Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (43728)	6/10/2010 10:17:23 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: [[1) Which years are we hanging the argument on?] "50s and 60s, compared to recent years." Fine. Then we either: A) start with COMBINED data for each of the decades, or else we: B) take each year one by one. (Your choice!) I only note that we have not done that YET. Re: [2) What is the agreed definition for "Middle Class"] "The way the term is normally used." That is not an answer that is an evasion. I repeat: No argument can even begin to be mounted about the REALITY of those periods until this basic term is decided. (I suggested "median income" but again: you choose. But we MUST BE CONSISTENT for each and every time period we compare.) Re: [3) EXACTLY what is (and what is not!) INCLUDED as a component part of making up your composite of "total tax load"?] "All taxes." Using the metric of 'all taxes' will make it a very difficult and tedious comparison, (because we do not yet have that information before us for the requisite time periods), but again: it was YOU who wanted to make a comparison for "total tax load".... Re: [For example, some would certainly argue that TRANSFER PAYMENT PROGRAMS --- such as FICA/Medicare, etc., --- since they return money to the individual are not the same thing as regular 'taxes' are.] "They would be wrong." I simply point out that MANY economists would disagree with your position on that by noting that much of the money that people pay into these transfer payment / forced savings schemes is returned directly to the person paying in --- oft times (Social Security & Medicare the most common examples) SEVERAL TIMES MORE then what was paid in is drawn out the other side.... Many economists would argue that what is paid back should be deducted from tax load considerations (though net present value depreciation calculations should also be run against that future income stream --- weighted against a fair bond market rate of return that the same individual might have been expected to earn on his money if he had not been deprived of use of it by that enforced savings transfer payment scheme --- to depreciate the expected future value of the expected return stream of income when the person draws money out of the program later in life.) Either way though that makes for a much more complicated consideration than a straight-forward tax scheme where no direct return of revenue in an annuity-like stream is mandated for the individual paying the load.