Reply to The question no one is asking: SHOULD there be manufacturing in the US?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The question no one is asking: SHOULD there be manufacturing in the US? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Without a living wage, no one is going to be doing any of these manufacturing jobs. I doubt any of these companies are going to offer a pension and I doubt a family of four will not be able to live off of a line worker's income like they did in the '50s. No matter how badly you want it, America will not be back in the '50s. I would love to be able to vacation and have a single family home in a suburb and our children in a great school and me stay home all day with just my husband's job as a line worker working 40 hours a week. But honey that ain't going to happen[/quote]

Also the reason the fifties were a golden age was quite terrible and shouldn’t be replicated. Europe was decimated by fifty years of war, Asia and Africa and Latin America were struggling with the often violent ends of colonialism.  Our only true rivals were Canada and Australia and they didnt have the human capital and Australia is super far. Do we want the whole world to be decimated so we can have that back ?[/quote]
It was also during a time when white males didn't have to compete for high paying jobs with women and minorities.

BTW, taxes were much higher back then.  Sure, let's go back to the 1950s tax bracket, too.

[img]https://preview.redd.it/aw7r5yaqpnd01.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=3c3861175206a9058cb7c69d9ab7dacbb4ab43f0[/img][/quote]

+1 we could fix a lot of problems by going back to a 1950s tax rate on the top earners. [/quote]

This is as misleading as anything Trump and his crew says.

Yes.  Rates exceeded 90% from 1944 to 1963.  But, and this is what your memes don't tell you, there were only a handful of taxpayers who actually paid that.  The prevalence of entirely legal tax shelters, exclusions, etc. made it so the effective aggregate (income, payroll, etc) tax rate of the highest earners was still only around 40%.  So when you get mad at Reagan for reducing the individual tax rates so much, remember he also eliminated a very large section of tax deductions and shelters.[/quote]
Yes, but it was still higher than today's rate even with the loopholes.  Top tax bracket today is 37%.  In the 1950s, most of the 1% were paying about 45%.  We can go back to 45% if people love the 1950s that much.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

[quote]However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.[/quote]
[/quote]

Please read the WHOLE thing . . .

"How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]"[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics