for two parents to work to make ends meet? Interesting.
FactsNotFiction said:
He lowered the Federal funding of state governments,
I'm lost. Where does the Constitution say that the Fed's are supposed to finance state governments? Of course I would wager that much more Federal funding goes to states now than in the 50's, 60's or 70's. Have you got anything that supports your claim?
FactsNotFiction said:
He cut Pell grant's, Guaranteed Student loans, he cut funding for new student loans by 35%, putting a far bigger burden on those seeking to go to college.
So you think that the Fed's should be ignoring the Constitution and be involved in much more than is authorized by the Constitution? You do know that education costs have skyrocketed way faster than inflation and that increase is related to more money being available to the students, do you not.
FactsNotFiction said:
Technology has also changed they way we spend money and our discretionary spending
So it's not so much the Government but rather personal greed that requires there be two wage earners in a family? Of course that same technology has made most everything much less expensive as time has gone on. But then government by putting requirements on all kinds of things has made those things more expensive. So it appears while technology improvements are making things less expensive, government is making them more expensive.
 

billt

Banned
So you are saying that reducing taxes made it necessary for two parents to work to make ends meet? Interesting.

I'm lost. Where does the Constitution say that the Fed's are supposed to finance state governments? Of course I would wager that much more Federal funding goes to states now than in the 50's, 60's or 70's. Have you got anything that supports your claim?

So you think that the Fed's should be ignoring the Constitution and be involved in much more than is authorized by the Constitution? You do know that education costs have skyrocketed way faster than inflation and that increase is related to more money being available to the students, do you not.

So it's not so much the Government but rather personal greed that requires there be two wage earners in a family? Of course that same technology has made most everything much less expensive as time has gone on. But then government by putting requirements on all kinds of things has made those things more expensive. So it appears while technology improvements are making things less expensive, government is making them more expensive.

So much of this would be cured if the government just went away. As Regan said so eloquently, "Government is not the answer. Government is the problem." As we've seen, the larger government grows, the more problems we have with it.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
So much of this would be cured if the government just went away. As Regan said so eloquently, "Government is not the answer. Government is the problem." As we've seen, the larger government grows, the more problems we have with it.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine

Read more at Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an... - Thomas Paine at BrainyQuote
 

BC1

,
I use one ID.
.
So you're not a conservative? Good for you. Could it be because you're educated? Your background is math, mine is business, my wife's is fixed income analysis (bonds). I wouldn't doubt you on math, don't doubt me on business.
.
You wrote in an earlier post how when you were a kid how only one parent worked and the family did quite well. You must be referring to the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Want to know what changed? The top tax rates were 91% to 70%, Corporate Top tax rates were 48-52%. Union membership peaked in the 1950's and assured a strong and well paid blue collar middle class. The government had the financial resources to build enormous infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System. To create NASA and give a major jump start to jobs in R&D and the products that the new technologies would bring.
.
Further, the 1950's saw excellent growth partly because our economy was in the best shape compared to war ravaged countries, but because all those troops coming home had the GI Bill, they bought houses, got college educations, got small business loans, etc. That primed the pump for the economic growth of the 1950's and 1960's.
.
Then in the 1980's Reagan and "Trickle down" came in. He lowered the Federal funding of state governments, froze the minimum wage for a decade, lowered the top tax rate down to 28%, cut corporate taxes from 46% to 34% while increasing the US debt 189%, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation. He cut Pell grant's, Guaranteed Student loans, he cut funding for new student loans by 35%, putting a far bigger burden on those seeking to go to college.
.
Outsourcing of US jobs overseas has caused the permanent loss of millions of jobs, and has put pressure on those who wish to keep their US based jobs to keep their pay requirements low. And with the weakening of unions they have less power to raise their wages. Further, the disparity in pay between workers and CEO's has grown dramatically. In 1983, the average S&P CEO earned 46 times what their average employee made. Todays it's 331 times more. How much more could the employees make if the excess of CEO and executive pay went back to the 46 to 1 ratio?
.
Technology has also changed they way we spend money and our discretionary spending. Back in the 1950's to 1970's you didn't have the costs of our modern day technology. Computers, cell phones, internet access, cable TV, video games, etc. College and health care was far cheaper. In 1970 the median cost of a house was $140k (inflation adjusted) in 2005 it hit $270K, right now it's about $190k and rising, so the cost of owning a home is a much bigger chunk out of a paycheck. So more money going out, less money coming in, bye bye to what life was like when we were kids.
.
What's been happening since the 1980's is the biggest transfer of wealth from the masses to a very small percentage since the 1920's. There's still a lot of money out there, it's just that fewer people have much more of it.
.

A chart of US tax rates broken out by quintiles going back to 1960
Whose Tax Rates Rose or Fell - NYTimes.com
.
A chart showing the decline in unions and the decline in middle class wages
Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart
.
Federal Corporate Income Tax Rates, Income Years 1909-2012 | Tax Foundation
You're a businessman? I absolutely will question your business background. Questioning others' methods and opinions is a key ingredient of success. I owned and ran a successful NYC software engineering consulting firm for 25 years. I understand business on the streets of Manhattan. Take a look at post 34 on this page --> (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/49154-proof-how-stupid-nation-has-become-4.html). You think 78% tax on adjusted income is fair? Are you telling me I should be paying more tax or that 78% isn't simple robbery? Tell me exactly what's wrong with a leader who punishes success. Remember Thomas Paine's words, "Is the person who is jealous of our prosperity the proper person to govern us?" My complaint is with the liberal mindset that I have to pay more tax.
.
Then disparity between my pay and my employee's pay is none of anyone's business. It's my company and I'll do what I want. When they own the company they can have a say. until then they do their job and shut-up. You're not showing business smarts in these posts. Your background may be business but I've watched a million of you crash and burn over my career.
.
You made this statement above, "In 1970 the median cost of a house was $140k (inflation adjusted)." WRONG! In 1970 the median cost of a house capped at $25,700. This is according to the U.S. Census. What crap... explain your statement of $140,000. Inflation hasn't compounded 500% since 1970. Stop claiming to be some big-time teenage millionaire businessman. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
So you are saying that reducing taxes made it necessary for two parents to work to make ends meet? Interesting.

I'm lost. Where does the Constitution say that the Fed's are supposed to finance state governments? Of course I would wager that much more Federal funding goes to states now than in the 50's, 60's or 70's. Have you got anything that supports your claim?

So you think that the Fed's should be ignoring the Constitution and be involved in much more than is authorized by the Constitution? You do know that education costs have skyrocketed way faster than inflation and that increase is related to more money being available to the students, do you not.

So it's not so much the Government but rather personal greed that requires there be two wage earners in a family? Of course that same technology has made most everything much less expensive as time has gone on. But then government by putting requirements on all kinds of things has made those things more expensive. So it appears while technology improvements are making things less expensive, government is making them more expensive.
.
Reducing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations was not a direct cause of the need for 2 paycheck families, however the government had less money to invest in infrastructure, less money to spend on higher education (which leads to higher paying jobs), less employment opportunities for people to work for the government (it's a job after all, and BTW under Reagan for every 46 citizens there was 1 federal employee, under Obama it's 75 citizens for every 1 federal employee, that's a lot less jobs, and that doesn't include state and local government. Hate how long it takes at the DMV? More employees =shorter wait times).
.
But the biggest culprits when it comes to the need for 2 paychecks is lower wages, wages simply have not kept up with productivity. That is wages for 99% of the work force, for the 1% their wages have sky rocketed. If they got paid less, you could get paid more. The next big culprits are technology and outsourcing. The people hardest hit were in manufacturing. These are not usually high skilled jobs are were easy to either outsource overseas or replace with automation of robotics. Those jobs are just gone, and are likely to never return. In the meantime if you have an engineering degree or other STEM education there are a lot of opportunities for you. In fact I can tell you that a lot of the Wall St firms that require high technology, have to bring in people from other countries because there's not enough high level tech people here.
.
If the government had the funding it could be active in re-educating those who can't find work due to lack of current jobs skills.
.
As for the Constitution, the framers knew that it was going to be an ever changing and growing document, that's why we have the Amendments. If you want to stick strictly to the Constitution and not have it grow with the times, then I guess we should go back to slavery, no voting for women, etc.

I never said anything about personal greed. We were comparing the 1950's and 1960's to today. When I was a kid a $1 ball was all you needed to entertain yourself with. For the holidays you might get a new baseball glove after your current one was out grown. A bicycle was the really big present that happened maybe twice in all the time you lived with your parents. Now kids have $200-400 cell phones, iPads, video games, computers, etc. These things are a far larger part of a parent's budget for their kids than the entertainment tools were of the 1950's. And kids today also need bicycles and sporting gear.
 

BC1

,
Oh wait, ur right government economics has absolutely NO IMPACT on personal finances....its not like one relies on the other or something. its not like the majority of savings the Japanese people have is in Japanese bonds, its not like governments can come into personal savings accounts when it suits them and sieze the assets or anything....cause that never happens in this country or any other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app
Asian companies have increased business ownership in the U.S. significantly over the past decade. For anyone who spends any time there, the Japanese and Chinese pretty much own NYC. NYC colleges have very large Asian/foreign student populations. Nearly every nurse I've had in a NYC hospital was Filipino. The old Brooklyn neighborhoods grew from Italian in the 20's to ghetto in the 80's have been rebuilt by the Chinese. Their investment in America is massive. I'm not knocking anyone here, just stating a fact.
 

billt

Banned
"The common good" is never good for the haves. It is only good for the have nots. Somebody has to pay for their equal lifestyles, and since the have nots are not worth anything monetarily, it is left to the haves to pay for everything in order to upgrade their pathetic lives. All in the name of "the common good."
 

maybejim

Maybejim
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
Reducing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations was not a direct cause of the need for 2 paycheck families, however the government had less money to invest in infrastructure, less money to spend on higher education (which leads to higher paying jobs), less employment opportunities for people to work for the government
So it is your claim now that the government has been spending less money? Does that include the shovel ready jobs that BO got billions for?
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
it's a job after all, and BTW under Reagan for every 46 citizens there was 1 federal employee, under Obama it's 75 citizens for every 1 federal employee,
That wouldn't be because of the big cutback in the military, could it? Perhaps BO's cuts weren't that good of an idea. It appears to me that your claims like most of those from the left/Dem's/MSM are somewhat dishonest.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
wages simply have not kept up with productivity
So, company managers/owners have designed processes so that workers produce more in the same amount of working hours? Sounds like a good idea and one that would help prevent cost increases for product. Do you think that keeping costs down is a bad thing?
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
If they got paid less,
The biggest factor I've seen in lowering wages (and keeping them from increasing) has been illegal aliens. Yet that is being encouraged and welcomed by the BO/leftists/Dem's/MSM. If y'all were interested in Americans making more money maybe you should stop encouraging illegals and start increased Deportations.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
In fact I can tell you that a lot of the Wall St firms that require high technology, have to bring in people from other countries because there's not enough high level tech people here.
I can tell you there are lots of qualified people here but they can pay those from other countries less money. Another attack on Americans working by the BO Administration that is promoting more outside people being authorized to come into the country.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
As for the Constitution, the framers knew that it was going to be an ever changing and growing document, that's why we have the Amendments. If you want to stick strictly to the Constitution and not have it grow with the times, then I guess we should go back to slavery, no voting for women, etc.
Yet we've had amendments for those things and the BO Administration is acting against the Constitution without calling for any admendments. So you are simply puting out nonsense designed to confuse.

FACTSNOTFICTION said:
. Now kids have $200-400 cell phones, iPads, video games, computers, etc. These things are a far larger part of a parent's budget for their kids than the entertainment tools were of the 1950's. And kids today also need bicycles and sporting gear.
All of those things are choices not requirements. It is the families decision as to what they spend their money on (though government keeps trying to get involved and force purchases).
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
You're a businessman? I absolutely will question your business background. Questioning others' methods and opinions is a key ingredient of success. I owned and ran a successful NYC software engineering consulting firm for 25 years. I understand business on the streets of Manhattan. Take a look at post 34 on this page --> (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/49154-proof-how-stupid-nation-has-become-4.html). You think 78% tax on adjusted income is fair? Are you telling me I should be paying more tax or that 78% isn't simple robbery? Tell me exactly what's wrong with a leader who punishes success. Remember Thomas Paine's words, "Is the person who is jealous of our prosperity the proper person to govern us?" My complaint is with the liberal mindset that I have to pay more tax.
.
Then disparity between my pay and my employee's pay is none of anyone's business. It's my company and I'll do what I want. When they own the company they can have a say. until then they do their job and shut-up. You're not showing business smarts in these posts. Your background may be business but I've watched a million of you crash and burn over my career.
.
You made this statement above, "In 1970 the median cost of a house was $140k (inflation adjusted)." WRONG! In 1970 the median cost of a house capped at $25,700. This is according to the U.S. Census. What crap... explain your statement of $140,000. Inflation hasn't compounded 500% since 1970. Stop claiming to be some big-time teenage millionaire businessman. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.


Are you using a generic inflation calculator? You know the housing market rises and falls at a different rate. Here's the source for the $140k inflation adjusted figure:
.
Inflation Adjusted Housing Prices
.
and here's one that shows both inflation and non inflation adjusted housing numbers:
Link Removed
.
and here's Case Shiller's numbers:
Case Shiller Home Price Index
.
Note there will be some small variation in the numbers dependent on what year they use as the inflation index
.
I paid my employees the going rate in my field, that said I wish I had paid them more, as the higher pay would have been a substantial benefit to them and quite frankly would not have changed my quality of life at all. You are free to pay your employees as you wish, some of us are just more generous than others. And regarding taxes, as with paying my people more, paying higher taxes would have had little impact on me. And let's understand the economy as a whole, it's the middle class that drives it, not the wealthy. My excess money went into investments, which you can argue spur economic growth, but the middle class and especially the lower economic classes spend most if not all their money, they don't store it. When they stop spending the economy comes to a screeching halt, that's called a recession. The stronger the middle class the stronger the economy.

And regarding the 78% tax bracket which I never said anything about, I just compiled the data, I think on extreme income it is fair. Without the benefits provided by our country, it's government, it's population, etc, there would not be the opportunity to become wealthy. If more people have more money, those businesses selling products will make more money because more people can afford to buy it. Where is the greater market and revenue? Selling Ferraris to 3 million people, or selling chevy's to 300 million? Which market will produce more jobs, more income, more tax revenue, more profits?

I think if your income is $10 million, paying a 50% tax on every dollar over ten million, is not going to cause you to live poorly. Maybe you won't live like a King, and might have to settle for an Aston Martin instead of a Bugatti Veyron, but you'll still live extremely well. I don't consider it punishing success, I consider it, contributing to the country I love and to my fellow Americans. To me patriotism isn't about waving a flag, or even only about going into combat for your country, to me it's about actually caring for my country and my fellow Americans. I think a country this rich should share the wealth a little. Do the Walton's really need to be worth $147 Billion while their employees require billions of dollars in government aid, like food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, etc? That's where some of our tax dollars go, so that the rich can underpay the poor, have access to huge tax loopholes and the rest of America pays for it.
.
But hey that's my personal take, I'm not greedy, I'm quite content, I can buy whatever I want, and if I had 10 times the wealth I probably wouldn't do anything differently except maybe give more money away. If all I was about was money, I wouldn't have semi retired so young. And I don't view my success as luck, it was hard work and good decision making, but I lived in a country where that could pay off and in that I was lucky.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
My excess money went into investments
I have a friend who says "excess" and "money" never belong together. I tend to agree.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
as with paying my people more, paying higher taxes would have had little impact on me.
It's possible but highly unlikely that you might find someone who actually believes you.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
And regarding the 78% tax bracket which I never said anything about, I just compiled the data, I think on extreme income it is fair.
Wow! Isn't that sweet? You believe it's "fair" to steal money from someone else because you seem to think they earn too much money.
FACTSNOTFICTION said:
That's where some of our tax dollars go, so that the rich can underpay the poor, have access to huge tax loopholes and the rest of America pays for it.
More nonsense from BO and his band of communists (who always think that the rich have too much money unless they are one of the "special" ruling class).
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
I have a friend who says "excess" and "money" never belong together. I tend to agree.

It's possible but highly unlikely that you might find someone who actually believes you.

Wow! Isn't that sweet? You believe it's "fair" to steal money from someone else because you seem to think they earn too much money.

More nonsense from BO and his band of communists (who always think that the rich have too much money unless they are one of the "special" ruling class).

Unless you're really wealthy, you're getting stolen from every day. Everyday the rich get far richer, and the middle class get's poorer, and it's not because the middle class is paying so much in federal taxes, they're actually paying less.

What percent people actually pay after deductions:
.
1960 Median income, family of 4, average income tax rate 7.77%
2013 Median income, family of 4, average income tax rate 5.32%

1960 twice Median income, family of 4, average income tax rate 12.1%
2013 twice Median income, family of 4, average income tax rate 12.43%
.
Historical Federal Income Tax Rates for a Family of Four

In 1979, before Reagan, the effective tax rate for those in the top 1% income bracket was 42.9%,
In 1985, the middle of Reagan's terms, the effective rate for the 1% dropped to 25.9%, the US debt increased 189%
In 1995 under Clinton, who raised taxes, the effective rate was 40.9%, Clinton left office with an annual budget surplus and the 1990's had record job creation, and left office with 4.2% unemployment
In 2005 under Bush, the effective top rate was 31.5%, when Bush left office the debt had increased 105% and he had one of the worst job creation records

And who is stealing money? The Walton's amassed a $147 Billion fortune by buying cheap chinese products selling them here, costing US manufacturing jobs, and for the record the largest private trading partner with China is Walmart, while underpaying it's employees so much that the US taxpayer pays $6.2 BILLION annually to provide government assistance to their employees. Personally I think their using my tax dollars to subsidize their employees so they can pocket more money is stealing from me.

Also if you check on the decline of US jobs you'll see it coincides with the increase in Walmart's relationship with China and the growing of our trade imbalance with them. Further Walmart's relationship with China has cost the US 3.2 million jobs since 2001.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes
.
Historical Federal Income Tax Rates for a Family of Four
.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...xx/doc9884/12-23-effectivetaxrates_letter.pdf
.
China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state | Economic Policy Institute
.
U.S. Trade Deficit With China Sets New Record In 2013

So why should you care about if the uber rich pay more taxes? Are you wealthy? Do you like getting poorer as they get wealthier. literally at your expense?
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
So it is your claim now that the government has been spending less money? Does that include the shovel ready jobs that BO got billions for?

That wouldn't be because of the big cutback in the military, could it? Perhaps BO's cuts weren't that good of an idea. It appears to me that your claims like most of those from the left/Dem's/MSM are somewhat dishonest.

So, company managers/owners have designed processes so that workers produce more in the same amount of working hours? Sounds like a good idea and one that would help prevent cost increases for product. Do you think that keeping costs down is a bad thing?

The biggest factor I've seen in lowering wages (and keeping them from increasing) has been illegal aliens. Yet that is being encouraged and welcomed by the BO/leftists/Dem's/MSM. If y'all were interested in Americans making more money maybe you should stop encouraging illegals and start increased Deportations.

I can tell you there are lots of qualified people here but they can pay those from other countries less money. Another attack on Americans working by the BO Administration that is promoting more outside people being authorized to come into the country.

Yet we've had amendments for those things and the BO Administration is acting against the Constitution without calling for any admendments. So you are simply puting out nonsense designed to confuse.


All of those things are choices not requirements. It is the families decision as to what they spend their money on (though government keeps trying to get involved and force purchases).


If you want to compare Obama to Reagan you'll find that Obama's record is better.

From Forbes:
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing - Forbes
.
Excluding military, the ratio of federal employee to citizen under Reagan was 1 for every 78
For Obama it's 1 for every 128,
.
Regarding illegal aliens as the cause for lower wages, we had illegals 30, 40, 50 years ago. So there really isn't any change there and you're just making an unsupported claim. But the type of jobs that illegals get are most often the ones that Americans don't want. Do you like the fact that tomatoes are cheap? Well, that's because illegals get 1 cent per pound, and need to pick 4000 pounds a day to make $40. So are you willing to pay more for your food? Higher food prices means you have less money. And further, would you spend 10 hours a day, every day, bent over in the hot sun picking 4000 pounds of tomatoes for $40 a day? How about $100 a day? I bet you wouldn't do it for $200 a day. Seriously just what quality of jobs do you think they are taking? Jobs that no American wants.
.
I heard an interview, the owner of a meat packing plant, was complaining about how some new immigration crackdown was making it impossible for him to get employees, it seems the working conditions are so undesirable that their 5000 employees plant loses 100 employees a week, so he needs to hire 100 employees a week, and none of the Americans in his town want to work there, so he's dependent on undocumented workers and with the new crackdown he can't get them so his business is suffering. Would you like to work in a meat packing plant, so awful that they lose their entire workforce every year? I don't think so.
 

BC1

,
I paid my employees the going rate in my field, that said I wish I had paid them more, as the higher pay would have been a substantial benefit to them and quite frankly would not have changed my quality of life at all. You are free to pay your employees as you wish, some of us are just more generous than others. And regarding taxes, as with paying my people more, paying higher taxes would have had little impact on me. And let's understand the economy as a whole, it's the middle class that drives it, not the wealthy. My excess money went into investments, which you can argue spur economic growth, but the middle class and especially the lower economic classes spend most if not all their money, they don't store it. When they stop spending the economy comes to a screeching halt, that's called a recession. The stronger the middle class the stronger the economy.
My business was software engineering consulting. We specialized in three areas; banking/brokerage, government security, digital forensic examinations. Business boomed through the 80's and 90's as America built it's tech infrastructure. That bubble began to pop around 1999 when investors got wise to the virtual company. Our work included Internet contracts with eTrade, WebMD, Charles Schwab, Royal Bank of Scotland and numerous county governments.
.
I paid my software developers $75K to $90K per year, health benefits, vacation and unlimited sick time. Developers were required to have an MSCS (Masters Computer Science) and experience in their discipline. I paid temp consultants $80 per hour as contractors (1099). I billed my clients $165 per hour, per developer on projects. Money used to flow in NYC. Rent was $36K per month. Shocking, but that's cheap considering mid-town Manhattan. Education, software and tech expenses were very high as the industry changes monthly and people are constantly back in 1-2 week classes for new technology. Of course there's a zillion little expenses that add-up. In 2008 projects started drying-up. There weren't as many RFP's to reply. I found companies were afraid of the threats of higher taxation coming from Washington and pulled-back projects. I let free-lance consultants go first. Soon there were none. By 2010 only employees were working. I could have let them all go and hired Indian consultants who charge $40 per hour. They'll work for nothing. I also could have sent the work overseas and paid $27 per hour. I decided it wasn't worth it anymore. I had been retired for some years. But as the controlling partner (62.5% ownership) I made the decision to close. Besides I hadn't actually worked since around 2003. I was around for advice and decisions only. So 19 people were let go. One partner bought-out the intellectual property and is still making an attempt at success. But the contracts haven't come back even though the Dow has. He's now using a firm in Manila for his back-office.
.
Now on the liberal, socialist, democrat side of this issue there are mixed messages. Obama wants to give everyone a free junior college education. I'm on board with that. Very good use of tax resources because we need to educate an entire country if we're to return to a world power. Then there's NYS governor Andrew Cuomo. NY residents can save for college through a tax-deferred 529 plan. It's the only way some families will ever see college. After pitching this great plan during his campaign he's now talking with fellow democrats about taxing it. Taxing the middle class' college savings. In direct contravention of everything the left says about raising the middle class. I remember Mario Cuomo as governor saying he cut taxes. Someone in the audience stood-up and asked then why did my taxes go up? He didn't know. He cut school aid, putting the burden of raising revenues on the property owners in the district. Our school tax doubled. He cut state tax by shifting to the districts. It was typical double-speak. The middle class took that hit. In NYS the middle class homeowner is being broken by school tax. My high school was 71% minority. How many of those parents contributed to their kids education? Well, no one who rented an apartment anyway.
.
The middle class is getting hammered by dozens of taxes daily that they don't even know exist. And these taxes keep going up, silently. Here's some outrage for everyone.
.
• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• CDL License Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel Perm it Tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inheritance Tax
• Inventory Tax
• IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
• IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
• Liquor Tax,
• Luxury Tax,
• Marriage License Tax,
• Medicare Tax,
• Property Tax,
• Real Estate Tax,
• Service charge taxes,
• Social Security Tax,
• Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
• Sales Taxes,
• Recreational Vehicle Tax,
• School Tax,
• State Income Tax,
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
• Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
• Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
• Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax,
• Telephone Minimum Usage
• Surcharge Tax,
• Telephone Recurring and
• Non-recurring Charges Tax,
• Telephone State and Local Tax,
• Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
• Utility Tax,
• Vehicle Lic ense Registration Tax,
• Vehicle Sales Tax,
• Watercraft Registration Tax,
• Well Permit Tax,
• Workers Compensation Tax.
 

BC1

,
And who is stealing money? The Walton's amassed a $147 Billion fortune by buying cheap chinese products selling them here, costing US manufacturing jobs, and for the record the largest private trading partner with China is Walmart, while underpaying it's employees so much that the US taxpayer pays $6.2 BILLION annually to provide government assistance to their employees. Personally I think their using my tax dollars to subsidize their employees so they can pocket more money is stealing from me.
And here's the answer to that. It isn't higher tax or socialism. Those companies trade with China because American lawmakers make it legal to do so. Whn Obama had control of Congress he could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen. He could have raised import taxes to the point where American companies wouldn't have left in droves. Additionally, China manipulates it's currency. They pay their state workers at one rate and use another rate when selling to the stupid Americans. Yet Obama just signed another lopsided trade deal with them.
.
Walmart isn't a charity. They're a publicly traded corporation who's only goal is profit. They employ nearly 1.4 million Americans. That's above 1% of adults in America. Those employees choose to work there. Free will. They can always start a landscaping business if they don't like their job. If China was cutoff at the knees what would happen? America would see a rekindling of production of goods. Union wages and benefits would raise the costs of those products though. Retail prices would likely rise, but so would American's ability to afford them. And how many people who complain about Walmart own their stock either privately or through their 401K mutual fund? Obama could have fixed this and didn't. He had two years of unfettered access to Congress. Corporations currently hold over $18 trillion overseas. More than our entire deficit. As long as the threat of raising taxes exists, that $18 trillion will remain offshore. It won't go to corporate expansion projects, increased labor or wages. The constant threat of taxes holds spending and production down. Some companies, especially small business are making a 3% profit. Tell me where they'll get the money for higher wages AND higher taxes. Simply unattainable. I closed. In all, 19-20 employees and 16 contractors lost their job. Let Obama explain it to them.
 

GryHounnd

Banned
And here's the answer to that. It isn't higher tax or socialism. Those companies trade with China because American lawmakers make it legal to do so. Whn Obama had control of Congress he could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen. He could have raised import taxes to the point where American companies wouldn't have left in droves. Additionally, China manipulates it's currency. They pay their state workers at one rate and use another rate when selling to the stupid Americans. Yet Obama just signed another lopsided trade deal with them.

Speaking of double speak, there's the typical republican double speak, cut off trade, raise tarrifs & manufacturing will magically come back to America. What I did not hear is how many jobs it will cost. How about the increase unemployment AND increase costs of everything since our No. 1 trading partner IS China. Plus Walmart goes out of business or has to lay off a significant portion of it's workforce because they have to raise ALL of their prices and cut payroll to remain competitive. Great Solution

..
Walmart isn't a charity. They're a publicly traded corporation who's only goal is profit. They employ nearly 1.4 million Americans. That's above 1% of adults in America. Those employees choose to work there. Free will. They can always start a landscaping business if they don't like their job. If China was cutoff at the knees what would happen? America would see a rekindling of production of goods. Union wages and benefits would raise the costs of those products though. Retail prices would likely rise, but so would American's ability to afford them. And how many people who complain about Walmart own their stock either privately or through their 401K mutual fund? Obama could have fixed this and didn't. He had two years of unfettered access to Congress. Corporations currently hold over $18 trillion overseas. More than our entire deficit. As long as the threat of raising taxes exists, that $18 trillion will remain offshore. It won't go to corporate expansion projects, increased labor or wages. The constant threat of taxes holds spending and production down. Some companies, especially small business are making a 3% profit. Tell me where they'll get the money for higher wages AND higher taxes. Simply unattainable. I closed. In all, 19-20 employees and 16 contractors lost their job. Let Obama explain it to them.

THERE IT IS!!!! Now tell me BC, what was that argument you were making a little bit ago in another thread, about how you shouldn't have to move because you grew up in NY? Why is it good for Walmart Employees to choose to get a different job (if that is an option for them, which it may not be) but it's not good enough for you to move if you don't like the property or state taxes where you live? Can you tell me?

Then there's NYS governor Andrew Cuomo. NY residents can save for college through a tax-deferred 529 plan. It's the only way some families will ever see college. After pitching this great plan during his campaign he's now talking with fellow democrats about taxing it. Taxing the middle class' college savings. In direct contravention of everything the left says about raising the middle class. I remember Mario Cuomo as governor saying he cut taxes. Someone in the audience stood-up and asked then why did my taxes go up? He didn't know. He cut school aid, putting the burden of raising revenues on the property owners in the district. Our school tax doubled. He cut state tax by shifting to the districts. It was typical double-speak. The middle class took that hit. In NYS the middle class homeowner is being broken by school tax. My high school was 71% minority. How many of those parents contributed to their kids education? Well, no one who rented an apartment anyway.
Please I would really like to know why it's NOT OKAY to suggest that you move if you don't like your property taxes (even though you should easily have the resources to do so if you have as much as you claim) when YOU b!tch? But, it's OKAY for you to say that the working poor at Walmart, who have far fewer resources or choices than you, can choose to get a different job. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THAT'S OK!?!
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
My business was software engineering consulting. We specialized in three areas; banking/brokerage, government security, digital forensic examinations. Business boomed through the 80's and 90's as America built it's tech infrastructure. That bubble began to pop around 1999 when investors got wise to the virtual company. Our work included Internet contracts with eTrade, WebMD, Charles Schwab, Royal Bank of Scotland and numerous county governments.
.
I paid my software developers $75K to $90K per year, health benefits, vacation and unlimited sick time. Developers were required to have an MSCS (Masters Computer Science) and experience in their discipline. I paid temp consultants $80 per hour as contractors (1099). I billed my clients $165 per hour, per developer on projects. Money used to flow in NYC. Rent was $36K per month. Shocking, but that's cheap considering mid-town Manhattan. Education, software and tech expenses were very high as the industry changes monthly and people are constantly back in 1-2 week classes for new technology. Of course there's a zillion little expenses that add-up. In 2008 projects started drying-up. There weren't as many RFP's to reply. I found companies were afraid of the threats of higher taxation coming from Washington and pulled-back projects. I let free-lance consultants go first. Soon there were none. By 2010 only employees were working. I could have let them all go and hired Indian consultants who charge $40 per hour. They'll work for nothing. I also could have sent the work overseas and paid $27 per hour. I decided it wasn't worth it anymore. I had been retired for some years. But as the controlling partner (62.5% ownership) I made the decision to close. Besides I hadn't actually worked since around 2003. I was around for advice and decisions only. So 19 people were let go. One partner bought-out the intellectual property and is still making an attempt at success. But the contracts haven't come back even though the Dow has. He's now using a firm in Manila for his back-office.
.
Now on the liberal, socialist, democrat side of this issue there are mixed messages. Obama wants to give everyone a free junior college education. I'm on board with that. Very good use of tax resources because we need to educate an entire country if we're to return to a world power. Then there's NYS governor Andrew Cuomo. NY residents can save for college through a tax-deferred 529 plan. It's the only way some families will ever see college. After pitching this great plan during his campaign he's now talking with fellow democrats about taxing it. Taxing the middle class' college savings. In direct contravention of everything the left says about raising the middle class. I remember Mario Cuomo as governor saying he cut taxes. Someone in the audience stood-up and asked then why did my taxes go up? He didn't know. He cut school aid, putting the burden of raising revenues on the property owners in the district. Our school tax doubled. He cut state tax by shifting to the districts. It was typical double-speak. The middle class took that hit. In NYS the middle class homeowner is being broken by school tax. My high school was 71% minority. How many of those parents contributed to their kids education? Well, no one who rented an apartment anyway.
.
The middle class is getting hammered by dozens of taxes daily that they don't even know exist. And these taxes keep going up, silently. Here's some outrage for everyone.
.
• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• CDL License Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel Perm it Tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inheritance Tax
• Inventory Tax
• IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
• IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
• Liquor Tax,
• Luxury Tax,
• Marriage License Tax,
• Medicare Tax,
• Property Tax,
• Real Estate Tax,
• Service charge taxes,
• Social Security Tax,
• Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
• Sales Taxes,
• Recreational Vehicle Tax,
• School Tax,
• State Income Tax,
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
• Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
• Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
• Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax,
• Telephone Minimum Usage
• Surcharge Tax,
• Telephone Recurring and
• Non-recurring Charges Tax,
• Telephone State and Local Tax,
• Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
• Utility Tax,
• Vehicle Lic ense Registration Tax,
• Vehicle Sales Tax,
• Watercraft Registration Tax,
• Well Permit Tax,
• Workers Compensation Tax.

So you made a nice living and provided a nice living for people because of your computer software business. Congrats! Thank the US government for that. The first real computer, there were one's with very limited abilities prior, was ENIAC, funded by the US Government to calculate artillery ballistics. Oh and did your software business make any money from writing code for E commerce? Well Thank DARPA, a US government program for creating the internet. Without funding from the government, none of those things were likely to happen mostly because private industry doesn't usually have the financial resources for that level of R&D. Private enterprise commits resources based on ROI, usually fairly short term, the government bases it on need. As it turns out most R&D that has a significant impact on society comes from government funding, most often though the military.

The government is basically a service provider and as our society has grown more and more complicated through technology, the scope of government has expanded. You didn't have an FAA 100 years ago, or NASA, or weather satellites, an FCC, etc, etc, etc. As new technologies come around, new problems related to them come about, just look at cyber attacks and computer hacking, new problems create new departments to deal with them. That's just the way it is, and the more complex the technology and it's related problems, the more regulation is required to keep things from going haywire. Would you ever knowingly fly on a plane not FAA certified? Would you knowingly eat at a restaurant where the food handlers were not required to wash their hands after they use the bathroom?

When I lived in NY my property taxes were $24k, most of which was school taxes, and I don't even have kids. But then again I went to public school and got a pretty decent education, for free, my parents like many in NYC were renters, so I'm just paying it back.

As for all those little taxes, most of which are fees, they are a la carte items, you only pay the watercraft fee if you have a watercraft, most of those fees are because they have to keep records of things, like marriages, and have to maintain them indefinitely. That requires some staff and some facilities. As for Social Security, workers comp, and medicare, those are basically pension or insurance policies. And while mandatory have changed for the better the quality of life for most Americans as they age, get injured or get sick. Prior to SS, if you were old and hadn't saved for old age, unless you had family to live with, you literally ended up in a poor house. And while in rural areas most often old people would live with their kids, in the rapidly growing urban areas, that was often not an option. You can call it nanny state, but it exists because there are plenty of irresponsible people out there who need a grown up making decisions for them because they create problems for the rest of us. The problem with most programs and laws is that they exist for the few idiots out there with no common sense.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,610
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top