• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

what do YOU consider "middle class"?

what do you consider "middle class"?

  • 25k - 50k

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • 25k - 75k

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • 40k - 100k

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • 50k - 100k

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • 50k - 125k

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • 500k +

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    36
Your data was already refuted by Lawrence Katz, economics professor at Harvard. (See above)




A libertarian economist???

"A conservative vote for Sen. McCain is a wasted vote. It is wasted because even if he is elected, he does not stand for conservative values and will not promote conservative values. Government will grow, spending will rise, and liberty will diminish.

But it looks increasingly likely that he won’t be elected, and no one will care about his vote totals if he loses. In contrast, a vote for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will be noticed and will have a lasting, positive impact. A vote for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will be a vote for liberty and for America’s future."

CARPE DIEM: Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr Makes His Case

Where do you find these people?

You mean people who analyze data, instead of making red herring arguments and go berserk over exaggerated headlines?
 
It is definitely not irrelevant. Debt is the single most reliable destroyer of individual wealth and vacuum of income. Fully half of Americans say they couldn't scrape up $2,000 in cash in 30 days. I could write you a check today for five times that. Give me 36 hours and I could write you a check for twenty times that (without touching retirement or the kids education) with a few extra thousand left over, just in case. All of it on a "lower" income while raising a family - because I live debt free, and we save.
You must have a good wife.
 
for me, there is. if you assume an average COL, say midwest, i believe between 50 - 125k is middle class. why? 50 - 125 allows for the purchase of a home, a decent car (s), and the ability to feed your family well. it's irrelevant if you've put yourself in deep debt, your income should cover all the necessities plus maybe a vacation.
So what you did here was make up ****. Got it, I knew it was a bogus poll.
 

Lots of flaws in those charts:

1. Per capita is not typically used by economists to compare income growth because unlike median house household income's per-capita income comparisons are highly distorted by extremes in income on the high end.

2. The chart only includes lower income brackets.

3. The chart is intellectually dishonest because it starts at the beginning of an income boom - 1994, and ends just before a deep recession - 2007. The years from 1994 thru 2000 just happen to be the only years of real median income growth in the last 30 years.

4. It doesn't look to be inflation adjusted.
 
Lots of flaws in those charts:

1. Per capita is not typically used by economists to compare income growth because unlike median house household income's per-capita income comparisons are highly distorted by extremes in income on the high end.

That's largely why they didn't include the higher income brackets, to remove the skew.
Median household income is also greatly flawed, it doesn't show a decline in the number of persons per household, government transfers and spending offsets compensated by employers.

2. The chart only includes lower income brackets.

Explained above.

3. The chart is intellectually dishonest because it starts at the beginning of an income boom - 1994, and ends just before a deep recession - 2007. The years from 1994 thru 2000 just happen to be the only years of real median income growth in the last 30 years.

4. It doesn't look to be inflation adjusted.

There was a recession in between that as well, the dot com bust.

Inflation adjusted shows an average yoy 1% increase in income.

CARPE DIEM: More on the "Decline of the Middle Class" Myth
 
I consider this poll badly designed it's nearly meaningless.
The options all Overlap. So heavily overlap as to make them indistinguishable from one another.
25k - 50k
25k - 75k
40k - 100k
50k - 100k
50k - 125k
500k +
Both 1 And 2 include people making 30k, 40k, 50k.

Options 3, 4, 5,
40k - 100k
50k - 100k
50k - 125k
Are virtually the Same. All 3 include people making 50k, 60k, 70k, 80k, 90k, 100k!

and No options in between 125k and 500k.
So if someone feels 150k (or anything between 125k-500k) is Middle class, they have Nothing to vote for.
But if you feel 50k is middle class, you can vote for 5 of the choices.

Much Better/Meaningful would have been. ie
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-150k
150k-250k
250k+
 
Last edited:
I consider this poll so badly designed/conceived as to be meaningless.
The options all Overlap. So heavily overlap as to make the indistinguishable from one another.
Options 3, 4, 5,
40k - 100k
50k - 100k
50k - 125k
Are virtually the Same. All 3 include people making 50k, 60k, 70k, 80k, 90k, 100k!

Much Better/Meaningful would have been.
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-150k
150k-250k

Yeah and he or she could've made it so you could select more than one.
 
Last edited:
You must have a good wife.

"good" does not begin to cover it. I am blessed with one of the best of wives who is the best partner I could ever hope to have.
 
Shows how out of touch you are with how bad it has been for the majority of the country

well, I'm a federal employee, so that is a possibility that I shouldn't discount. When you're a government worker, economic reality rarely bothers you.

the redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years

has been overwhelmingly from the wealthy to the poor.

combined with consumer costs inflated beyond income gains resulted in less savings and more debt.

this is incorrect. I've lived debt free for years now, and saved large portions of my income for the same amount of time in low-income-rising-prices environment. furthermore, the household demographics that have shifted the most from net savers to net debters are on the higher end of the middle class scale. What has occured is that among those getting closer to retirement, the WWII vets who were great savers have been replaced by the Boomers, who are profligate spenders.

As the facts showed "the income of the median American family, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than in 1998."

at the tail end of a deep recession, yes; however, that's only one factor - compensation is not lower, but higher. Compensation, you see, tends to be taxed less than income, which gives employers and employees an incentive to prefer advances in compensation over advances in pay over time.

You are indeed expressing the conservative perspective, that the middle class needs to learn to live on less

the savings rate for a while there went to negative. you are absolutely correct that the middle class (America as a whole) needs to learn to consume less and save more. If I can save 10% while raising a family on $2,500 a month; I'm pretty sure most others can as well.

to enable the rich to get richer

to enable us all to get richer. living debt free and saving and investing your money is the simple-stupid-no-kidding way to wealth that anyone can follow.

American society is bifurcating, squeezing the middle class out of existence.

not really. to the extent we are bifurcating it is largely to a permanent underclass who fail to form productive two-parent families, and successful society made up of those who do.

The ranks of the poor and low-income earners are growing and the rich are doing just fine – and no one is talking about it, much less doing anything about it."

perhaps you can explain to me how my proposal to alter Social Security in order to give low-income workers financial independence upon retirement was met with universal rejection by the left? it seems that everyone is talking about those who are suffering - but whereas liberals want to ease their poverty, conservatives want to get them out of poverty.

Because you didn't read it, doesn't mean the logical lines of causality were not provided.

actually I did read it. It looked like the kind of thing a particularly bright liberal would write... for his college newspaper.

The CEOs and high school teachers who got roughly the same number of years of formal education haven't exactly had the same growth in income over the past 30 years.

that is correct. this is due not a little to the fact that whereas corporate leadership is a brutal world of competition marked by high pay for performers, teaching has been a unionized protected workforce which has rejected higher pay for performance.

So we've got skill bias and technological change, which is shifting demand towards highly educated workers.

in particular fields. It is worth noting that even in our highly credentialed age and even with 9% "official" unemployment, we are still suffering a shortage of Science and Technology workers.

We've got growing international trade with increased imports of labor-intensive products further reducing demand for less educated workers.

and yet we continue to educate our own workers poorly.

We have immigration, possibly similar in its effect to trade

I am more than willing to acknowledge that massive illegal immigration has severely harmed our lowest-income low-skilled workers.

I am sure this plays a small part, but there is no evidence to back up the claim made above.

and you say I don't read your sources? that information came from the US Census.

Additionally, it is the GOP that has been opposed to family planning and abortion rights.

well it is true that we don't think killing children is a good option. that's why instead we support family-friendly tax code alterations, and teaching people not to hump like rabbits until you are married.

Yeah its kind of obvious that you didn't look at the Pew study:

"The study focused on people who were middle-class teenagers in 1979 and who were between 39 and 44 years old in 2004 and 2006. It defines people as middle-class if they fall between the 30th and 70th percentiles in income distribution, which for a family of four is between $32,900 and $64,000 a year in 2010 dollars.

Did you read the article you cited?

Downward mobility is most common among middle-class people who are divorced or separated from their spouses, did not attend college, scored poorly on standardized tests, or used hard drugs, the report says.

so tell me, how are the evil rich forcing people to divorce or use heroin?

oh look, it continues on:

The report found that being married helps people avoid the worst economic outcomes. Women who are divorced, widowed or separated are much more likely to fall down the economic ladder than their married counterparts. For men, the differences are not as dramatic, although married men are more likely than single men to retain their middle- class status as adults...



:lol: you evidently also only read the article rather than the actual study. May I suggest, for example, that you take a look at Page 9.

Among the factors deemed most likely to cause someone to fall from the middle class (combining the scores for men and women), according to this study:

1. Divorce.
2. Never got Married.
3. Has used Crack.
4. High School or Less Education (v college grad).
5. High School or Less Education (v some college).

well huh. would you look at that. somehow "mugged by a guy wearing a Brooks Brothers Suit" doesn't seem to have made it onto the list...
 
well, I'm a federal employee, so that is a possibility that I shouldn't discount. When you're a government worker, economic reality rarely bothers you.

LOL! You mean to tell me you are an employee of the federal government, and bitching about one of the most stable employers today, your own no less??? You just sank in my estimation of your credibility.


has been overwhelmingly from the wealthy to the poor.

Let's see, the richest 20% own 85% of the wealth now, what do you claim the ration was 30 years ago?


this is incorrect. I've lived debt free for years now.................

I'm so happy for you, unfortunately for the conservatives, the majority of the country has been forced into higher debt through lowered income relative to inflation and taxes.


at the tail end of a deep recession, yes; however, that's only one factor - compensation is not lower, but higher. Compensation, you see, tends to be taxed less than income, which gives employers and employees an incentive to prefer advances in compensation over advances in pay over time
.

It already was in 2007. Are you talking about the compensations that are being taken away such as the teacher's compensation's for ****ty pay?
the savings rate for a while there went to negative. you are absolutely correct that the middle class (America as a whole) needs to learn to consume less and save more. If I can save 10% while raising a family on $2,500 a month; I'm pretty sure most others can as well.

All the middle class has to do is to learn to lower our standard of living, right? Where is this binge spending problem by the middle class that I missed? I was sort of under the impression that manufactures were not producing because there is no demand.

Sounds to me like you are going to have a hard time selling that case to the middle class voters.



to enable us all to get richer. living debt free and saving and investing your money is the simple-stupid-no-kidding way to wealth that anyone can follow.

You see that "all" part is what ain't been happening over the last 30 years. Very key that "all" is!



not really. to the extent we are bifurcating it is largely to a permanent underclass who fail to form productive two-parent families, and successful society made up of those who do.

Again, total BS, but a great campaign slogan for your side!


perhaps you can explain to me how my proposal to alter Social Security in order to give low-income workers financial independence upon retirement was met with universal rejection by the left? it seems that everyone is talking about those who are suffering - but whereas liberals want to ease their poverty, conservatives want to get them out of poverty

Because it is a dip**** idea that even the GOP wouldn't dare suggest. Social Security doesn't have a financial problem, the general fund has a financial problem.



actually I did read it. It looked like the kind of thing a particularly bright liberal would write... for his college newspaper.

Actually, it looked like it was written by a Nobel prize winning economist that wrote it.



that is correct. this is due not a little to the fact that whereas corporate leadership is a brutal world of competition marked by high pay for performers, teaching has been a unionized protected workforce which has rejected higher pay for performance.

Right out of Fascism 101 that one is.



in particular fields. It is worth noting that even in our highly credentialed age and even with 9% "official" unemployment, we are still suffering a shortage of Science and Technology workers.

If you can't afford education it is of little benefit.



and yet we continue to educate our own workers poorly.

Agreed, there is a greater need for more affordable education. It should be a priority.


I am more than willing to acknowledge that massive illegal immigration has severely harmed our lowest-income low-skilled workers.

And so easily solvable, just crack down on the employer's of illegal immigrants.


and you say I don't read your sources? that information came from the US Census.

It came from a misinterpretation of the Census data.



well it is true that we don't think killing children is a good option. that's why instead we support family-friendly tax code alterations, and teaching people not to hump like rabbits until you are married.

No, GOP submitted bills to cut family planning, and they wish to cut funding for the support of children after they are born.



Did you read the article you cited?

Downward mobility is most common among middle-class people who are divorced or separated from their spouses, did not attend college, scored poorly on standardized tests, or used hard drugs, the report says.

so tell me, how are the evil rich forcing people to divorce or use heroin?

oh look, it continues on:

The report found that being married helps people avoid the worst economic outcomes. Women who are divorced, widowed or separated are much more likely to fall down the economic ladder than their married counterparts. For men, the differences are not as dramatic, although married men are more likely than single men to retain their middle- class status as adults...

Another good reason not to cut funding for family planning as the GOP has proposed.


you evidently also only read the article rather than the actual study. May I suggest, for example, that you take a look at Page 9.

Among the factors deemed most likely to cause someone to fall from the middle class (combining the scores for men and women), according to this study:

1. Divorce.
2. Never got Married.
3. Has used Crack.
4. High School or Less Education (v college grad).
5. High School or Less Education (v some college).

well huh. would you look at that. somehow "mugged by a guy wearing a Brooks Brothers Suit" doesn't seem to have made it onto the list...


You have no clue about the socio-economic reasons for the above list, do you? You see it simply as someone being too lazy to pull himself up by his bootstrap with his own little white hand, right?
 
Most of that wealth is illiquid, meaning that it's not in cash form.
If they tried to sell those "things" for cash, they would get a fraction of the illiquid worth.

That definition has not changed in 30 years, what has changed is the number of examples of illiquid wealth (houses, cars, antiques, private company interests) owned by the most wealthy.

Are you saying these items of wealth are a burden rather than a blessing? We will have to see what we can do to relieve the wealthy of this terrible burden you speak of.
 
That definition has not changed in 30 years, what has changed is the number of examples of illiquid wealth (houses, cars, antiques, private company interests) owned by the most wealthy.

Are you saying these items of wealth are a burden rather than a blessing? We will have to see what we can do to relieve the wealthy of this terrible burden you speak of.

They, nor you, nor the government, could possibly do anything to "rid" them of it and retain their full value.
That's the thing, you don't understand any of the underlying principles about what wealth is and how illiquid assets don't translate directly to cash.

Make any attempt at a massive confiscation of these resources and they will be sold, causing an economic cataclysm, you've never seen before.
 
They, nor you, nor the government, could possibly do anything to "rid" them of it and retain their full value.
That's the thing, you don't understand any of the underlying principles about what wealth is and how illiquid assets don't translate directly to cash.

Make any attempt at a massive confiscation of these resources and they will be sold, causing an economic cataclysm, you've never seen before.

I understand wealth enough to know that we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm. If fact, we had the strongest middle class in history! It seems to be you that does not understand that if too much wealth is concentrated at the top, a consumer economy cannot prosper. We had our first lesson on this in the Great Depression, and we are experiencing another lesson currently.

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

No one is talking about a massive confiscation of those resources. We are simply talking about reducing the "temporary" tax breaks enjoyed by rich, while the majority of our citizens, and the economy, suffer.
 
I understand wealth enough to know that we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm. If fact, we had the strongest middle class in history! It seems to be you that does not understand that if too much wealth is concentrated at the top, a consumer economy cannot prosper. We had our first lesson on this in the Great Depression, and we are experiencing another lesson currently.

It obvious that you don't.
You're not going to reduce "the wealth concentrated at the top" by implementing different tax rates.

Did you miss those bouts of high inflation during the 70's?
Was that not hurtful to the middle and lower classes?

What made the wealthy have more wealth?
How did they get it?

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."


Like the lesson that, scapegoating groups of people has turned out to be disastrously wrong?

No one is talking about a massive confiscation of those resources. We are simply talking about reducing the "temporary" tax breaks enjoyed by rich, while the majority of our citizens, and the economy, suffer.

You mean like the tax breaks in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
I hope you know that the tax rates in that by gone era were statutory tax rates and not effective tax rates.

The majority of citizens are not suffering.
You totally exaggerate nearly everything.
Nothing but red herring, after red herring from you.
 
I understand wealth enough to know that we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm. If fact, we had the strongest middle class in history! It seems to be you that does not understand that if too much wealth is concentrated at the top, a consumer economy cannot prosper. We had our first lesson on this in the Great Depression, and we are experiencing another lesson currently.

While I agree with raising taxes and am against such a high concentration of wealth, let's not forget, during the 1940s and 1950s we had just spent HUGE amounts of money on defense.
 
It obvious that you don't.
You're not going to reduce "the wealth concentrated at the top" by implementing different tax rates.

Did you miss those bouts of high inflation during the 70's?
Was that not hurtful to the middle and lower classes?

Inflation in the 70's had nothing to do with the tax rates. Please try again.

What made the wealthy have more wealth?
How did they get it?

30 years of tax policies and cutting regulations, and all favored the wealthy ~ better known as trickle down economics.



Like the lesson that, scapegoating groups of people has turned out to be disastrously wrong?


You mean that crap about the working class needs to stop being lazy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.


You mean like the tax breaks in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
I hope you know that the tax rates in that by gone era were statutory tax rates and not effective tax rates.

I hope you know the effective rates were still almost twice what they are today for the most wealthy.

The majority of citizens are not suffering.

That's probably why they are also not protesting across the country...........oh, scratch that, they are protesting across the country.


You totally exaggerate nearly everything.

What am I exaggerating?


Nothing but red herring, after red herring from you.

Seemingly, anything you cannot respond to is a red herring.
 
Last edited:
LOL! You mean to tell me you are an employee of the federal government, and bitching about one of the most stable employers today, your own no less?

yes. that's called "not being a hypocrite". though I find it interesting that not being completely self-seeking counts in your eyes as reducing my credibility.

Let's see, the richest 20% own 85% of the wealth now, what do you claim the ration was 30 years ago?

I couldn't care less as it is immaterial to the discussion at hand. the question was not who had what in comparison to each other, but the wealth redistribution - the active redistribution of wealth naturally attained by private citizens.

So, for example, if one year you make $100,000, and I make $30,000; and the next year you make $125,000 and I still make $30,000; but we institute a redistributionist policy that has the effect of taking 5K from you and giving it to me - then the redistribution of wealth is occurring from the higher income earner to the lower income earner, irrespective of the fact that your adjusted income increase (20K) grew by four times my own.

I'm so happy for you, unfortunately for the conservatives, the majority of the country has been forced into higher debt through lowered income relative to inflation and taxes.

that is incorrect - the people of this nation have gone into debt because we became poor savers and stupid profligate spenders. we weren't forced by taxation and inflation to take out HELOCs in order to buy the latest plasma - we chose to do that. Income has risen over the time period that you claim that it has flatlined in real terms - but even if it had flatlined in real terms, then the ability of the American people to save would be the exact same.

we weren't forced to move from a nation of savers to a nation of debtors. we chose to do that.

It already was in 2007. Are you talking about the compensations that are being taken away such as the teacher's compensation's for ****ty pay?

teachers generally don't get "****ty pay". they get okay to good pay - and I would like to see that pay increase for teachers of quality. what they do get, thanks to the fact that it is the path of least resistance for administrators under union pressure, is gold-plated benefits packages. this tends to lock teachers into the system - because their overall compensation is tilted towards the end of their career rather than tilting compensation towards performance.

but yes, generally, benefits have risen faster than paychecks - largely because if I, as an employer, give an employee a 10,000 dollar raise, then I have to pay my share of the FICA tax on it, and he has to pay his share of the FICA tax on it, and then he has to pay the income tax on it; so it comes down me giving him an increase in compensation of about $8,000 at a cost of 10,700. If I simply purchase him $10,000 worth of free healthcare (or any other benefit), then he get's an increase in compensation at a cost of $10,000. that's rough numbers, but it ought to give you a general idea of why employers and employees have been tending towards the latter rather than the former.

All the middle class has to do is to learn to lower our standard of living, right?

certainly we need to lower our level of consumption. one of the silver linings of the recession is that we seem to have done so, and we will hope that that trend back to savings will be habit-forming.

Where is this binge spending problem by the middle class that I missed?

really?

US-consumer_spending_GDP_Nov062009.jpg


our spending has skyrockted, and it has risen much faster than our paychecks:

el2009-16a.gif


and so we've gone deeper and deeper into debt to spend more and more:

Household-Consumer-Credit-3-28-2011.png


we've spent the last 20 or so years in a spending binge; we wanted bigger houses, we wanted the latest plasma television, we wanted the latest iPhone, and we were going to drive to buy these things in brand new SUV's that barely fit through the drive-through where we picked up our daily $5.35 grand non fat mocha cappuccino with whip cream and cinammon swirls. the Boomers have lived their entire lives in the sense that they were entitled to instant gratification, and as they hit their peak earning years and their kids graduated from college they decided they could spend whatever they wanted and so they went nuts.

I was sort of under the impression that manufactures were not producing because there is no demand.

since the latest Recession kicked off and we stayed stuck there, yes. since 1980, however, our consumption has skyrocketed.

Sounds to me like you are going to have a hard time selling that case to the middle class voters.

middle class voters seem to have already decided on it themselves. but yes, this year Republicans will have to run on a platform of getting people who have lived their lives in a cocoon of instant-gratification on growing up and accepting economic reality.

You see that "all" part is what ain't been happening over the last 30 years. Very key that "all" is!

every income quintile has gotten wealthier over the last 30 years - the difference is in the rates of advancement.

Again, total BS, but a great campaign slogan for your side

no, actually that's pretty solidly statistically accurate - as your own cited study says; out of all the ways in which people fall out of the middle class, the first is getting divorced, and the second is never getting married in the first place. and it's not all that great a slogan - it's awkward, difficult to address, and doesn't provide something simple and catchy. it's a poor slogan, in fact, it just happens to be socioeconomic reality.

Because it is a dip**** idea that even the GOP wouldn't dare suggest. Social Security doesn't have a financial problem, the general fund has a financial problem.

:lol: yes, as in it can't pay out to Social Security what it has promised. which means that now, yes, Social Security has a problem. Mind you, it's a problem that pales next to Medicare, but a problem nonetheless. however, the funding doesn't really address that issue - my plan increased by several factors the benefit that would go to low-income workers, and the left wanted no part of helping them get into a better plan.

Actually, it looked like it was written by a Nobel prize winning economist that wrote it.

then he sucks at forming tightly written logically consistent article-length arguments.

Right out of Fascism 101 that one is.

separating performance from compensation is indeed a facet of corporatism, which is the economic philosophy of Fascism, that is correct.

If you can't afford education it is of little benefit.

which would cause me to look askance at the government interference that is responsible for the high inflation in education costs that we have seen lately.

fortunately, given the raw amount of scholarships and other programs designed specifically to make college more affordable, it generally is to any who is capable and willing to go. one of my good buddies is in his sophomore year right now - the man is a product of the street - raised in a single parent home, dropped out of high school in order to sell drugs, etc. how can he afford school? because he decided to improve himself - so he joined the military.

Agreed, there is a greater need for more affordable education. It should be a priority.

definitely. fortunately, there is a proven system for producing superior results with lower costs. it is called competition.

And so easily solvable, just crack down on the employer's of illegal immigrants.

agreed 100%. I like what Oklahoma did a few years back.

It came from a misinterpretation of the Census data.

what? it came directly from the Census data.

No, GOP submitted bills to cut family planning, and they wish to cut funding for the support of children after they are born.

you seem to have "giving people money to engage in irresponsible behavior" confused with "helping them".

Another good reason not to cut funding for family planning as the GOP has proposed.

on the contrary; it is a good reason to bring back the notion that you have and raise children in the context of two-parent families.

You have no clue about the socio-economic reasons for the above list, do you? You see it simply as someone being too lazy to pull himself up by his bootstrap with his own little white hand, right?

this is called an ad hominem fallacy - it's used when you are incapable of answering the data.
 
While I agree with raising taxes and am against such a high concentration of wealth, let's not forget, during the 1940s and 1950s we had just spent HUGE amounts of money on defense.

Not sure how that is different than the last decade?
 
I couldn't care less as it is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Our discussion was about wealth, but if you don't care to discuss it, fine.
 
Inflation in the 70's had nothing to do with the tax rates. Please try again.

Of course but then you claimed that,"hat we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm."

I don't know about you but incredibly high inflation, is pretty bad for low to middle income people, otherwise known as, minor economic cataclysm.

30 years of tax policies and cutting regulations, and all favored the wealthy ~ better known as trickle down economics.

The effective tax rates before Reagan was even elected were marginally higher than they are today.
The total effective tax rate for the top 10% was 29.6 as opposed to 26.7 in 2007.

The biggest spread was 37% in 1979 compared to 29.5 in 2007, for the top 1%.

You think this is what caused the problem, seriously?
Oh and before you go off on my libertarian source, it's a liberal think tank. ;)

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

You mean that crap about the working class needs to stop being lazy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Nope, I mean that it's all the fault of Republicans and Reaganomics, all the fault of rich people, all the fault of the top 1%.
You know, all your ridiculous, unfounded, claims.

I hope you know the effective rates were still almost twice what they are today for the most wealthy.

Wrong, as seen in the link above.
I bet you think that because you don't know the difference between statutory tax rates and effective tax rates.
Funny, that you try to lecture anyone on the causes of anything, when you're clearly not informed on the basics of the topic.

That's probably why they are also not protesting across the country...........oh, scratch that, they are protesting across the country.

Great, that's another red herring.
Protesting ≠ suffering.

What am I exaggerating?

Nearly everything.
You over emotionalize topics, instead of debating the material.
It's your modus operandi.

Seemingly, anything you cannot respond to is a red herring.

I responded to everything, including your red herrings.
Do you even know what a red herring is?
 
Back
Top Bottom