Speakeasy forum: From Ike to W

and 1916?

started and at first grew because one wasn't enough at many jobs anymore to have a family and take care of it.

Some families both work by choice, but now the choice is because they want to keep their "lifestyle" for most. Maybe it isn't strictly necessary for food, so the question becomes how extravagant the family lifestyle actually is.

I know when I was in high school all those decades ago, my mother went to work because they needed the money, and at a quite low paying job. But that little extra can make a lot of difference.

Did both need to work as long as they did? maybe not, but then after the kids are all gone, and you've worked 30 years, what else would you expect to do?

and your bracket is based on the last dollar earned so no one paid those rates across the board. So what is it you want to do? Would you like to see 91% on the wealthiest? Do you think the government would spend it more wisely than the earner?

I got burned badly with that one. My wife and I started out with those in the 80's when new and put in the maximum for a few years until my company went with a 401k type. I let the IRAs ride and the interest rates dropped to almost zero. I set up a distribution plan 2 years ago to pay it back over 5 years but suddenly found myself without work but with a fairly generous severance that caused my earnings for the last year to bring me into a higher bracket. I ended up paying about 15% more on the IRA distribution than had I just put the money in a regular savings account at the same interest. Not a happy camper about that. I think the government and IRA knew that sort of thing would happen when the rules were put in place.

I was getting virtually no interest on the IRA and was too close to retiring to try and move it. I'd set up a distribution schedule with the financial institution that was to begin the year after I'd planned to retire. I didn't know then about the company buyout and how things were going to change. I had tons of vacation when I left and that was part of the severance. I ended up with a large boost in income for one year which just happened at a bad time to receive the IRA distribution. I suppose, in hindsight, I could have called the financial institution and tried to delay payments. I fault myself for that.

was when both of our kids were finally out of school. We paid tuition from K-college. During that time we learned to live more than a little bit frugally. I still put away the maximum I could to get a company match for the 401K. We accelerated mortgage payments on a variable rate loan that hit over 13%! I did everything to save and have fortunately been very good at doing home repair myself. Once the kids were out of college, we didn't change our lifestyles much and continued to be frugal. We did everything wrong by today's lifestyle standards.

and then claim that as an argument in your favor?!

Govt monetary policies caused Great Depression.
Private industry improved medicine, often supported by private grants.
Possible that lack of good immigration control allowed entry of Influenza.
Govt manipulated gold prices.
In any Depression there are always more losers than winners, that's why it's called a depression.

I sure don't see how you can blame the rich for it all.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

you'll see the apparent affect of war and post-war as having significant impact on tax rates. Perhaps, if an all out war situations happens again, we could see the rates grow. Personally, I don't think lower rates on the wealthier are the major cause of disparity between rich and poor. The bigger factor, IMO, is eagerness to achieve. We could always just skim off the upper portions of wealth from the rich and redistribute it among the poor but I doubt that would serve a good purpose. If there is condemnation to be made of the wealthiest, I'd think that some of the condemnation also needs to be redistributed among lower income persons who moan about being poor but put out little effort to change their station on their own.

at which the highest rates kicked in during those war and post-war times. As for the depression era...pre and post crash...you'll see that, although the top rates were lower, they were on much lower incomes.

primary cause of disparity, at least not all of it.

Desire and native ability? maybe more a portion, but even then I don't believe everyone poor is lazy.

Everyone rich didn't work that hard or make that smart a choice.

Of course, it's easier when you start rich, but that's just the breaks I guess, the parents you're born to I mean.

I have to say some never see a need to share, they want it all, and take what they can no matter how. That can apply to either I guess, those poor that expect to be provided for and the Scrooges of the rich.

It's harder and harder for someone to lift themself up by their boot straps after quitting school at 16, like the old fables.

was only on the last dollars earned and that the actual rate would be lower. I would have to dispute your 30% figure as to the % paid by the "middle class". That would be approximately their bracket and not their effective rate. A family of 4 would have about 1/4 to 1/3 of their gross income pared off just by taking the standard deduction and this drops them into a lower bracket. If they owned a home, paid mortgage interest, property taxes and got education credits, their rate would be even lower. I'd dare say around 15%. How do I know?...been there, done that.

the opportunity to distribute their extra money in a way they prefer rather than allowing the government to do it. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

the less money you make. That's just a fact. The corollary is true, too. The more money you make, the less work you do per-unit income. To have "made" a billion dollars, you would have to CLEAR a million dollars a day for almost 3 years. A million a day after taxes! Every day for three years!


I think we should take a hard look at inheritance.