U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia Area
1,723 posts, read 1,080,151 times
Reputation: 1353

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
By definition, 50 percent of wage earners in the US had net compensation less than or equal to the median wage, which is estimated to be $26,363.55 for 2010. Wage Statistics for 2010

You expect these folks to relate his tax rate to their situation...

He makes twice their yearly income per day.

Interesting.
That median salary is heinous for 2010-2012. And I've got the anecdotes to back that up. This time sourced to the original quotes since I've learned to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_windwalker
Original Post: http://www.city-data.com/forum/21850164-post120.html


From reading the posts, perhaps, the first thing to do, in order to come up with a solution, is identify exactly what "income inequity" is.

In 1960, the average income for semi-professional and non-professional jobs was $7060 a year. In 2010, the average income for those same jobs was $45,406. (source of information is athttp://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1) And, from another source,. the 2010 figure is about 25% too high. Unfortunately, I do not have the link to the other source.

According to another source, http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1 executive income has gone up six times in just the last twenty years. Another words, an exec that is making $360,000 today, was only making $60,000 twenty years ago.

It says that executive pay went up an average of 30% each year for the last twenty years while middle-class America has only gotten an average of 12% each year for the last fifty years. And, we're not including bonuses or "Golden Parachutes".

One more area to look at, and this is from my own experience. In 1965 and 1966, I was making $8,000 a year. I was also paying 17 cents a gallon for gasoline. Just today, the current price of gasoline at the corner gas station at the corner is $3.599. To maintain the ratio between income and the cost of gasoline, today's average income should be about $170,000 a year.

In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000) The last premium I paid on car insurance came out to $147 a month. Back in 1973, the monthly cost was just $8.50. To maintain the ratio of income to car insurance premiums, today's average income should be about $240,000 a year. Want to check with IRS and see just how many "Average Americans" are actually making that much? And, the story is the same no matter what area of expense you look at, groceries, utilities, housing, etc.

That is what is "INCOME INEQUITY". What to do about it is the "$64,000 question". Solutions are sure to be as varied as the people that offer them, but now, you should be able to come up with a better informed opinion.

Now, with regard to the quote, by all means, give your kids every advantage you can. Stress education. Any kind of court record will hurt their chances for a successful career. But, keep in mind...

Let's say that 99% of the next generation gets a master's degree. (No, I don't think that's realistic) It's also not realistic to think that every one of them will get jobs where they will use that degree. There will be a number of them serving at Pizza Hut. A good education and a clean record does not give them a guarantee, but it does improve their chances at a comfortable life." (end quote)


Congratulations the_windwalker, you've earned a spot on my anecdotes collection that's meant to show in a very concrete way the wage stagflation or really deflation experienced for the bottom 80-90 percent of workers the last 30-40 years. I submit only the top 1- 20% percent of wage earners has kept up with cost inflation. That's 2 in 10 workers, certainly NOT middle class, and I think 20% is pushing it. More like the top 10%.

Keep in mind when you read these anecdotes and watch Dr. Warren's lecture think RATIOS. That's exactly my point. For example: "In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000). How many people now make 40% more IN ONE YEAR than the value of their HOME!!!!: cool: :thi nk: GuyNTexas' anecdote illustrates this point very well also.

Read more: Income Inequality: What To Do About It?

Originally Posted by workingclasshero
Original post:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/15893673-post369.html
so what does that make ...heck the MINIIMUM salery for the WORST player in the NFL is 310k...are you SERIOUSLY going to call a benchwarmer rich????


I'm sure a guy making 400k will say he is poor complared to bill gates and his BILLIONS...or the millioniares like John Kerry

250k is almost the median price of a house....NATIONWIDE......the median in the northeast is 260k...... http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm

just because SALARIES havent kept up with INFLATION doesnt mean we should still CLASSIFY based on 1955/1965 numbers.......average salary in 1966..6900...median house price 14k....about 50% right...use those numbers compared to the meadin house....the median salary SHOULD be 130k...not 50k



sorry but this is not 1955 , when 250k was rich...please get with the times...its 2010


Here is the_windwalkers explanation to a reply:
Original Post:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/21850961-post142.html
"The "inequity" comes in where the expenses have out-paced the income for the average American. While EVERYTHING ELSE has gone up, income for the "middle-class" has stagnated over the last fifty years. That is the problem with the economy today. The "middle-class", the MAJORITY of Americans do not have enough money to keep the economy flowing. Inequity = DIS-PROPORTIONATE".

Show me just one exec whose decisions are actually worth a million dollars a day. Even just a thousand dollars a day. Think about it. As great as he was, even Steve Jobs is now replaced. And, as great as he was for the company, he was not that great for America. Look where your Apple product is made. American jobs?

Ever hear of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"? Keep raising your prices, and eventually, you'll price yourself out of business. That is what Corporate America has done. They have priced the economy out of business.

Take a look at the cost of a kit to put a motor on a bicycle. A 50 CC kit has gone up nearly $100 because of the demand. They're replacing cars with motorized bicycles and scooters. And, the auto industry isn't doing as well as they were ten years ago.

If a cashier is being paid exactly what they are worth, then we're paying far more for everything than it's worth. Gasoline isn't worth $3.599 a gallon. Why are we paying that much? Car insurance is not worth what we're paying. Why are we paying it?"

Withou further ado here's the rest of the collection. In my opinion no one who is honest, can think critically and do math can deny what's contained herein:

Pay close attention to the years in the following posts of people who lived in the mid 70's-early 80's:

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher Original Post:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/21049746-post9.html
Sad. I made $9 an hour during the Summer break in the mid 1980s running telephone lines in office buildings. It was a horrible low paying job then. You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents. That same job today would be need to pay $18.50 per hour. If you have no perspective on how things suck..you'll settle for anything. The USA will look like these ghettos in Brazil before people wake up to this right wing propaganda they've been spoon fed for 30 years.

THIS!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+100000000

Right on padcrasher!!!!!!!!!

"You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents." Maybe not even that much.

Once again this post is appropriate.

Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Original Post: http://www.city-data.com/forum/19747215-post241.html
Just because things were better, doesn't mean they were great. I don't deny that there were folks like yourself. Nevertheless, more opportunity (on average) did exist back then.

During college I worked part time at a warehouse. One of my co workers was a Guyanese who came into the US illegally in '77 or '78 (he later received amnesty under Reagan). He used to tell me how his first job, as an illegal, paid $10.50/hour. In 2006, after he was laid off from a warehouse making 33/hour, we were working for $12/hr. $10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?

Originally Posted by workingclasshero:
Original Post:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/18639961-post118.html

it doesnt

its becoming harder to afford many things for all people

a personal example...I make about 3 times what my father made at his highest level...and it is tougher for me to make ends meet that it was for him

look at the price of a car...a midsize chevy (say the nova) in 1970 was $2200.....today a midsize chevy is 20k or more

the value of the dollar is in the toilet

Yep!!!!! And going lower. Wait till QE3 LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea:
Original Post: http://www.city-data.com/forum/15645787-post5.html
Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.

In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour. One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paychecks each month were disposable income.

An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20).

GuyNTexas says IT ALL Here!!!!

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas:
Original Post: http://www.city-data.com/forum/15876838-post225.html
No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.

By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.

As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )

Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.

My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then. I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year old working in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ... I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.

This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.

Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)

Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?

Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....

So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency (a hidden tax).

So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.

There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.

I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company.












YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class


Read more: Marc Faber says Americans need to work more for lower salaries...

And this documentary EXPLAINS IT ALL:

I know the videos take 4 hours to watch but consider this a minny course of how we got here!


The Money Masters - Full - YouTube

Last edited by CK78; 01-31-2012 at 12:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,332 posts, read 14,052,247 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78 View Post
HC...I thought you got banned
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia Area
1,723 posts, read 1,080,151 times
Reputation: 1353
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
HC...I thought you got banned
Why would I get banned? 1st amendment and thinking outside the box is not tolerated on city-data?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:27 PM
 
1,661 posts, read 1,192,695 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The spin machine has been out in full force distorting the truth about Romney's income tax return rate, which is slightly under an effective rate of 15%.

97% of Americans pay less than an effective income tax rate of 15%.

47% of American households pay an effective tax rate of 0% or even make a profit off of income taxes.

Maybe Romney should/could pay more...but the spin that he pays less than the common American is a lie.

Furthermore, ALL Americans pay 15% on Dividends...additionally Democrats like JFK and Bill Clinton have encouraged investing through means like lowering the dividend tax rate, as they believed that investing helps the economy.
Allow me some facts:

Of those 47% who pay no taxes:

Half of that number, a quarter of the population, don't exceed the standard deduction. For a family of 4, it's 26,400. So these people need to pay more taxes?

22% of the people who pay no income tax are seniors on Social Security, so they need to pay mroe taxes?

15% of those who pay no taxes are AMT filers, single parents who receive tax credits. So THESE people need to pay more taxes?

OR

We close the loopholes and raise the tax on dividents and investment income to a higher rate.

I like that idea.

Bleating the standard complaint "half the country pays no income tax" sounds like populist anger, until you actually see who receives that benefit and how little those people make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:27 PM
 
15,734 posts, read 9,253,176 times
Reputation: 14217
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
No. People that don't need Social Security shouldn't get it. They are secure already. If you earn more than say $150,000 a year in retirement then you don't need social security.
SS is not about need. It's about getting out of a system that you contribute to. And why $150,000? Why not $60,000? $500,000? Who gets to decide?

For argument's sake, let's say you don't get SS if you earn over a certain amount of money. Then will you go for folks opting out of paying INTO SS? Because if you don't, that's theft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:32 PM
 
1,661 posts, read 1,192,695 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
SS is not about need. It's about getting out of a system that you contribute to. And why $150,000? Why not $60,000? $500,000? Who gets to decide?

For argument's sake, let's say you don't get SS if you earn over a certain amount of money. Then will you go for folks opting out of paying INTO SS? Because if you don't, that's theft.
Needs-based entitlement reform is inevitable. Bank on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 02:26 PM
 
4,260 posts, read 2,976,088 times
Reputation: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Beebe View Post
Bleating the standard complaint "half the country pays no income tax" sounds like populist anger, until you actually see who receives that benefit and how little those people make.

Because they failed at the game of life , others are forced to subsidize their existance? Great plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2012, 02:35 PM
 
16,553 posts, read 11,497,119 times
Reputation: 4230
I can't believe how the Lefties here are all over Romney for this, but went to battle for Warren Buffet who pays the same rate as Romney due to capital gains, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top