Census: Half of Americans Are Poor or Low-Income

[Valmy]

It is very bad for the entire economy, disastrous even, to have so many people with such limited disposable income.  I wonder if there is anything to be done about it 

I find it very disconcerting that as our wages and thus labor costs go down employment is not picking up because of the cheaper costs.

[Valmy]

We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

Are people really serious about this as a solution?  Already the rich find ways to pay low taxes.  And further, since money is international, wouldn't high taxes on the richest just encourage them to take their capital someplace else?  I mean even more than they already do?  This is why the middle class is such an important source of public money and hey they are decreasing.  Bad news for the cash starved state and municipal governments.

[DontSayBanana]

Well, there's a ~$12,000 difference, right there, just from the housing.  And our healthcare is notorious.

The average housing cost in the USA is nowhere near $1,000/month.

For a house.  I should have been clearer about that.  I'm also in a bad spot to judge because the area where I live is actually more expensive than Center City in Philadelphia right now.

[Habbaku]

If you're comparing "a house" to "housing" you're still comparing apples to oranges, especially as "housing" in Hong Kong is not exactly something that you get a lot of return on your money.

[DontSayBanana]

Nah, you guys are right.  This is why I shouldn't try to score any points when I'm half-asleep.

[The Brain]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I wish that people would stop giving money to the gypsy beggar gangs. Sure they don't really bother me when they sit silently in the cold but you have to be a moron to believe that giving them money is a good deed.

[Richard Hakluyt]

These arbitrary "a family of four needs x amount" are somewhat self-defeating in my view. The figure is often disturbingly large and also obscures some of the issues.

A campaigning group in the UK (I forget which), for example, recently revealed that for a family of 4 in the UK poverty occurred at household income after tax of £600-and-odd per week or below 

I was confused, we spend only slightly more than that and, essentially, if we want something we buy it. But, OTOH, our house is paid off, we live in the North and only one of us works so there are no childcare expenses. Compare this to a hypothetical family living in London, paying rent to a private sector landlord and in receipt of two lowish incomes. For a place the size of ours they would have to pay about £1500 rent and childcare could easily eat up most of the rest of their "poverty" wages. So the "poverty" level can easily include people who are actually well-off as well as people who are genuinely struggling 

[Razgovory]

The average housing cost in the USA is nowhere near $1,000/month.

True, I think it's a quite a bit higher.

[Ideologue]

We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

Are people really serious about this as a solution?  Already the rich find ways to pay low taxes.  And further, since money is international, wouldn't high taxes on the richest just encourage them to take their capital someplace else?  I mean even more than they already do?  This is why the middle class is such an important source of public money and hey they are decreasing.  Bad news for the cash starved state and municipal governments.

I can think of various ways to encourage Americans not to engage in capital flight.

Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it.

[Valmy]

Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it.

Ok two points:

1. The world was a much different place 1940-1980.  Particularly the 1940-1960 part.

2. They generally avoided paying those taxes through tax breaks and incentives.  The tax code was actually set up in a way that encouraged them to do certain things, like be landlords for instance, rather than actually raised revenue through the high tax rates.  At least that was my understanding.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it.

JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

[Valmy]

JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

[Admiral Yi]

Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes.  70? 80?

[Valmy]

Yes.  70? 80?

I am amazed by that.  I mean I know what the technical tax rate was but it is pretty remarkable that actually worked as designed.

Especially when you consider the rather amazing extent of black market shenanigans going on with wartime rationing that people would be so eager to sacrifice almost their entire income in a time of peace.

[Josephus]

JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes. Tea-partiests who pine for the good old days forget this.