Are We Completely Nuts?

[Underhill]

you do realize that back then the federal income taxes filled the lions share of the burden, including at the state level. we didn't hve sales taxes, and luxury taxes and excise taxes and taxes on services and pretty much everything else we buy. but thats all part of the smoke and mirror game. the federal continues to provide less and less so they can say see, we didn't raise your taxes. but they cut aid to the states who in turn charge you more. you also pay more out of your pocket for services where federal aid has been cut. taxes taxes today do not cover what they did in 1950. not even close. also the average salary in the 1950's was like $10,000

What difference does any of that make? If you added up all the taxes payed to all levels of government by those making over 500k, it still wouldn't add up to the rate in 1970 and no where near the rates in 1955.

I'm not saying (and neither is anyone else) we should go back to the 1950's rates. But claiming that a 2-3% increase will be the end of all in this country is over the top and is certainly not backed up by history.

It is all relative though. In the 1950's, social security was the only entitlement and it had not yet spiraled out of control as all entitlements always do. Very few people fell into the highest tax brackets and they had plenty of tax shelters and other ways to avoid taxes that none of them were paying anywhere near those high rates.

Further, the average household at or above the median income was paying about 20% of their total income in taxes and fees at all levels. Now, the average household at or above the median income is paying a much higher percentage approaching 50% in taxes and fees at all levels. So add another 3 or 4% on top of that, and it is counter productive.

Also, the more money the government leaves with the people, the higher the revenues as a percentage of the GDP:

Why we can?t go back to sky-high, 1950s tax rates | AEIdeas

Instead of promoting class envy and pretending they are doing the right thing by trying to bring down the rich, the government would serve us much better with tax structure, regulation, and policy that would encourage private sector growth and prosperity which in turn creates many more people with jobs who are paying taxes.

It's not about bringing down the rich. It's about solving a problem. And as I said, the tax rates of the 50's wouldn't work.

But nobody serious is talking about going back to those rates.

Personally if I were king for a day I would make it simple. Get rid of the loopholes and raise taxes on the rich by 5%.

Then put in place a single loophole that would offer write offs for investing in American companies that employ Americans.

Because as I see it, letting the rich keep their money so they can invest it in companies that hire overseas labor is counterproductive.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you're missing Katz' point. Look how quickly most threads criticizing Obama in any way draw some kind of fire and accusation of 'racism' from somebody on the Left. He is afforded a layer of protection against a lot of criticism purely because he is black, at least so far as his admiring public is concerned. You can't use certain words like 'lazy' to characterize the President because that is deemed 'racist'. It IS absolutely Nuts as the thread title suggests.

So in the larger picture, does the media protect him and exalt him and advantage him like they do because he is black? Must he be admired and liked as a President, even if you are horrified by his policies, because he is black? I would like to think that isn't the case, but if you look at the cold, ungarnished, pure, unadulteratd reality, I have to believe that is part of it. There are way too many Americans who see a black man, not a President, and therefore to be noble, unracist, and tolerant, he must be loved.

And because the media largely refuses to critique him, criticize him, or do any honest reporting of any negatives re his policies, it is easy to give him that approval rating. Everybody loves him. Therefore he must be great.

I honestly can come up with no other reason for an approval rating over 50%.

I am sorry but what media are you watching? Because I see plenty of criticizing and complaining.

I realize it is hard being in your position. I was in the same position while Bush was in the white house, wondering how even his low approval numbers could possibly be accurate.

The truth is, Obama isn't nearly as bad as the right tries to paint him. His healthcare plan is a rehashed republican plan from the 90's. In fact I would bet it's not much different than what McCain would have done. Remember, he was talking about a new health care plan too when he was running. Obama's policies thus far have been moderate and reasonable for the most part.

That doesn't mean everyone agrees with him. But if, as so many have said, he is the worst president in their memory, I would like specifics why. I think our society is the most polarized in living memory so both sides sees the other as hideous.

The reality everyone needs to remember is that most politicians on both sides of the aisle have solid intentions. They simply disagree on what is best for the nation. But demonizing either side isn't constructive.

I'm not going to rehash, yet again, the techniques and methods used to protect Obama or make him look better than he is. I am not going to buy into your strawman of 'worst president in memory' etc. because that is not what this thread is about and I certainly have not gone there.

The thread is about public perception of the current government policies and whatever the policies were in previous administrations is relevent to the thread topic only to the extent that people now approve or disapprove existing policy and conditions.

Certainly Obama's approval ratings are much MUCH higher than he deserves on almost every single issue you can name. The topic is to discuss why that is. I have been attempting to do that, and I do so by focusing on how the media manipulates public opinion.

Agree or disagree with me at will. Everybody else does. But please try to focus on the topic, okay?