Is THIS the Problem ?
I am going to take a crack at identifying a social disease which goes by the acronym T.H.I.S.
It stands for
Actually, often when folks do ask you questions you don't give a straight answer to them.
.
I would like to encourage you to pivot from characterization to substance.
Characterization: I often don't provide straight answers to questions.
Substance: Involves providing examples of questions which have not been answered straightforwardly
If you can't provide examples to support your characterization, then there may be some cognitive dissonance in your thought process.
It won't haunt anyone who has the common sense to see the system is likely unsustainable. Social security will be eroded heavily by the affects of inflation but likely will remain intact. Purchasing power will be significantly decreased. Will likely just go back to living how most of the rest of the world lives now and how it's been for nearly the entire existence of humanity.
Not sure why Nut Nut never addressed this post given I reminded him several times.
@Nut Nut
I would like to encourage you to pivot from characterization to substance.
Characterization: I often don't provide straight answers to questions.
Substance: Involves providing examples of questions which have not been answered straightforwardly
If you can't provide examples to support your characterization, then there may be some cognitive dissonance in your thought process.
Fair enough.
Here's one:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Fun Fact: A majority of boomers (barely) voted for Obama. How does that fit in with your theory?
addendum: My apologies if you answered this question and I somehow missed it.
Fair enough.
Here's one:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Fun Fact: A majority of boomers (barely) voted for Obama. How does that fit in with your theory?
addendum: My apologies if you answered this question and I somehow missed it.
Boomers have been the dominant voting bloc since they all came of voting age in 1984.
Both parties compete for their votes. There isn't anything especially noteworthy about a relatively even split between GOP and Dems in an evenly divided country.
If you want to be more clear about which theory you were alluding to ...... feel free.
There's no question in that post. WPN Donk offered their crystal ball vision of the future. They're entitled to their guess.
I never said there was a question in that post.
Both WPNdonk and John21 addressed your OP with serious responses within hours of your OP.
You responded to John21, but part of your response to him was observing how previous posters were ridiculing your thread. (And some folks were.)
My point is that you want serious engagement, but then one of the few posters who offered serious engagement (WPNdonk) you failed to even acknowledge, let alone engage.
It's strange to me to start a thread and then totally ignore someone seriously engaging it.
Anyway, enjoy your thread!
Boomers have been the dominant voting bloc since they all came of voting age in 1984.
Both parties compete for their votes. There isn't anything especially noteworthy about a relatively even split between GOP and Dems in an evenly divided country.
If you want to be more clear about which theory you were alluding to ...... feel free.
I am addressing your theory that Boomers were all (or mostly) about themselves and that they were major instigators of Prop 13 and the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984.
A small majority of Boomers voting for a liberal like Obama seems inconsistent with your theory that the bulk of Boomers are selfish, tax-cutting, get-government-off-our-back Reaganites.
I am addressing your theory that Boomers were all (or mostly) about themselves and that they were major instigators of Prop 13 and the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984.
A small majority of Boomers voting for a liberal like Obama seems inconsistent with your theory that the bulk of Boomers are selfish, tax-cutting, get-government-off-our-back Reaganites.
Apparently, Obama himself disagrees with you. In 2012, he characterized his policies as being equivalent to an 80's moderate Republican.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/13715...
He also signed legislation to extend the Bush presidency tax cuts.
What differences do you see in Reagan and Obama with respect to economics ?
Apparently, Obama himself disagrees with you. In 2012, he characterized his policies as being equivalent to an 80's moderate Republican.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/13715...
He also signed legislation to extend the Bush presidency tax cuts.
What differences do you see in Reagan and Obama with respect to economics ?
Obama referring to himself as the equivalent of a 'moderate 1980's Republican' was certainly not how he portrayed himself when running in 2008.
Obama literally ran against a moderate Republican in 2008 in Sen. John McCain. That facts seems to me undermines rather than help your theory.
Is it your opinion that in 2008 Obama portrayed himself as a moderate Republican?
Obama referring to himself as the equivalent of a 'moderate 1980's Republican' was certainly not how he portrayed himself when running in 2008.
Is it your opinion that in 2008 Obama portrayed himself as a moderate Republican?
My opinion. Obama lied in 2008 when he ran for office. That's what Democrats do now.
They campaign on what's good for average people and they govern based upon what the rich donors (disproportionately Boomers) want.
Judging a politician based upon what they say during a campaign in order to get elected is not so smart. They get where they want by being ruthless and saying whatever they need to say. They are better judged based upon their actions.
fyi - I was more gullible and naive in 2008. I supported Obama and I literally cried out of joy when he was elected. His governance completely soured my loyalty to the Democratic Party.
I am addressing your theory that Boomers were all (or mostly) about themselves and that they were major instigators of Prop 13 and the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984.
Boomers weren't really old enough to have had much of an impact back then. It was the older generation that probably voted for JFK who then went on to vote for Reagan.
Boomers weren't really old enough to have had much of an impact back then. It was the older generation that probably voted for JFK who then went on to vote for Reagan.
The population of the US was 140 million at the conclusion of WW2. The Baby Boom resulted in 76 million births between 1946-1964. All of those Baby Boomers were eligible to vote in 1984.
It's simply a rejection of basic math to say that Boomers were not old enough to have much of an impact. They have been a voting juggernaut since 1984.
The population of the US was 140 million at the conclusion of WW2. The Baby Boom resulted in 76 million births between 1946-1964. All of those Baby Boomers were eligible to vote in 1984.
It's simply a rejection of basic math to say that Boomers were not old enough to have much of an impact. They have been a voting juggernaut since 1984.
It looks like pretty much every age gap voted for Reagon at the same clip - with the older, Silent generation slightly favoring him more.
You can blame boomers for taking advantage and voting accordingly to their own interest but you could also blame the silent gen and the greatest generation for laying down the roadmap that led to cheap houses, SS and GI.
You could argue that designing and enacting the policies that create the advantages is a bigger crime than those who capitalize on it considering just about everyone, the older they get, are going to do what's best for them and their kids, financially.
My opinion. Obama lied in 2008 when he ran for office. That's what Democrats do now. They campaign on what's good for average people and they govern based upon what the rich donors (disproportionately Boomers) want.
I completely agree with the bolded.
That said, voters aren't mind-readers and they can't know in advance how a politician will govern once they take office. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change" in 2008 and a small majority of Boomers voted for him. And that imo undercuts your apparent theory that the majority of boomers were/are essentially 'get guvment off our backs' Reaganites.
I completely agree with the bolded.That said, voters aren't mind-readers and they can't know in advance how a politician will govern once they take office. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change" in 2008 and a small majority of Boomers voted for him. And that imo undercuts your apparent theory that the majority of boomers were/are essentially 'get guvment off our backs' Reagani
Your thinking is far too simplistic and ignores other relevant variables like the economic collapse late in the Bush presidency.
The colllapse occurred under GOP leadership and the public reflexively tosses out those in leadership when bad things happen.
The conversation is more nuanced than you imply.
Completely separate point ... it was Bill Clinton who signed off on the killing of Glass Steagall during his presidency in concert with a GOP Congress .... a big factor in the collapse.
The population of the US was 140 million at the conclusion of WW2. The Baby Boom resulted in 76 million births between 1946-1964. All of those Baby Boomers were eligible to vote in 1984.
It's simply a rejection of basic math to say that Boomers were not old enough to have much of an impact. They have been a voting juggernaut since 1984.
It's not their numbers. It's their really low voter turnout especially back in 1980. As I said it was an across the board shift to the right, not a young generation swaying the election.
Besides it's pretty hard to indict an entire generation over single digit swings. If that. Boomers appear evenly split with Trump and Harris.
It's not their numbers. It's their really low voter turnout especially back in 1980. As I said it was an across the board shift to the right, not a young generation swaying the election.
.
Exactly ..... Boomers and their parents were done with the wonderful public infrastructure that they had so richly benefitted from during Boomer childhood years.
Their priority shifted to paying as little taxes as possible when Boomers entered the work force.
Exactly ..... Boomers and their parents were done with the wonderful public infrastructure that they had so richly benefitted from during Boomer childhood years.
Their priority shifted to paying as little taxes as possible when Boomers entered the work force.
Their priorities didn’t suddenly shift to paying less taxes than their parents had. What people pushed back against in the late ’70s and into the Reagan era was the sense that taxes just kept climbing while everything else was getting more expensive. So it wasnt so much an anti funding social programs etc but against rising tax burdens landing on households already squeezed by pretty high inflation.
At the conclusion of WW2, top tax rates were 94% on income over 200k
In 1950 and 1960, they were 91% over 400k
In 1970, they were 70% over 200k
In 1980, they were 70% over 215k
Under Reagan's first administration they dropped to 50% over 162k by 1984. He delivered major tax relief to the wealthy and initiated the era of govt deficit spending.
By 1988 top rates declined to 28%.
You can make all the arguments you wish to about "priorities" and the impact of inflation. But you can't argue against the fact that tax individual tax rates were reduced from 70% to 28% under Reagan and that the beneficiaries were Boomers and their parents.
Let's look at an example of how things are different for college costs.
In 1980, when Reagan was elected, University of California tuition and fees was < $1k per year. Basically free for in state residents. Following chart shows how they rose .... adjusted for inflation after Boomers graduated.
Now UC resident tuition is $17,721 compared to nearly free for Boomers.
At the conclusion of WW2, top tax rates were 94% on income over 200kIn 1950 and 1960, they were 91% over 400kIn 1970, they were 70% over 200kIn 1980, they were 70% over 215kUnder Reagan's first administration they dropped to 50% over 162k by 1984. He delivered major tax relief to the wealthy and initiated the era of govt deficit spending.By 1988 top rates declined to 28%.You ca
Except probably literally nobody actually paid 94%
There were a tonnage of write-offs that were eliminated when the top-tier tax rates were cut in half.
The effective tax rate (i.e. tax rate after deductions) didn't change a whole lot until the late -1980's (per your data above).
Except probably literally nobody actually paid 94%
There were a tonnage of write-offs that were eliminated when the top-tier tax rates were cut in half.
The effective tax rate (i.e. tax rate after deductions) didn't change a whole lot until the late -1980's (per your data above).
Which writeoffs were available for people on salary ?
The CEO's and high ranking execs of major corporations had to pay that rate.
Back then, it was not considered stupid to contribute to the more perfect union that we aspired to in the Constitution. We had learned the hard way what it was like for too many people to fail during the Great Depression. Leaders like FDR had the wisdom to understand that a relatively contented population was the key to a great nation. A people able to work together on huge challenges like WW2. High taxes were necessary to navigate those hard times and keep the people together.
I think the problem of trying to educate people on a poker site is that poker is a competition with opponents that you want to defeat. A good poker player exploits the weaknesses of his fellow citizens. GTO is all about an edge vs an opponent with an aspiration to dominate. Poker players have a vested interest in someone else losing.
It's not an ideal community to try and tap into the desire to cooperate with one's fellow citizens for the common good.
Nature isn't an opponent we can dominate. Nature always has the stone cold nuts and it will take all of our chips if we go all in.
History tells us that its positive GTO in some situations to learn how to cooperate and commingle our resources toward a common cause. The only greatness the USA has ever achieved is through teamwork. A people that had the resolve to fight through many wars as a unit. An era where the societal elites also served in the military.
A lot of you downplay the consequences and demonize someone who is extremely concerned about the consequences of walking away from the version of the planet that we evolved in. You call me a doomer when I see myself as a realist.
Which writeoffs were available for people on salary ?The CEO's and high ranking execs of major corporations had to pay that rate. Back then, it was not considered stupid to contribute to the more perfect union that we aspired to in the Constitution. We had learned the hard way what it was like for too many people to fail during the Great Depression. Leaders like FDR had the wis
Seems like we somewhat agree on the tax increases. What you said sounds pretty close to what I said a while back ...
Fund these programs by increasing the marginal tax rate progressively for people who make over 1 million at 50 instead of 37% and increase it to around the range of 70% for 5 million and 80% 10 million. Similar to what took place in the 40s at lower income levels.
But I guess one of my issues here is that it would be cool if there was a little more consideration for how policies that sound great in theory can be far more complicated in practice or sometimes even create unintended effects that end up hurting the very people your trying to help. It's bigly to acknowledge that we too can **** things up ourselves.
Because, I'm sure you don't want higher inflation than what we have now, or an increase in unemployment, or loss in wages and benefits and so forth. All things that hiking up taxes can cause if other factors aren't address.
Things are complicated.
Edit: I'm not specifically referring to your opinions on taxes but mostly some of your earlier and the bit more off the wall takes that didn't appear likely to have a very high success rate of helping anyone out.
Which writeoffs were available for people on salary ?The CEO's and high ranking execs of major corporations had to pay that rate. Back then, it was not considered stupid to contribute to the more perfect union that we aspired to in the Constitution. We had learned the hard way what it was like for too many people to fail during the Great Depression. Leaders like FDR had the wis
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fac...
Summary:
While the top marginal income tax rate was over 90 percent while Eisenhower was president, few people were subject to that rate due to deductions and other tax loopholes. Top income earners paid much lower average tax rates.
Did you just skate by the above image in the article that you linked ?
