Thread: Obama's Change

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Yes but wasn't income tax started as a temporary solution to funding WWII? How long is temporary?

I think it was WWI. But yeah, you're preaching to the choir on that point.

As with anything it's a slippery slope. Copyright law is a similar deal. The law says that Congress can reward rights to authors for "limited times". The purpose was to motivate authors to write.

Those "limited times" have grow to about 100 years depending on the nature of the work. I don't know about most people, but keeping my shit for 50 years would probably motivate me as much as keeping my shit for 100 years.

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by Nuckle

I do not remember giving permission to take 40% of everything I own. I was under the impression that the close to 50% I pay in taxes was enough.

Near the end of WWII the top tax bracket reached 94%. Middle class was up around 55% We're still living large comparatively speaking.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

But, the cost of living expenses has risen above what we paid in the 1950's. So we have less money to spend on luxury items and less to put into savings.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...#pageTopAnchor

Though middle-class U.S. families earn more today than prior generations -- due in large part to dual incomes -- the proportion of their incomes needed to cover necessities is much higher. A study by Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren found that the proportion of middle-class income spent on housing, health care, transportation and child care is now almost double what it was a generation earlier. Taxes have increased proportionally as well. As a result, the middle class has been spending less on clothing and food -- budget items that are more flexible when times are tough.

So, all of the flexible spending we used to have as middle class is gone. People are not buying as many CD's, Mochachinno's, blue jeans, etc. That hurts our economy and our way of life. The middle class has become the lower class.

Originally Posted by knigtstemplar

So, all of the flexible spending we used to have as middle class is gone. People are not buying as many CD's, Mochachinno's, blue jeans, etc. That hurts our economy and our way of life. The middle class has become the lower class.

I have to respectfully disagree. What the article says is that "the proportion of middle-class income spent on housing, health care, transportation and child care is now almost double what it was a generation earlier."

What it neglects to say is why that proportion has increased to almost double. I'm confident that if we look at consumption we will see that the middle class is consuming twice as much as they need and obviously more than they can afford.

Back in the 1970's, which I presume is the "generation earlier" that the author is referring to, I would bet that a middle-class family lived in a 1200 sq. ft. home with one TV and maybe two cars.

Nowadays a middle-class family expects to live in a 2400 sq. ft. home with maybe three flat screen TVs + cable TV bill, cell phone bill, wall phone bill, three cars, a new Harley or other toy, and $150/mo Starbucks tab. Crazy.

I still live in an old 2 bedroom house, have an old jalopy boat, two cars that are almost ten years old each, and a cold fridge. The beer budget is to die for and plucking my own fishin' worms makes me happy. That's old school middle-class.

That is also a large part of the problem Motoz, as you can see I mentioned it earlier.

Originally Posted by knigtstemplar

Predatory lending by the banking and lending institutions, and consumers spending money that they don't have is a large part of our economic problem .

Originally Posted by knigtstemplar

That is also a large part of the problem Motoz, as you can see I mentioned it earlier.

Originally Posted by knigtstemplar

Predatory lending by the banking and lending institutions, and consumers spending money that they don't have is a large part of our economic problem .

Yes.

I also found this on the web. Interesting graph. More house=more carpet, more furniture, more paint, more...bills.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5525283

I just have one question for everyone: Does it make sense to loan a person $300,000 plus interest for a home when that person's total family income is $30,000 a year for a family of four when that person has a history of missing car payments?



My whole view on this economic problem is this: Americans have gotten too preoccupied with keeping up with the Jones family next door. Historically in this country, people did not want to be "beholden" to anyone. Many people would willingly quite literally starve before taking a handout for someone or borrowing money. It was generally understood that you didn't spend money that you didn't have and lived within your means. Unfortunately in America today, the overall feeling if you have to borrow money is "So what?" People don't seem to have a problem buying a car that costs $30,000 when their yearly income before taxes is $40,000. People seem to have this idea that they must live in a large house in the suburbs, drive two cars (neither of which can be more than 3 years old), take a week long vacation to Disney every year, maintain a whole suite of home electronics that is from the over-priced name brand company, and buy designer clothes; creditors be damned.

That illusion of every family in America having that perfect little life has gotten us to where we are today. The government created two large mortgage companies that gave loans out to everyone so that everyone could own a home. What no one thought about was the exceptionally large amount of people in this country that don't know how to manage their money. And then they made a bad situation worse by lowering the bar for people to get loans even further and forced a lot of companies to give out loans that they normally wouldn't have. This caused lots and lots of people who shouldn't have necessarily owned a home to go buy one, and other people to buy two or three, and still others to buy a dozen or so hoping to make a quick buck. And anyone who knows anything about economics knows that supply and demand has a great effect on prices; the high demand for houses led to higher prices and lots of new homes being built. Unfortunately, a large number of people who shouldn't have been given loans defaulted on their mortgages. This led to people not being paid the money that they were owed and more and more houses available on the market. Prices dropped, the housing market started to tank, and the pressure of bad loans started to weaken the banks. Together, all of these worked together to start a general downward trend in the American economy that led to people saving instead of spending, lowering sales and further depressing the economy. And once that first step was taken, it wasn't going to stop. We are just going along for the ride.

Nice find Motoz, that really shows how much we "need" today

What'll be interesting is to see what "they" dream up for our new economy. The stimulus package only buys time until the underlying problem is solved. We used to make money by building stuff for each other. Granted the stuff was expensive, but how many TV's, stereos, toasters, etc can a reasonable man use anyway?

We've already stooped so low as to market bottled water and penis pills to each other. The next go round will be a real doozy to watch. I'm glad to be a small part of one of the bright spots - TTP.

Originally Posted by asianator365

.
.
.
My whole view on this economic problem is this: Americans have gotten too preoccupied with keeping up with the Jones family next door.
.
.
.

The economists have a similar view. That's why they are so focused on the Consumer Confidence index and retail spending. The Consumer Confidence index is basically a measure of consumer's willingness to borrow to play the economists' games.

Consumer Confidence Index

http://www.conference-board.org/econ...Confidence.cfm