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.
There absolutley was a global economy. Going back to the founding days of our nation we were importing and exporting things all around the world. In fact going back 100% of the nations tax revenues came from taxes on products that we imported.
This would suggest there's been quite a shift in the last 40 years.
There absolutley was a global economy. Going back to the founding days of our nation we were importing and exporting things all around the world. In fact going back 100% of the nations tax revenues came from taxes on products that we imported.
Do you understand the difference between marginal, and effective tax rates?
Do you have any positive experience, or just argue each point? Are you able to have a discussion?
MR Willys,
Everytime you ask a poster if they are able to have a discussion it is after they make a point. Whcihc tells the reader you are the one unable to take in the points made after your questions have been answered. You may not like the answers but that does not mean they are wrong answers.
You are starting with a distorted assumption, there never was an actual 91% tax rate, so why discuss it as if there was?
Effective tax rates mattered then as they do now.
I have read that the effective tax rate on high income earners in the 50's was 50-60%. Today, the effective tax rate for high income earners is around 30%.
Rule based, former U.S. middle class jobs, were/are the brunt of eliminated jobs.
Productivity and total employment tracked each other in the 50's and began to diverge in the 80's. Around 2000, productivity continued to rise but employment began to significantly wilt. There is now a huge gap between economic growth and employment. The people blame their leaders and the other party and the leaders blame the other party. This is not unique to the U.S.
People without answers have a tendency to blame.
The only thing one can blame is technological progress. First came the wheel, then animal husbandry, followed by steam and fuel engines, and now robotics and computers. Throughout history, man has strived to offload his labor. There are far more tasks that can be automated than not.
Some of the biggest job creators will be in the drone, robotics, and cyber security industries. It's another case of one high paying highly skilled job replacing several unskilled jobs. If people can't adapt they will perish. We are going broke trying to prop up the people who can't, or never intend to, adapt and learn.
We'll always have construction trades, engineering, arts, fabrication, and domestic/hospitality jobs. Some skills will never be replaced, but our industrial age... over, gone, done - slowly being replaced by the age of technology (which began after WWII) which is still in its infancy.
Rule based, former U.S. middle class jobs, were/are the brunt of eliminated jobs.
Productivity and total employment tracked each other in the 50's and began to diverge in the 80's. Around 2000, productivity continued to rise but employment began to significantly wilt. There is now a huge gap between economic growth and employment. The people blame their leaders and the other party and the leaders blame the other party. This is not unique to the U.S.
People without answers have a tendency to blame.
But we now have more people, and with more people come increased demand, so while productivity of company A increased, there are now more companies.
Do you have any positive experience, or just argue each point? Are you able to have a discussion?
Of course there has been a shift in the last 40 years.. over the last 40 years we've legislated more and given companies a reason to offshore..
Why would it shock you that they did the very thing government encouraged them to do, and then as a solution, increase the incentive for businesses to do the very same thing you're whining about?
I have read that the effective tax rate on high income earners in the 50's was 50-60%. Today, the effective tax rate for high income earners is around 30%.
Except that the highest earners also have the ability to invest in lawmakers. The effective tax rate can be 100%, but with all the loopholes, that only the wealthy can take advantage of, it matters little.
We need a flat or fair tax and a resetting of all deductions. There should only be common sense deductions, like not taxing interest paid on borrowed money such as the mortgage deduction.
We need:
- Term limits so politicians can't forge long standing agendas, effectively turning their jobs into piggy banks.
- Strict lobbying policies. The little guy always gets crushed by the big guy, which is the polar opposite of how our system is designed.
- Accountability, as defined by the dictionary (unlike the definition the current administration uses) over spending, law making, performance, and oversight.
Those three items alone would solve most of our issues.
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.
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.
