Middle-class income rose above $61,000 for the first time last year, U.S. Census Bureau says

By nature they are double-taxation (due to taxing shareholder gains), so of course I'm opposed altogether. :cool:

I have no philosophical objection to double taxation (for instance, on capital gains), but I don't think they are economically efficient.
 
I have no philosophical objection to double taxation (for instance, on capital gains), but I don't think they are economically efficient.

Why not? Taxing the corporation is regressive skimming. X% comes off the top and my share pays the same tax as Buffet's share. Why not let profits filter to owners and allow progressive taxation to work its magic?
 
They deserve about what they get tbh.

Maybe you should blame democrats for coddling these people and giving them benefits.

I quite clearly telling you the fault lays with a structure that makes tax payers contribute to private enterprise.

You seem to be more concerned with blaming people or parties, when you should be blaming specific policy that needs fixing.
 
Why not? Taxing the corporation is regressive skimming. X% comes off the top and my share pays the same tax as Buffet's share. Why not let profits filter to owners and allow progressive taxation to work its magic?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I agree on corporation taxation, specifically that it is regressive and suboptimal by flat taxing what would transfer into progressively taxed income based on the earnings of the investor.
 
I'm not sure what you're asking. I agree on corporation taxation, specifically that it is regressive and suboptimal by flat taxing what would transfer into progressively taxed income based on the earnings of the investor.

My impression was that you were philosophically in favor or progressive taxation.
 
My impression was that you were philosophically in favor or progressive taxation.

I am, which is why I think corporate taxes are unfavorable - they preemptively flat tax what could otherwise be progressively taxed.

I think there might be short-circuit in the conversation somewhere.
 
I dont know about that. I have 24hr car washes around me, or at least ones that open early, and stay late. There are the people that clean the interior, and prep car for entrance into machine, and then the people at the other end that dry out the windows, and do some finishing touches. There is also the cashier. So yes, you can work at a car wash full time.
I still said there are no jobs like that here. Notice the here part.
What you describe sounds like a carwash from the 50s
Or a pro finishing shop. But here they will also polish and other stuff, not just a wash and clean.
Just to repeat myself. I think that anyone with a full time job should at minimum make a livable wage
 
Last edited:
I can tell how bad his policies are by how badly the US is fairing economically. It's amazing how well the markets responded to his election, precisely because of the policies he was known to espouse.
Yeah that record stock market and massive corporate tax cut is really helping the little guy.
It's during the good times like these you should be paying of debt and tightening up the economy not giving massive tax cuts. Omnibus spending etc.
 
Last edited:
Do you think 20% down should be the only way to buy a house? How would people with lesser amounts of money ever buy a house of their own?
You shouldn't. A 20% down payment means you're looking at $600 monthly payment for every $100,000 mortgage debt, provided your amortization is 25 years. If you bought a million dollar home (average price of two-bedroom condos in Vancouver) with 20% down, you need $57K a year just to service your debt. You need to have a gross income of $76K just to be able to make payments without any money for anything else including food.

Longer amortization and reduced lending requirements are part of the reasons why real estate bubbles are forming.
 
Last edited:
Let me try to rephrase.

Whats the disadvantage of a subprime loan when interest rates go up?
The borrower can no longer afford the payments, and thus default. Now answer my question. What makes you think an economic boom cycle can continue indefinitely when it's fueled by record household and corporate debt?
 
The borrower can no longer afford the payments, and thus default. Now answer my question. What makes you think an economic boom cycle can continue indefinitely when it's fueled by record household and corporate debt?

Right. so the main problem was the fluctuating interest rates and people no longer able to afford them. very bad, we agree.
my only point is if these loans are not >primarily< subprime loans but instead fixed rates, it is less likely to cause a housing crisis like it did 10 years ago.


Nothing lasts forever, including this economic boom. Cheers brother
 
Yeah that record stock market and massive corporate tax cut is really helping the little guy.
It's during the good times like these you should be paying of debt and tightening up the economy not giving massive tax cuts. Omnibus spending etc.

1. I completely agree on the omnibus spending bill. That was a big mistake imo. We should definitely be tightening up spending. I'd like to see cuts across the board.
2. I think the corporate tax rate cut was a no brainer for both parties. We need to be competitive globally, and this brings us closer to being in line with global corporate tax rates. Fixing our broken trade agreements is also a big help in this regard. Trump's trade wars are just what the doctor ordered for many American companies.
3. I think the booming economy is clearly helping the little guy. Unemployment is down, wages are up. Workers wages are rising faster than CEO pay, which is good imo.
 
Youre thinking of average ie the mean.

Median is where half are above half are below.

So Bezos is cancelled out by one low income earner.

It's the best metric for this purpose.

You need to look at the perecentiles and standard deviation. Because few things in life are normally distrubted. Most often more than 50% of a population or whatever is being measured falls either below the mean or above the mean. Meaning averages are often NOT the middle poiny nor do they represent where 50% is above or below. Averages get skewed given high minority scotes at either tail end that throw can throw it off.
 
I'm very pro-taxation and think the whole "taxation is theft" far right wing slogans to be nonsense. But if taxes are too high they hamper economic growth, and that's where we found ourselves. The tax cuts were good because they allowed the economy to begin to thrive in a way it hadn't for a decade.

It's crazy to me that people just confidently make these kinds of objectively false pronouncements. Like, why not just do the barest minimum level of research necessary to avoid looking like a fool in public?

It is good to see lefties finally coming around on caring about the debt though. Obama doubled it in eight years, but without promoting pro-growth policies. Sort of the worst of both worlds.

More of the same. Just complete indifference to the truth of what you say (or more of your trademark outright dishonesty).
 
Except with inflation and prices now, $61K seems like the equivalent of $30K in the 90s.
 
It's crazy to me that people just confidently make these kinds of objectively false pronouncements. Like, why not just do the barest minimum level of research necessary to avoid looking like a fool in public?
What part do you disagree with?
1. That if taxation is too high it can hamper economic growth? That's obviously true.
2. That the economy is currently growing at a faster rate than any time in the last decade? That's also true.

Nothing foolish about either statement.

More of the same. Just complete indifference to the truth of what you say (or more of your trademark outright dishonesty).
The only trademark here is your inability to hold a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree.
 
What part do you disagree with?
1. That if taxation is too high it can hamper economic growth? That's obviously true.
2. That the economy is currently growing at a faster rate than any time in the last decade? That's also true.

Nothing foolish about either statement.

Zero evidence at all that high taxation was weighing on growth (in fact, taxation had been extremely low for most of the past decade). Zero evidence that high levels of taxation has a measurable impact on growth. The economy has been growing at roughly the same pace for a while. Again, you're making statements that run counter to the evidence in a confident way without even acknowledging that at the very least, they are highly unorthodox views among people who study the issues.

The only trademark here is your inability to hold a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree.

No, you claimed that Obama doubled the debt, which is objectively false. You claimed that "lefties" finally care about debt, when it has long been a much greater concern of the political left than the right. You claimed that Obama didn't promote pro-growth policies, despite pushing exactly the sort of policies that economists all over the spectrum would tell you are appropriate to spur growth in the situation the U.S. was in (and in spite of the objectively superior results to those of other countries that responded differently). Again, you don't care because you have shown yourself to be totally indifferent to the truth of your claims so long as you believe they serve your political interests.
 
Zero evidence at all that high taxation was weighing on growth (in fact, taxation had been extremely low for most of the past decade). Zero evidence that high levels of taxation has a measurable impact on growth. The economy has been growing at roughly the same pace for a while. Again, you're making statements that run counter to the evidence in a confident way without even acknowledging that at the very least, they are highly unorthodox views among people who study the issues.

High levels of taxation hamper economic growth. It doesn't take an expert to see the obvious. Of course, many experts do agree with the statement I made. Here's the top google return from a quick search. It may be unorthodox among your colleagues, but clearly many economists think in terms very similar to those I expressed.
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsr...h-says-research-from-columbia-business-school

Key quote: “Our findings show that because of the relatively higher corporate tax rates in the US, fewer profits of American firms are being channeled in to domestic investments, which leads to a lower economic growth rate,” says Professor Khan. " Your argument here is an argument from authority, which aside from commonly leading to logical fallacies here breaks down because you do not accurately describe the views of the experts.

No, you claimed that Obama doubled the debt, which is objectively false.

The US debt stood at 10.6 trillion dollars in Jan 2009. By 2016 that increased to 19.7 trillion dollars. (https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/19/news/economy/debt-obama-trump/index.html) An increase of 9.1 trillion over 10.6 can be reasonably generalized as doubling. If the imprecision bothers you, can we agree that during Obama's tenure as president the national debt increased 86% rather than 100%?
 
This would ensure that only the higher half of middle class and up would be able to buy a house. Hard working Joe and teacher Jane may work 20 years and literally be unable to buy their own house, a quality one at least. I don't know if I agree with that as I feel the lower percentage helps good hard working people buy their homes, but I understand your point of view.
It IS already that way in major metropolises around the world. If you had to pay back the mortgage in 10 years and place a minimum of 40% down payment, the market would adjust pricing to the new rules. Instead, we have a mortgage rate policy from the banks that encourages speculation and price inflation. That's why homes are becoming unaffordable in large cities, and driving rent up. It makes everyone's lives miserable. You can still find single homes from $250K to $500k range in some cities, and those are within the reach of working class man due to lack of speculation.
 
Back
Top