To use 51 to 63 as a baseline we would have to, first have a world war the destroyed most of the world infrastructure but left us untouched. Second then enact trade policies that allowed our industry to capitalize on this. Third our foreign policy would have to be about making sure US owned corporations maximized the investments as other countries rebuilt from the war.

People like to grab stats and points in time to promote a point of view. Best one I bumped into was the farmers. Everyone upset they were going broke, concerts, much concern. Real numbers 25% of the farmers in VERY bad shape. 50% doing just fine. 25% doing better than ever. Base line? Tax policies and government subsidies had made it so the small family farm could not compete. The problem was not driven by market or natural conditions but by government tax & regulation policies.

Any time someone grabs stats to make a point usually best to not place to much faith in them. Their next job will more than likely be selling fire water!

the gov believes they can spend the rich folks money better than they can...

The fact is 'rich'(love that term) folks don't spend all their income, thus stimulating the economy.
They save it in tax havens.
The lower and middle class are the ones spending all their income, thus stimulating the economy, and taking on debt.

Making the rich pay more taxes is unAmerican. Or at least some people say that.

I found this article interesting. It basically shows how the after-tax income of different economic strata has changed since 1979. It is fairly revealing.

Since 1979:
The poorest 20% of the country make 16% more now than they did then.
The middle 20% of the country make 25% more now than they did then.
The top 20% of the country make 97% more now than they did then.
The top 1% (who were obviously already rich) make 297% more than they did then.

A real-life example of the rich becoming relatively richer.

A boring link from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

-AP

Wow, interesting and thought provoking. Economies are immensely complicated and probably "un-knowable" in the long run... I'm sure it's easy to turn up examples of highly taxed economies which were miserable failures too.

But if anything it may argue for a less-than-expected correlation between tax rates and the economy either way.

move to Denmark, unmpoyment non-existant, college free...Tax rate 50%

Anyone that is skilled and wants to make money leaves the country, everyone else lives in the fishbowl.

There aint nuthin like being American, not sure why so many people are deadset to fuk us over. You can do anything you want in this country, your choices cost you, and they damn well should.

What about when you don't make a choice... and it still costs you HOOKUP?

Like in the VAST majority of cases.

Do you REALLY think that unemployment is at 10% and home foreclosure rates are high and continuing to rise simply because folks made bad choices?

You don't really have to answer... I can tell from your posts that you probably do.

The fact is that you are simply clueless and are completely incapable of comprehending anything more than the right-wing talking points you regurgitate here.

Hey I know... why don't you move to say Somalia. No government, no taxes... a veritable wingnut paradise.

Absolutely. If you want to be an American, it should cost you. If you want to be a business owner, it should cost you. You want to own property, it should cost you. Freedom isn't free.

Do you gubment apologists think 200k per year is rich?

Just wondering where your line is.

Last I checked being a business owner did cost me. The property I own also costs me. Everything has a price. Should we price things so nobody can afford anything and then just wait for it to be handed out as part of some social program?

ah not to spoil the chit chat but demographics are really a batch of crap anymore. The reason is cost of living and the fact that high tax, high service states like WA & CA have as a whole, higher cost for everything due to taxes and government regulation. Even medical cost and the federal government pays more to these states because it cost more to live. WA is right in the mix.

Go to Montana, Texas, Georgia non high tax / service states your housing cost ( outside metro areas ) is lower, as all other things including wages but you don't need as much because you keep more. That is one of the big unsaid rubs in congress. The D's want to break the right to work laws as almost NONE of the new green energy jobs will be located in H&T states, so drive is to get wages and benefits up. I sorta support that but having been union all my life I know it will not work, but that is another story.

So 50k in Seattle gets you one thing, Helena another, New Mexico another. We are not comparable at all due to state & local governments. Want to freak out? Price something in New York.

One other thing. Middle class fled to the burbs, big traffic jams on roads, now they are coming back and cities are ( other than steel belt & NE ) becoming less minority driven and the burbs are getting a larger minority population. Redistricting should be a gun fight!

Even medical cost and the federal government pays more to these states because it cost more to live. WA is right in the mix.

Actually the feds pay a higher percentage of AFDC Medicaid, Aid to the Blind etc. to low income states. It's a precentage based on per capita income. So the wealthier staes get a lower fedral participation rate.

Ok stand corrected but explain how the same medical procedure in NY gets a larger payment than say Alabama? Oh yes that is off a CNN lead a while back so I really would like to know.

Am I missing % vs the amount of $$$ ?

Rivrguy:

That’s because Medicaid and Medicare pay based on the 75% of all charges for a given procedure in an area. So if an ingrown toenail fix is say $75 in Texas and $150 in Ney York. The feds pay the New York Drs more. If they used a national average the Texas Dr. would be overpaid and no New York doctor would participate

As for what do I call rich that’s an interesting question. Typical tax trial balloons have defined it as $200 for a single person and $400 for a married couple. I think if I made that much I would consider myself rich.

As Chris Rock says, there's a big difference between rich and wealthy. Alex Rodriguez is rich. The guy who pays him is wealthy.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention--being the rich successful businessman that you are--but we're already fast approaching that era here in America. I don't suppose you've ever pondered why there are more countries that successfully implement a model of liberal social programs than countries that do not?

Owning a business and property is a privilege, not a right. One of the many wonderful things about American freedom is the inalienable right not to own either one, thus saving us from the incessant sniveling and whining of the cost of ownership.

As I recall $250K was considered rich when Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for president. Now it is $200K (more for married). It is a lot of money when compared to what the rest of the country makes. But, again, depends on where you live (New York vs Bumb Fck Texas). I am sure that NY Doctor pays a helluva lot more for his office, utilities, help, etc., while the other one pays a lot less because of location. But it is not just where you live, it is how you live.

I am two weeks from retirement. As much as I love this area, I learned I could also love Idaho and do. Had to make the move to get us closer to Gandchildren, but the real drivers where affordability of housing, close to good medical, major airport, easy to get back here, and close to shopping. Being ten minutes from Cabelas though is costing me money. Turns out I am saving a butt load of money on taxes, especially property tax. I am in a bigger, newer, and nicer house paying 10% of what I paid over here for property tax and the house cost me $153K less then my lesser house over here sold for. Got an income tax now, but Idaho is considerably lower then Washington in total tax paid by residents. I love that gas which averages 20 + a cents a gallon cheaper then over here and from all I can find out so far, excellent fishing. I will report on that once I am not working. Medical, all I got to say is ooooooooouch! But, it wouldn't be much better here. All my toys are paid for and my small house payment is less then the rent for this crummy apartment I have been living in during the work week since March.

You can be as rich as you want, just depends on your needs.

Haven't heard anybody talk yet about some of the "rich" that write there own wages, ie: They work at a job where most of the compensation comes from working longer hours--- 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Why should they pay higher taxes?

You can be as rich as you want, just depends on your needs.


Or as Janis told us. "Freedom is nothing left to lose."