|
Remembering Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Second Bill of Rights
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 9 2014, 01:03 PM (553 Views)
|
|
tomdrobin
|
Mar 11 2014, 11:34 PM
Post #31
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Banandangees
- Mar 11 2014, 09:14 PM
Visible minority population in Canada, 1996–2011 censusesMinority........................... Percent .....................TotalTotal Visible Minority ...... 19.1% ................... 6,264,750 Black ................................... 2.9% ..................... 945,665 Latin America ...................... 1.2% ..................... 381,280 East Asian ........................... 4.8% .................. 1,573,150 South Asian ......................... 4.8% .................. 1,567,400 Southeast Asian ................... 2.8% .....................931,385 West Asian & Arab ............... 1.8% .................... 586,460 Multiracial ............................. 0.5% .....................171,935 Other .................................... 0.3% .................... 106,475 Link 2011 What no rednecks?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 11 2014, 11:46 PM
Post #32
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- tomdrobin
- Mar 10 2014, 10:48 AM
When I graduated from high school it was relatively easy to get a job, that would pay enough to raise a family on one income. And, buy a home and a new car every few years. The GI bill was available for veterans to get a good education if they so desired. That was the legacy of FDR and the progressive period. We built the interstate highway system. And, put a man on the moon.
Then we were told that government was the problem. And, that we needed to cut taxes on the wealthy to insure our prosperity. That we needed to let industry self-regulate. And, that the offshoring of manufacturing jobs just mean we needed to adapt to the new "service economy". That later became the "information economy". And, that government interference was just evil socialism.
Most of you grew up in the same era. Look around you, things have changed and if you think they have got better your living in denial. Sure the Romney's of this world have never done better. But, for everyone else, particularly the unskilled it's often a life of poverty and homelessness. Or at best working more than one low paying job with not much prospect for the future. Us old geezers on pensions and SS should count ourselves lucky that we aren't starting out today.
Obama isn't responsible for this. Particularly when any chance of a new "New Deal" has been thwarted by opposition from the GOP serving their wealthy and corporate masters.
What I just read in your post is a cookie cutter revisionist view of recent history. The truth Tom is that when you and I grew up and became adults, America was the supreme economic power and source for products. The factories in Europe and Asia had been destroyed by warfare. The result was no competition and very high demand. The factories and unions worked hand in hand turning out products and insuring their were workers to do so.
Fast forward Tom, modernization in Europe and Asia led to more efficient factories, it was for example, less expensive to produce superior grade steel in Japanese modern steel plants than from the dated plants in Ohio. Japanese workers earned less than American counterparts, and the jobs were low tech and manual labor.
As the government tried maintaining the view that America was at the same level of superiority and could afford the new deal, Johnson's newer Reagonomic BS, and even most costly deal, and a succession of wars and modern weapons systems, the national debt and value of the dollar passed each other in the dark of night. You are dreaming of a fairy-tale Tom, Europe and Asia are our equals, socialism has failed in Europe for the most part, countries like Greece are basket cases brought on by entitlement mentality.
|
|
|
| |
|
Banandangees
|
Mar 12 2014, 01:54 AM
Post #33
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
- tomdrobin
- Mar 11 2014, 11:34 PM
- Banandangees
- Mar 11 2014, 09:14 PM
Visible minority population in Canada, 1996–2011 censusesMinority........................... Percent .....................TotalTotal Visible Minority ...... 19.1% ................... 6,264,750 Black ................................... 2.9% ..................... 945,665 ..... (12.6%)Latin America ...................... 1.2% ..................... 381,280 ..... (16.4%) East Asian ........................... 4.8% .................. 1,573,150 ..... (4.8%) South Asian ......................... 4.8% .................. 1,567,400 Southeast Asian ................... 2.8% .....................931,385 West Asian & Arab ............... 1.8% .................... 586,460 Multiracial ............................. 0.5% .....................171,935 Other .................................... 0.3% .................... 106,475 ..... (0.9%) Native American Link 2011
What no rednecks?
Oh! I think that they are pretty much all rednecks up there. But if you look closely at the graphics, that portion of the link was referring to ethnicity, not social class. If you have anymore trouble interpreting the linked graphics, let us know. I'm sure there is someone who can help you.
Added in blue is U.S. % for comparison
I doubt the percentages of the Canadian minorities would be considered as "Major Minorities."
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Mar 12 2014, 11:49 AM
Post #34
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 11 2014, 11:46 PM
What I just read in your post is a cookie cutter revisionist view of recent history. The truth Tom is that when you and I grew up and became adults, America was the supreme economic power and source for products. The factories in Europe and Asia had been destroyed by warfare. The result was no competition and very high demand. The factories and unions worked hand in hand turning out products and insuring their were workers to do so.
Fast forward Tom, modernization in Europe and Asia led to more efficient factories, it was for example, less expensive to produce superior grade steel in Japanese modern steel plants than from the dated plants in Ohio. Japanese workers earned less than American counterparts, and the jobs were low tech and manual labor.
As the government tried maintaining the view that America was at the same level of superiority and could afford the new deal, Johnson's newer Reagonomic BS, and even most costly deal, and a succession of wars and modern weapons systems, the national debt and value of the dollar passed each other in the dark of night. You are dreaming of a fairy-tale Tom, Europe and Asia are our equals, socialism has failed in Europe for the most part, countries like Greece are basket cases brought on by entitlement mentality. Well as you might guess I'm going to disagree with you Pat. This country is still an economic powerhouse. We are not broke. GDP per capita is higher than it has ever been. What has happened is the wealth has shifted from the many to the few.
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year
Do you really think people prefer those consumer goods made in China? Or most of their prescription meds and OTC meds made in China or India? This hasn't been about consumer preference and competition. It's about cutting manufacturing costs for more profit. But, eventually the reverse pyramid scheme fails because the customer runs out of money.
After WWII some very smart strategies were employed. We fed and rebuilt Europe (Marshall Plan). But, the rule was american farm and industrial products for the rebuild. It was one hell of a stimulus. Who do you think paid for the War and the rebuild? The wealthy in this country in the form of high taxes. Back then it was considered patriotic, not some evil government takeover.
My dad and most of his brothers were vets. After the war they settled in working for automotive and military supplier plants. They were unionized, they made a decent wage, but no one was getting rich nor putting companies out of business. Today jobs like that are hard to get, and pay minimum wage to start. You could work there thirty years and still not have a pot to piss in so to speak.
|
|
|
| |
|
Banandangees
|
Mar 12 2014, 07:59 PM
Post #35
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
- tomdrobin
- Mar 12 2014, 11:49 AM
Well as you might guess I'm going to disagree with you Pat. This country is still an economic powerhouse. We are not broke. GDP per capita is higher than it has ever been. What has happened is the wealth has shifted from the many to the few. http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-yearDo you really think people prefer those consumer goods made in China? Or most of their prescription meds and OTC meds made in China or India? This hasn't been about consumer preference and competition. It's about cutting manufacturing costs for more profit. But, eventually the reverse pyramid scheme fails because the customer runs out of money. After WWII some very smart strategies were employed. We fed and rebuilt Europe (Marshall Plan). But, the rule was american farm and industrial products for the rebuild. It was one hell of a stimulus. Who do you think paid for the War and the rebuild? The wealthy in this country in the form of high taxes. Back then it was considered patriotic, not some evil government takeover. My dad and most of his brothers were vets. After the war they settled in working for automotive and military supplier plants. They were unionized, they made a decent wage, but no one was getting rich nor putting companies out of business. Today jobs like that are hard to get, and pay minimum wage to start. You could work there thirty years and still not have a pot to piss in so to speak.
Could you give examples of what the very top wage earners of 1950 paid in tax (%) vs what the very top wage earners pay today to give us an idea of just how much more patriotic they were in the 50s compared to today?
Referring to your last paragraph of what the average wage earner ended up with from our fathers generation. The fellow across the road retired from GE (Erie plant) last year after 36 years of service. He started there when he was 18, right out of high school. He was 54 when he retired... full benefits for life. He has his own home, built it when he was 39. That same GE "plant," in it's prime, employed 25,000 workers. Today it employees around 5,000 at best. Robotics as one reason, employee costs (compared to the 1950s) another. But then, somebody has to build the "robots." Hopefully, they are built in the US.
My dad (the former, former generation) worked for 36 years, retired at age 62 (mandatory) and never owned his own home (small two bedroom ranch) until he was 64 (after retirement. He worked for the state of PA (state policemen). Today, again down the road, a younger friend, retired from the state (Department of Parks) after 20 years (not 36 years). He started when he was 21, after serving in the Coast Guard, retired at age 45. He and his wife own there own home on two acres of land. He dabbles in little jobs out of boredom.
I suppose what I'm saying is.... the average wage earner (that I know from the baby boom generation) is/was retiring at an earlier age with more financial security and many more comforts than did our fathers and grandfathers and at a much earlier age. The problem is, many things have gone into the cutting of the numbers of those jobs so that a higher percentage of people are not finding those jobs and don't seem to have the skills for the ones that are there. The problem with many states is that public jobs have produced costs beyond what states and municipalities can afford. Maybe Fed jobs also.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 12 2014, 09:08 PM
Post #36
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
Question. Which of the following items should NOT be considered a right of American citizens? Please be specific and explain your answer(s).
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Mar 12 2014, 11:50 PM
Post #37
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Banandangees
- Mar 12 2014, 07:59 PM
Could you give examples of what the very top wage earners of 1950 paid in tax (%) vs what the very top wage earners pay today to give us an idea of just how much more patriotic they were in the 50s compared to today?
- Quote:
-
Top Marginal Rates Eisenhower to Obama.
The highest rate for regular marginal income tax in the twentieth century was instated under Franklin D. Roosevelt toward the end of World War II at 94 percent. A marginal income tax of over 90 percent for top earners lasted well beyond the end of the war.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%
During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.
This was nearly the highest tax rate for top earners in the century, just under the 94 percent rate for income over $200,000 instated during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency.
In 1954, the 92 percent marginal rate decreased to 91 percent under Eisenhower. The maximum tax on long-term capital gains was 25 percent -- a rate that remained in place for a decade.
John F. Kennedy Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 91%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%
At the beginning of his presidency, John F. Kennedy inherited a tax policy with a 25 percent maximum rate on long-term capital gains and a regular income tax rate of 91 percent – nearly the highest income tax in the century.
There were no changes to these tax policies during his presidency.
Lyndon B. Johnson Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $400,000: 91% - Over $200,000: 75.25%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% - 26.9%
The marginal tax rate on the highest regular income bracket fell below 90 percent for the first time in 20 years in 1964 – the first year of Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency.
This decrease put the tax rate at 77 percent for income over $400,000. By the end of Johnson's administration, the tax rate fell by 1.75 percentage points, but the threshold for income in the highest tax bracket also fell to $200,000.
This meant that more people were faced with the maximum regular income tax rate of 75.25 percent.
The capital gains tax rate began to rise during Johnson's presidency in a climb that would peak in the mid-70s.
Richard M. Nixon Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5%
During the Nixon years, the regular tax rate for the highest income bracket decreased back to its level during Johnson's first year in office, and the capital gains rate continued to increase.
By the end of Richard M. Nixon's presidency, the capital gains rate rose by nine percentage points.
Mitt Romney's father, George W. Romney, campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 1967 and released his tax returns, "in a move believed without precedent in American politics," according to an article that year in the St. Joseph Gazette, a newspaper in St. Joseph, Missouri.
Romney Sr.'s tax returns showed that he made $2,972,923.58 over the previous year, and the total taxes he paid were $1,099,555.18, according to the St. Joseph Gazette. (that's 37%)
In today's release of his tax returns, Romney Jr. revealed that he paid $3 million on total earnings of $21 million in 2010. (that's 14%)
Gerald R. Ford Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over 200,000: 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 36.5% - 39.875%
Ford instated no change to the regular tax rate, but the capital gains maximum tax rate rose to 39.875 percent - its highest levels since the 1950s.
The capital gains tax rate has not been that high since.
Jimmy Carter Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $203,200 - $215,400: 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28%
Under Jimmy Carter, the income threshold for the highest tax bracket increased by $12,200.
The capital gains tax rate began its decline that would continue through today.
Ronald Reagan Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $215,400: 69.125% - over $29,750: 28%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 20% - 28%
Under Reagan, maximum regular income tax rates decreased from nearly 70 percent to 28 percent, but these rates applied to lower income levels. The earlier rate applied to income over $215,400, while the later rate applied to people with income over $30,950.
In the mid-years of the Reagan administration, the regular income threshold for taxation at the maximum rate initially dropped to $85,600 in 1982, but by 1986 rose to $175,250.
The capital gains tax rate under Reagan started at 20 percent. By the time he left office, the capital gains rate had risen to the 28 percent rate that was in place at the end of the Carter administration.
George H.W. Bush Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $30,950: 28% - Over $86,500: 31%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 28% - 28.93%
After his famed promise of "no new taxes," the maximum tax rates under George H.W. Bush increased for both regular income and capital gains.
However, as during the Ford, Carter, and mid-Reagan administration, the level of regular income that was taxed the maximum rate would increase from $30,950 to $86,500, causing fewer people to face that tax.
The capital gains rate would not decrease again until the Clinton administration, and the maximum regular income tax rate would not decrease again until George W. Bush entered office in 2001.
Bill Clinton Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%
During the Clinton administration, the maximum regular income tax rate stayed the same for the highest earners, but the income level taxed at this rate increased by $47,350.
The maximum capital gains tax decreased by eight percentage points.
George W. Bush Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $297,350: 39.1% - Over $357,700: 35%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 21.17% - 15.35%
George W. Bush decreased the regular marginal income tax rate for top earners by over four percentage points during his presidency, while increasing the income level for the highest tax bracket $60,350.
In addition, the highest capital gains tax rate fell near to its current rate of 15 percent. (While spending like a drunken sailor on wars and medicare D)
Barack Obama Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%
The Bush tax cuts have remained through the Obama administration, with a 35 percent marginal income tax for the top income bracket and a 15 percent capital gains income tax. However, unless Congress acts by the end of this year, the 2001, 2003 and 2006 tax cuts will expire at the end of December 2012.
Again, the level of income necessary to face the maximum marginal income tax increased from 2009 to 2012.
http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html
Of particular interest is the increases under Nixon and Ford, and decreases under Carter and LBJ. Reagan cuts taxes, but when the deficit started ballooning raised them again. GW Bush wasn't that cautious, and stuck with the failed ideology that tax cuts pay for themselves.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 12 2014, 11:57 PM
Post #38
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- tomdrobin
- Mar 12 2014, 11:49 AM
- Pat
- Mar 11 2014, 11:46 PM
What I just read in your post is a cookie cutter revisionist view of recent history. The truth Tom is that when you and I grew up and became adults, America was the supreme economic power and source for products. The factories in Europe and Asia had been destroyed by warfare. The result was no competition and very high demand. The factories and unions worked hand in hand turning out products and insuring their were workers to do so.
Fast forward Tom, modernization in Europe and Asia led to more efficient factories, it was for example, less expensive to produce superior grade steel in Japanese modern steel plants than from the dated plants in Ohio. Japanese workers earned less than American counterparts, and the jobs were low tech and manual labor.
As the government tried maintaining the view that America was at the same level of superiority and could afford the new deal, Johnson's newer Reagonomic BS, and even most costly deal, and a succession of wars and modern weapons systems, the national debt and value of the dollar passed each other in the dark of night. You are dreaming of a fairy-tale Tom, Europe and Asia are our equals, socialism has failed in Europe for the most part, countries like Greece are basket cases brought on by entitlement mentality.
Well as you might guess I'm going to disagree with you Pat. This country is still an economic powerhouse. We are not broke. GDP per capita is higher than it has ever been. What has happened is the wealth has shifted from the many to the few. http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-yearDo you really think people prefer those consumer goods made in China? Or most of their prescription meds and OTC meds made in China or India? This hasn't been about consumer preference and competition. It's about cutting manufacturing costs for more profit. But, eventually the reverse pyramid scheme fails because the customer runs out of money. After WWII some very smart strategies were employed. We fed and rebuilt Europe (Marshall Plan). But, the rule was american farm and industrial products for the rebuild. It was one hell of a stimulus. Who do you think paid for the War and the rebuild? The wealthy in this country in the form of high taxes. Back then it was considered patriotic, not some evil government takeover. My dad and most of his brothers were vets. After the war they settled in working for automotive and military supplier plants. They were unionized, they made a decent wage, but no one was getting rich nor putting companies out of business. Today jobs like that are hard to get, and pay minimum wage to start. You could work there thirty years and still not have a pot to piss in so to speak. When you say the wealth has shifted, it could appear to the less informed that some evil plot was behind the shift. Not true, from as far back as the 50's, parents and students in school were told that in the future (now), they would need high skills and be highly educated if they expected to keep up. Those that took the warning and acted have the wealth you focus on and those who didn't fell behind. With progress there has opened up many new avenues for people to attain wealth, they didn't rob some poor slobs through an evil plan.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|