Taxes these days are amazing

[CDSmith]

Amazing I tell you.

Skim down this list of existing taxes in the USA
and then read the comments below...


Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

Capital Gains Tax

CDL license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Court Fines
(indirect taxes)

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel permit tax

Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon)

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax Interest expense
(tax on the money)

Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)

IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Local Income Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Septic Permit Tax

Service Charge Taxes

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Taxes
(Truckers)

Sales Taxes

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Road Toll Booth Taxes

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax
(SUTA)

Telephone federal excise tax

Telephone federal universal service fee tax

Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes

Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax

Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax

Telephone state and local tax

Telephone usage charge tax

Toll Bridge Taxes

Toll Tunnel Taxes

Traffic Fines
(indirect taxation)

Trailer registration tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax



COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and back then the USA was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened?!


Same or similar goes for Canada too.

[SomeCreep]

Then where does all that hard earned money go? To Iraq, to fight for freedom and rebuild their land.

[Brujah]

In 1863, the federal government collected the first income tax. This graduated tax was similar to the income tax we pay today. Those who earned $600 to $10,000 per year paid at a rate of 3 percent. A higher rate was paid by those who earned in excess of $10,000.

[Fizzgig]

Well, they didn't have superhighways and stealth bombers back then. Still you'd think that doesn't account for the whole mess.

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and back then the USA was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened?!

Open a history book. ;)

World War I. The great depression. World War II. The cold war. Oil Crisis. Moon shot. Recession. Stagflation. Terrorism.

And through it all, ever rising debt fueled by rampant consumerism.

Same or similar goes for Canada too.

Same as above to a lesser extent. Fortunately we at least get something for our tax money, and often pay less than the more heavily burdened south of the border types.

[Downtime]

yeah the self-employment tax can suck my third nut

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by rickholio

Open a history book. ;)

World War I. The great depression. World War II. The cold war. Oil Crisis. Moon shot. Recession. Stagflation. Terrorism.

And through it all, ever rising debt fueled by rampant consumerism.


Same as above to a lesser extent. Fortunately we at least get something for our tax money, and often pay less than the more heavily burdened south of the border types.

I think you may have missed the point of it Rick. I don't read it as the author bitching about taxes per se, but he does make it a point to mention how 100 years later things have changed drastically. I especially took note of the last part about mom no longer being "home to raise the kids."

Wars usually mean an economic boost to the economy, no?

No, I don't think I'll be putting the entire blame or explanation for this on "history", I think that like banks the government looks for ways of nickel-and-diming the country more and more, banks with service charges, governments with taxes. 100 years from now I'm sure we'll have an equally long list of new taxes that aren't in place today.

[CDSmith]

Here in Manitoba, back over 15 years ago, there was zero gambling revenue in the province (because there were no casinos). Therefore the government did not yet have the some $200 million per year that the casinos and VLT terminals now bring in. What gets me is that once those revenues were in place one would think that the government would be so much further ahead almost instantly because of it, yet only a few short years later and that huge jump in revenue is basically absorbed and forgotten by most. Shouldn't the government be getting "rich" with such a huge boost? You would think so, but no.

nothing changed really.

Why? I know why, but I'm interested to know if anyone else does.

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I think you may have missed the point of it Rick. I don't read it as the author bitching about taxes per se, but he does make it a point to mention how 100 years later things have changed drastically. I especially took note of the last part about mom no longer being "home to raise the kids."

Wars usually mean an economic boost to the economy, no?

No, I don't think I'll be putting the entire blame or explanation for this on "history", I think that like banks the government looks for ways of nickel-and-diming the country more and more, banks with service charges, governments with taxes. 100 years from now I'm sure we'll have an equally long list of new taxes that aren't in place today.

Hm, fair enough. It's late and my allotment of critical thinking has been given over to coding to the wee hours. My intention was to say that over the last 100 years a lot of shit's gone down and that now, more than ever, people are standing in line in front of you with a hand out.

Wars don't give a boost to the economy at large per se, although certain sectors do very well (mil and aerospace, among others). The boost generally shows up afterwards as the Peace Dividend, but when it comes down to it wars are generally very messy and costly affairs that burn off a lot of money that eventually needs to be reclaimed in some fashion.

As for the nickel+diming thing, I suspect someone along the line noticed that people won't complain loud and long about a 25c 'surcharge'. That level of cash glides in under our wetware radar as something we should get seriously pissed off about. Annoyed, perhaps, but people rarely go to the mat over a mere annoyance. I'm talking about the luxury and vice type taxes on that list, of course... some of the other are legit (school tax, for instance, is a direct expense for the dubious benefit of having a public school system).

I'm curious about your conclusions as to 'where the money went' with the VLTs. We have a situation not too dissimilar here in NS, but the Hamm government is so opaque that you can barely tell money gets spent, let alone how much or on what. What is it about conservatives that makes them congenitally incapable of coming clean on anything, telling the truth willingly, or give up any sort of facts without holding a gun to their heads?

[Mr Dickovitch]

Originally Posted by uproared

The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer.

There is no longer a middle class in America; that is the problem...Although it is a side effect of rampant capitalism (no, I'm not a commy, I'm all for capitalism).

How the fuck do you know anything about America? You live on the other side of the planet so shut the fuck up.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rickholio

Open a history book. ;)

World War I. The great depression. World War II. The cold war. Oil Crisis. Moon shot. Recession. Stagflation. Terrorism.

And through it all, ever rising debt fueled by rampant consumerism.


Same as above to a lesser extent. Fortunately we at least get something for our tax money, and often pay less than the more heavily burdened south of the border types.

You forgot to mention you get the shield of protection living next to the most powerful country on the planet gives you. No nation would ever consider "invading" Canada. (Or Mexico for that matter)

Please tell me A: what "rampant consumerism" is supposed to mean, and B: How in your reality it adds to the problem? You sound like one of the talking heads on the evening news gibbering "techno speak."
And perhaps instead of "world war II" it should read "America saving the world's ass from oppression and never getting paid back."
Another big one you forgot:
America protects most of the world, and certainly all of Europe from the march of communism through the cold war.
On Terrorism; America crushes the taliban's stronghold to the benefit of the rest of the world, and freedom for Afghanistan & Iraq on our nickel. (I'm sure we won't get paid back on that one either......least they could do is pay in oil, fairly)

Freedom isn't free, and America pays the lion's share.

[hydro]

I've patented the sex tax.

[EmporerEJ]

[QUOTE=CDSmith]No, I don't think I'll be putting the entire blame or explanation for this on "history", I think that like banks the government looks for ways of nickel-and-diming the country more and more, banks with service charges, ......QUOTE]


Here you hit on one that pops into mind for me.
Not sure how old the rest of you are, but I CLEARLY remember the first ATMs. People were scared to death of using them, and preferred to go into the banks, which had 4-8 clerks AT ALL TIMES, to transact business.

Enter the marketers.....

Now you couldn't walk past the marketing person standing at the ATM... "Here sir, have some Coffee and donuts while we explain the benefits of the machine, 24 hour service, instant money, FREE!!!!! Banks will be able to LOWER FEES, etc, etc," (Yes they REALLY SAID THAT) and that's when I knew they were lying.....
And yes, after the initial fear of technology for the people, they start using the technology.

Fast forward 10 years.....

Banks are NO LONGER BUILT with more than 2-3 windows, which are usually staffed by only 1-2 people even at peak times.....
Every ATM transaction has a ridiculous fee attached to it...usually at BOTH ends.....
Bank hours are shorter.
Almost every bank transaction has a fee.
Pisses me off to no end....


Ok, I'm better now...I took my medicine.....

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by hydro

I've patented the sex tax.

where do I buy a license?

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by rickholio

I'm curious about your conclusions as to 'where the money went' with the VLTs. We have a situation not too dissimilar here in NS, but the Hamm government is so opaque that you can barely tell money gets spent, let alone how much or on what. What is it about conservatives that makes them congenitally incapable of coming clean on anything, telling the truth willingly, or give up any sort of facts without holding a gun to their heads?

Interesting that you mentiion conservatives here. It just so happens that at the time of the big Winnipeg casinos and gaming rooms coming into effect the conservatives were in power here in Manitoba. I took to calling them "the Filmon regime", and under the leadership of heir Filmon they did exactly what you're describing. They got a $200 million dollar per year boost yet seemed to have very little to show for it.

Conservative parties, when headed up with good leadership, can be a great thing for a state or province, but when led by the proverbial fat-cat with rich friends, well, the mystery of where the money went becomes no mystery at all. As much as I'd like to believe that that money was absorbed into the machine and spread out across a zillion social programs and infrastructure projects of benefit to society, I choose to not try to kid myself.

It just strikes me as amusing that up until 15 years ago there was no extra $200 million per year gambling revenue to the government. It is likely the same in several other provinces and US states as well. Yet you still hear governments crying about not having enough to go around.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Here you hit on one that pops into mind for me.
Not sure how old the rest of you are, but I CLEARLY remember the first ATMs. People were scared to death of using them, and preferred to go into the banks, which had 4-8 clerks AT ALL TIMES, to transact business.

Enter the marketers.....

Now you couldn't walk past the marketing person standing at the ATM... "Here sir, have some Coffee and donuts while we explain the benefits of the machine, 24 hour service, instant money, FREE!!!!! Banks will be able to LOWER FEES, etc, etc," (Yes they REALLY SAID THAT) and that's when I knew they were lying.....
And yes, after the initial fear of technology for the people, they start using the technology.

Fast forward 10 years.....

Banks are NO LONGER BUILT with more than 2-3 windows, which are usually staffed by only 1-2 people even at peak times.....
Every ATM transaction has a ridiculous fee attached to it...usually at BOTH ends.....
Bank hours are shorter.
Almost every bank transaction has a fee.
Pisses me off to no end....


Ok, I'm better now...I took my medicine.....

Exactly.

Did you know that in Canada, I think it was the Royal bank, about 12 years ago or so was the first Canadian bank to make $1 BILLION in profit in a year? That was largely due to them instituting new service charges. And.... since then we have seen all the banks here install extra service fees for non-account-holders at ATM's. You used to be able to go to any ATM of any bank and do certain transactsion, like a basic withdrawal or cash advance. Now you get a $1.50 service charge if you aren't an account holder at that bank.

Between that and the way they fleece you at your own bank for daring to conduct such ambitious transactions as depositing a cheque or wanting service from an actual teller, they have you coming and going. And you can bet your ass they are at this moment thinking up new ways to charge you fees.... just like the governement. :D

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

You forgot to mention you get the shield of protection living next to the most powerful country on the planet gives you. No nation would ever consider "invading" Canada. (Or Mexico for that matter)

Yeah, living next door to the biggest threat the world has known that's rapidly descending into a theocratic parliament is 'giving us protection'. Protection, 1930's New York style perhaps.

Please tell me A: what "rampant consumerism" is supposed to mean, and B: How in your reality it adds to the problem? You sound like one of the talking heads on the evening news gibbering "techno speak."

Go look at a dictionary to see what 'consumerism' means, troll.

And perhaps instead of "world war II" it should read "America saving the world's ass from oppression and never getting paid back."

Two years later and with the lions share done by the russians. You might want to do a little research about who did what at what point over there.

Another big one you forgot:
America protects most of the world, and certainly all of Europe from the march of communism through the cold war.

Go back to hannity and rush, troll, before you start trundling out your explanation of My Lai and why destroying the village to save it is a good thing.

On Terrorism; America crushes the taliban's stronghold to the benefit of the rest of the world, and freedom for Afghanistan & Iraq on our nickel. (I'm sure we won't get paid back on that one either......least they could do is pay in oil, fairly)

Afghanistan wasn't 'protection'. It was 'revenge'. Anything beyond that is merely PR or unintended consequences.

... and outside of Kabul, the taliban runs with impunity, the opium growers have increased output dramatically, and women are still stoned for not wearing a burkha. A great reward for a country that you initially used to further your objectives vis a vis the russians a couple decades ago. If anyone is owed anything, it's afghanistan being owed by the US and Russia for being their proxy battleground.

Freedom isn't free, and America pays the lion's share.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid(tm) brand drink, yo.

[Nicky]

taxes, whats that?

[BV]

I feel the pain.

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Interesting that you mentiion conservatives here. It just so happens that at the time of the big Winnipeg casinos and gaming rooms coming into effect the conservatives were in power here in Manitoba. I took to calling them "the Filmon regime", and under the leadership of heir Filmon they did exactly what you're describing. They got a $200 million dollar per year boost yet seemed to have very little to show for it.

To be fair, conservatives aren't the ONLY ones with opaque spending practices. Any power base that's been entrenched too long will have it's system gamers, as evidenced by the cretien liberals and the whole Gomery debacle. It just seems that, in my recollection of political history, that the parties which heavily advocate 'personal responsibility' seem to not have much of it themselves. Perhaps it's just that the sense of hypocrisy is greater when the con's do it... like catching a Hell-Fire evangelical preacher in an orgy with 3 hookers and a sri lankan boy.

Conservative parties, when headed up with good leadership, can be a great thing for a state or province, but when led by the proverbial fat-cat with rich friends, well, the mystery of where the money went becomes no mystery at all. As much as I'd like to believe that that money was absorbed into the machine and spread out across a zillion social programs and infrastructure projects of benefit to society, I choose to not try to kid myself.

I've always been more of a "social liberal, fiscal conservative" type of voter, which meant that my votes often split between the libs and the PC (although I couldn't stomach it after mulrooney fucked us over with the GST and NAFTA). The problem with the original PC agenda is that it, ironically, shared a nasty trait with Communism. It SEEMS like a good idea, at the time, but when put into practical use corruption and graft fuck the whole thing up. It leaves us in a situation where the public is only served at the 'entrenching' phase of government entry or by throwing people a bone in an attempt to stay in power.

It just strikes me as amusing that up until 15 years ago there was no extra $200 million per year gambling revenue to the government. It is likely the same in several other provinces and US states as well. Yet you still hear governments crying about not having enough to go around.

Apparently the people of nova scotia, at one point before I arrived, voted in a tax on utilities in order to raise the money to clean up halifax harbour, which is kinda nasty. Decades later, there SHOULD be hundreds of millions in that fund... but it's all been spent, because the 'fund' never happened. They just poured that cash into general revenue and spent it on whatever they spent it on. I believe Hamm claimed that it (at least in part) went to 'salting and then repairing the roads in winter'.

[KRL]

One third of the price you pay at the pump also gets scooped to taxes. And 1/3rd goes to the Middle East.

Why do you think these folks are so cozy and smiling all the time.

[Sosa]

fucking taxes blow.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Sosa

fucking taxes blow.

indeed, i just dished out 10k in income taxes today. ah well.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by rickholio

To be fair, conservatives aren't the ONLY ones with opaque spending practices. Any power base that's been entrenched too long will have it's system gamers, as evidenced by the cretien liberals

...and the Trudeau Liberals. After all, they were in power for what, 11 years straight? Lots of good and bad in every long-term 'regime'.

I of course was speaking mostly from the perspective of my own province and our provincial goverment. Federaly the conservative party of Canada has walked in the bizarro world for much of the past 10-15 years, especially during that whole right-wing split when the "Stockwell Day" Reform party existed. Make no mistake, they still exist those reformers and are alive and well and influencing policy within the PC caucus. Not all of their policies were evil... but many were in my opinion.

Originally Posted by rickholio

I've always been more of a "social liberal, fiscal conservative" type of voter, which meant that my votes often split between the libs and the PC (although I couldn't stomach it after mulrooney fucked us over with the GST and NAFTA).

Mulrooney had 'mistake' written all over him. Timing was everything where he was concerned, and during that time he was presented as "Canada's salvation" and the country bought it hook, line and sinker. Hopefully, we not only lived but learned as well.

Originally Posted by rickholio

Apparently the people of nova scotia, at one point before I arrived, voted in a tax on utilities in order to raise the money to clean up halifax harbour, which is kinda nasty. Decades later, there SHOULD be hundreds of millions in that fund... but it's all been spent, because the 'fund' never happened. They just poured that cash into general revenue and spent it on whatever they spent it on. I believe Hamm claimed that it (at least in part) went to 'salting and then repairing the roads in winter'.

Absolutely similar situation, except that our gambling revenue is ongoing, and reports indicate that it is growing every year exponentially. I'm sure the growing efforts to bring in more gaming tourism to the city here contributes much of that growth. I continue to be blown away that with that size of a revenue spurt the government still has all of the usual complaints about not having enough to go around.

[Plugin Feeds K]

When it was 4/15 they did a thing on where your tax $$ went to ...
Well, 20% went to Social Security and 20% to Medicaid, 19% to Defense, then here's the kicker: 7% to the INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT!!

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Brujah

In 1863, the federal government collected the first income tax. This graduated tax was similar to the income tax we pay today. Those who earned $600 to $10,000 per year paid at a rate of 3 percent. A higher rate was paid by those who earned in excess of $10,000.

This tax was repealed after the civil war. The income tax as we know it was passed into law in 1913.

Oh and to the thread starter a traffic ticket is NOT a tax. It's a fine for breaking the law. Fines for breaking the law existed HUNDREDS of years ago.

Also liquor and cigarette taxes are easily avoided by not drinking or smoking.

[BIGTYMER]

Taxes suck.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and back then the USA was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened?!


Same or similar goes for Canada too.

You're just pulling this shit out of your ass aren't you?

100 years ago there was no such thing as a "middle class"
There was rich, and poor, and that was pretty much it.

To make a long story short, FDR's New Deal "created" the middle class. It did not exist before then

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

You're just pulling this shit out of your ass aren't you?

100 years ago there was no such thing as a "middle class"
There was rich, and poor, and that was pretty much it.

To make a long story short, FDR's New Deal "created" the middle class. It did not exist before then

There have been 'middle classes' going back thousands of years, although not quite the same as we know it today... the middle classes then were the merchants, landowners, retired public servants and so forth that were living comfortably without being either royalty or peasantry.

By definition, middle-class means:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

middle-class

adj : occupying a socioeconomic position intermediate between those of the lower classes and the wealthy

So yes, the middle class will always exist to some extent unless you have a 'perfect'(ly dreadful) society of utterly rich and utterly poor with no mobility between the two, and probably has always existed since the conception of commerce itself.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by rickholio

There have been 'middle classes' going back thousands of years, although not quite the same as we know it today... the middle classes then were the merchants, landowners, retired public servants and so forth that were living comfortably without being either royalty or peasantry.

By definition, middle-class means:



So yes, the middle class will always exist to some extent unless you have a 'perfect'(ly dreadful) society of utterly rich and utterly poor with no mobility between the two, and probably has always existed since the conception of commerce itself.

Sure but a "middle class family" in America, pre-FDR's new deal lived in tenement housing, a family of 6-8 people living in two rooms and sharing a community bathroom with 10 other families.
ALL of the males in the family would work at a factory, 80 hours per week, just so they could put food on the table (food being a family's biggest expense in those days)

It was a far far cry from what we consider "middle class" today.
So when I say there was no middle class back then, by today's standards, that's an accurate assesment.
Today's lower class (welfare) has a higher standard of living than the "middle" class did in those days.

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Sure but a "middle class family" in America, pre-FDR's new deal lived in tenement housing, a family of 6-8 people living in two rooms and sharing a community bathroom with 10 other families.
ALL of the males in the family would work at a factory, 80 hours per week, just so they could put food on the table (food being a family's biggest expense in those days)

It was a far far cry from what we consider "middle class" today.
So when I say there was no middle class back then, by today's standards, that's an accurate assesment.
Today's lower class (welfare) has a higher standard of living than the "middle" class did in those days.

People working 80 hours a week in a factory were never "middle class". They were poor. The pre-FDR middle class were hanging around speakeasys, listening to jazz, drinking gin in the back seats of Ford Model-T's and generally enjoying the flapper lifestyle prior to the great depression.

One of my great great aunts used to run a hat shop in the town she lived in and made a fairly easy life of it back in the 1910-1920s. So obviously not only was she not working 80 hours a week selling hats, but other people (well, other women, lets be honest) felt as though they had enough money to spend on hats to keep her in business and well fed indefinately. For all I know, that hat store may still be in some far off tucked away corner of my family... although most likely she got fucked by the depression just like everyone else.

To borrow heavily from Dickens, Oliver Twist and his ilk were poor. Ebeneezer Scrooge and the Marleys were middle class (probably pushing upper middle, but by no means rich nor royalty). The middle class was not as extensive, surely... the majority of people were mostly poor, with a smaller section of middle class, a smaller section still of the non-titled richer upper classes, and of course the top 1% ultra stupid rich. What FDR did was make conditions such that a lot of those dirt-grubbing poor people could have a little upward mobility into the middle class, at the cost of limiting the insanely huge opportunities the rich-to-uber-rich enjoyed (which is why the rich-to-uber-rich still, to this day, hate him and everything he'd ever done).

As for the 'standard of living' thing that claims that todays poor people are ever-so-much-better-off than yesterday's rich(er) people, that's a highly debatable topic based on what you consider 'standard of living'. Sure, due to our consumerist wastrel lifestyle even the most meagre lifestyles can support the aquisition of a lot of 'stuff', but I don't personally believe that the accumulation of stuff directly leads to a higher standard of living. Where's the criteria? An average poor person with at least some modicum of health insurance could certainly live LONGER than even a king 150 years ago, but who lived better? Does the ability for everyone to buy a disposable $30 DVD player today mean that we're utterly superior in lifestyle to people in the 50s, many of whom didn't even own a TV but were in far better shape, could look forward to a lifetime of job security, low crime rates and clean urban centers?

There's a trend lately of people going off to do what is known as 'freeholding'. They sell off all the crap they don't need, move to the country, buy 40 acres or so of tenable farm land and run a self-sufficient farm, often times completely off the grid (self contained power, water, sewage etc). Some people get sick of the high intensity and transient nature of our modern society and want to get back to a simpler existance, so much so that they're willing to throw off many of the trappings that you or I might consider essential to daily life, to acheive it. I think it's fairly clear that although an agrarian existance may have been more physically demanding that not everyone would agree that it had an inferior standard of living.

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by Plugin Feeds K

7% to the INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT!!

Money back in our hands. Well, for those of us with US treasuries. Be a lender.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

You're just pulling this shit out of your ass aren't you?

100 years ago there was no such thing as a "middle class"
There was rich, and poor, and that was pretty much it.

To make a long story short, FDR's New Deal "created" the middle class. It did not exist before then

It was forwarded to me by a 65 yr old war vet, who probably knows more about that era than you or I.

[pxxx]

I agree with you on that one.

[bringer]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Sure but a "middle class family" in America, pre-FDR's new deal lived in tenement housing, a family of 6-8 people living in two rooms and sharing a community bathroom with 10 other families.
ALL of the males in the family would work at a factory, 80 hours per week, just so they could put food on the table (food being a family's biggest expense in those days)

It was a far far cry from what we consider "middle class" today.
So when I say there was no middle class back then, by today's standards, that's an accurate assesment.
Today's lower class (welfare) has a higher standard of living than the "middle" class did in those days.

people on welfare live better then some families working 40hours/week

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

It was forwarded to me by a 65 yr old war vet, who probably knows more about that era than you or I.

Doubtful. He wasn't around 100 years ago either, so what he knows he read from books just like me

[Snake Doctor]

Rickholio - some good, albeit long winded points you have there

I can concede that there was some sort of middle class in those days, but it was probably 5, maybe 10 percent of the population.
These days its more like 60+ percent of the population.

Things were ALOT different before the New Deal, I think society as a whole is much better off now than it was then.

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Rickholio - some good, albeit long winded points you have there

I can concede that there was some sort of middle class in those days, but it was probably 5, maybe 10 percent of the population.
These days its more like 60+ percent of the population.

Things were ALOT different before the New Deal, I think society as a whole is much better off now than it was then.

It's a deep topic, and not the sort of thing that reduces to a 30 second sound bite easily.

I absolutely agree with you though. The expansion of the middle class is a proven engine for wealth creation. Unfortunately, the expanded middle is not a natural thing in a purely capitalist society... it needs to be protected and nurtured by government and regulation, hence the New Deal.

Consider how many once middle-class-now-rich are trying their damnedest to destroy the middle class by hammering away at the institutions that allowed it to florish (this role is currently occupied by what we term 'conservatives', but really it's more of a 'rick person' hobby regardless of their social ethos). Why, though? Are enough of them 'rich enough' to become the new gentry and feel they no longer need a middle class to generate wealth? Are they threatened by the fact that others might gain wealth, which means they'd LOSE (in the broken math of zero-sum economic theory)?

Who fucking knows. This moves out of economics and into philosophy (or theology, for some).

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Doubtful. He wasn't around 100 years ago either, so what he knows he read from books just like me

Wrong.

His parents would have lived right through those years in their prime, as my grandparents did. My parents were both born in the late 20's, and they have passed down lore to us kids from that era as well.

Anything else?

[CDSmith]

It doesn't matter that the middle class in the USA was smaller back then. What the piece says is that the USA had the largest middle class of any country in the world, which could very likely be true. Did Russia have a middle class back then? China? Doubtful. And there other few points mentioned also ring true. Mom WAS actually in the home back then, and none of the taxes mentioned existed at the time.

What is there to quibble about? The piece makes a valid point about how our society is structured now as opposed to back then, and to me at least it's an interesting one, one that obviously makes people at least stop and think.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by rickholio

Who fucking knows. This moves out of economics and into philosophy (or theology, for some).

True.
However I think the middle class (as we know it today) is necessary for the rich to continue being rich.

If it weren't for middle class Americans there wouldn't be anybody to buy Microsoft Windows or new cars or whatever else the moguls need to sell in order to make their millions.

This is what led to the great depression. There was a massive manufacturing surplus, but nobody could afford to buy what was being manufactured.
The industrialists could have done one of two things, raise the wages of their workers so they could afford to buy what they were producing, or drop prices so that the average person could afford to buy the products.
They did neither, and the economy went down the tubes.

[MetaMan]

wtf are you babbling about now CDLisp!

taxes!?!??!!?!??! since when do YOU pay taxes!?

you know very well that all natives dont pay shit in taxes!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

It doesn't matter that the middle class in the USA was smaller back then. What the piece says is that the USA had the largest middle class of any country in the world, which could very likely be true. Did Russia have a middle class back then? China? Doubtful. And there other few points mentioned also ring true. Mom WAS actually in the home back then, and none of the taxes mentioned existed at the time.

What is there to quibble about? The piece makes a valid point about how our society is structured now as opposed to back then, and to me at least it's an interesting one, one that obviously makes people at least stop and think.

You were using that piece to say, in essence, that life was better for everyone back then, and I have many reasons to disagree with that.

In Russia and China everyone was middle class, they were socialist countries.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

You were using that piece to say, in essence, that life was better for everyone back then, and I have many reasons to disagree with that.

In Russia and China everyone was middle class, they were socialist countries.

In certain ways life probably was better back then. In certain ways being key.

It is the writer's point, I was simply putting it out there and basically putting my own agreement on the basic premise. When you look at that list of taxes that did not exist back then I find that it really is rather remarkable when comparing the two times in that light. That's all.


And you must be joking about China & Russia. In those countries everyone actually WAS either very poor or extremely rich, not that this is another point worth quibbling over. If your history books show it as different, by all means feel free to come back and produce all sorts of proof to support your opinion.

You are more than free to do so (which is more than you would enjoy had you lived in either of those other countries I'm sure)

[who]

Did you know that Saudi Arabia is actually the ones running U.S.A?

[rickholio]

It would appear that, at least since the Bush 2 junta, that the middle class lifestyle has been financed almost wholey on credit.



That's some scary shit right there. Consumers, in the last year, have spent 322 billion more than they've earned.

Yikes!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by rickholio

It would appear that, at least since the Bush 2 junta, that the middle class lifestyle has been financed almost wholey on credit.



That's some scary shit right there. Consumers, in the last year, have spent 322 billion more than they've earned.

Yikes!

That usually happens when unemployment is high. People live off of credit.
Granted the average american ALWAYS spends more than he makes, which is definitely not sustainable long term.

That asterisk says something about residential investment. Could the home refinancing boom of the last few years be skewing those numbers?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rickholio

It would appear that, at least since the Bush 2 junta, that the middle class lifestyle has been financed almost wholey on credit.



That's some scary shit right there. Consumers, in the last year, have spent 322 billion more than they've earned.

Yikes!

Wow, that's some interesting information, what's the source on that? No wonder they made it next to impossible for the average American to declare bankruptcy. Those banks who donated tons to the GOP are going to really get their money's worth.

[Net41]

wow people are stupid.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Rich

Those banks who donated tons to the GOP are going to really get their money's worth.

Not to mention the pharmaceutical companies who just got a big shield from class action suits.

Now they can kill off the masses AND keep all the profits from it as well


Not to mention if we want to buy a drug that causes cancer we have to pay more for it than the Canadians.