14 Ways A 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy And Our Country

[Gaspar]

Really?

I adore Jefferson, but his -- and the other founding fathers' -- ideas often were constantly evolving.

I don't think you can pin him down on many things. I think his flexibility -- and not his rigidity -- was a strength, not a weakness.

I'd say a foe of big government would have been raising Cain over the Louisiana Purchase, for instance. That, more than anything, expanded the United States and the role of government as much as anything. It turned the U.S. from a colony into an empire.

You're right.  Jefferson's mind was a churning urn of evolving ideas, but for the most part his philosophy on the role of government was solid.  He was by no means a saint and frequently befell the same corruption that he warned against.

In his letters to and from John Adams he continuously dismantles and reassembles his understanding of government and the flaws inherent in his own reasoning.  Jefferson engaged in self analysis constantly.  That's what makes him more of a philosopher than a politician.

There is a strong push to marginalize the historical figures that form the foundations of society.  This is natural in all societies.  It's a form of social entropy.  The longer it can be defended against the longer a society lasts.  Soon it will no longer be "politically correct" to teach Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison in schools any more.  

As we slouch towards "change," many of what we learned as philosophy will be reduced to inconsistent theory and opinion.  This has to happen in order to replace the old foundations with the new.  In a generation or two, these great minds will just be names in books, and perhaps a wrong answer on a single 10th grade multiple choice question.

[nathanm]

There is a strong push to marginalize the historical figures that form the foundations of society.  This is natural in all societies.  It's a form of social entropy.  The longer it can be defended against the longer a society lasts.  Soon it will no longer be "politically correct" to teach Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison in schools any more.  

Your alarmism is silly. You are correct that our founders have been relegated to 10th grade multiple choice exams, though. Few have bothered to study their writings.

[Gaspar]

Your alarmism is silly. You are correct that our founders have been relegated to 10th grade multiple choice exams, though. Few have bothered to study their writings.

Jefferson's autobiography is a great book to give a teenager who likes to read.  My dad gave it to me, and I still open it at least once a week.  It was sad when I was in high school and knew more about my country than the coaches that taught my history classes.

[Townsend]

It was sad when I was in high school and knew more about my country than the coaches that taught my history classes.

Is everyone's like that?  My "advanced" history coach taught from a 3 year old plan written out by his student teacher.  So pathetic.

[custosnox]

He must've gotten over it quick, given his enthusiasm for the Lewis & Clark expedition.

If Jefferson were truly that reluctant to have the U.S. expanded, he wouldn't have bothered with that long trip.

It was the fact that he thought it was unconstitutional that he was agrieved over.  Of course once it was decided that it wasn't, I'm sure he was happy as lamb chops that he had gotten such a good deal on so much land.

[we vs us]

Here's one of the funniest Reagan blame games I've heard thus far, as to why our crime rate is high today:

"Because since the Reagan Administration cut the taxes for the wealthy, the wealth of the middle class has been slowly drained away. When you start taking money away from the middle class, poverty starts to rise. When poverty starts to rise, so does crime. America is not a morality play, it's just a capitalist society where greed wins out over humanity."

I actually don't see what's so out of bounds about this quote, not necessarily regarding the crime rate but regarding the slow erosion of the middle class. 

I know it gets overquoted, but the wikipedia page for "American Middle Class" does an admirable job of summing up all the ambiguities surrounding the idea of the middle class, as well as some of the reasons its been in decline since (you guessed it) around 1980.  The core driver is income inequality, and the stagnation of middle class wages in comparison to the rising costs of major middle class life-purchases. 

I can't remember where I read this, but remember the quote broadly, the nut of which was this:  you can tell comparatively how much middle class expectations have changed since the 50's because a given household now requires two incomes (typically a husband and wife) to remain upwardly mobile.  In the 50's you only needed one.  Some of that is our plasma TV society, but a lot of that is basic stuff like health insurance, a house, saving for college for your kids, etc. 

[Red Arrow]

I can't remember where I read this, but remember the quote broadly, the nut of which was this:  you can tell comparatively how much middle class expectations have changed since the 50's because a given household now requires two incomes (typically a husband and wife) to remain upwardly mobile.  In the 50's you only needed one.  Some of that is our plasma TV society, but a lot of that is basic stuff like health insurance, a house, saving for college for your kids, etc. 

I can't argue the cost of health insurance and college.  Expectations for other things have expanded.  In the 50s, starter homes were often not new, not 2500 or more square ft, granite counter tops, etc.  Our house, built shortly after WWII had wood floors (2 story w/basement, suburban Phila, PA) because wall to wall carpeting was more expensive.  Mom and dad put a lot of work into refinishing those floors but I don't really remember beyond recoating them every few years. Compare the entry level car of today vs. the entry level car of the 50s or 60s.  While much is mandated by the government in terms of safety and emissions, I remember reading the classified used car ads which proudly proclaimed "R & H", radio and heater which were frequently optional. How many homes had more than one TV?  We didn't have a color TV until 1971.  Mom had the family car, purchased used of course. Few families in our mixed white and blue collar neighborhood bought new cars.  If they did, it wasn't every few years.  Mom and dad (or Grandmom/Grandpop) didn't buy very many kids their first car.  I was lucky, dad paid the additional insurance on the family car for me to drive.  I didn't have my own car until I was 20, even living in the burbs.  Violins are not necessary, I was OK with it.  Remember party lines on the phone?  Wash dishes by hand?  Have a clothes dryer or hang the wash out in the sunshine?  One bathroom or two?

I think there is a sense of entitlement since then (including baby boomers, not just the really younger folks) that didn't exist with the vets of WWII.  I think if they expected as much as today's families, they would have needed two incomes too.

[nathanm]

I can't remember where I read this, but remember the quote broadly, the nut of which was this:  you can tell comparatively how much middle class expectations have changed since the 50's because a given household now requires two incomes (typically a husband and wife) to remain upwardly mobile.  In the 50's you only needed one.  Some of that is our plasma TV society, but a lot of that is basic stuff like health insurance, a house, saving for college for your kids, etc. 

To be fair, what would have passed as an average "middle class" house in 1955 would almost be considered a dump today. Only one bathroom and two or three bedrooms? The horror. Between that, the significantly increased cost of health care and college education (now essentially required because we continue to offshore blue collar work at an alarming rate) there's nothing holding up the middle class but debt, even with two income households.

Red Arrow, I don't think many people buy new construction (except perhaps in subdivisions built specifically for the purpose) as a first home. Even now. Amongst all my friends, only one has bought anything that was built after 2000, and that one only because that's about all that was available in the area she needed to live.

It was pretty common in the 50s for families to have a relatively new car, often purchased brand new, but they'd usually only have one. That was much easier with the lower cost of buying a home. A similar house is a lot more expensive now, even adjusted for inflation. Part of that is the natural inflation that comes from having more people in the workforce.

All that said, both my parents and grandparents were two-job families. The wives went to work during WWII and never stopped working. In my maternal grandparents' case, it left them with the ability to have two cars (one usually no more than a couple of years old), a nice house (a hovel by today's standards), and a lot of nice things like cable (when it became available) and big dish satellite TV and even multiple color TVs. They got to keep those nice things after they retired thanks to the generous pensions provided by their employers and the Social Security checks they received.

The middle class is certainly being squeezed, and not entirely, though partly, by their own doing.

[Red Arrow]

Red Arrow, I don't think many people buy new construction (except perhaps in subdivisions built specifically for the purpose) as a first home. Even now. Amongst all my friends, only one has bought anything that was built after 2000, and that one only because that's about all that was available in the area she needed to live.

It was pretty common in the 50s for families to have a relatively new car, often purchased brand new, but they'd usually only have one. That was much easier with the lower cost of buying a home. A similar house is a lot more expensive now, even adjusted for inflation. Part of that is the natural inflation that comes from having more people in the workforce.

All that said, both my parents and grandparents were two-job families. The wives went to work during WWII and never stopped working. In my maternal grandparents' case, it left them with the ability to have two cars (one usually no more than a couple of years old), a nice house (a hovel by today's standards), and a lot of nice things like cable (when it became available) and big dish satellite TV and even multiple color TVs. They got to keep those nice things after they retired thanks to the generous pensions provided by their employers and the Social Security checks they received.

I know of one couple (dual income) that bought new construction twice before they were in their mid 30s. Another present co-worker and his wife bought new as their first house.  I hate to admit it but they fit an earlier discussion I had with Waterboy (I think) about getting more house for your $ in the burbs.  Nice house, small lot.  When my parents bought their first house in the early 50s, it was about 7 years old.  Dad got one of the last 4-1/2% GI bill mortgages.  It just seems strange to me for anyone to be able to buy new construction when in their 20s.

I didn't mean to imply everyone drove junkers.  There were many one car families with a nice but not new car. Obviously someone was buying the new cars or the relatively new used ones wouldn't be available.  I just don't remember that many in our neighborhood.  One family, a few houses up, got a new 57 Chevy, green as I remember.  They had a kid my age and I could hitch a ride to elementary school if the weather was really bad. The other new cars were bought by late teens/early 20s single guys still living at home.  62 409 Chevy. 66 289 Mustang fastback.  A couple of guys in the volunteer fire company I belonged to bought new cars when they got out of the Army in the late 60s.  By the mid 60s, more families bought new cars. 

I believe most of the families with children were one income families in our neighborhood.  I remember it because it was unusual for the kids I knew in elementary school to be latch key kids.  I can only think of two of my aunts (out of 7) that regularly worked outside the home.  One was divorced with grown kids, the other only had one kid (cousin to me of course) and as she (cousin) got old enough, my aunt got a job because she was bored around the house. Of course the extra money enabled them to buy more toys.

[Hoss]

I know of one couple (dual income) that bought new construction twice before they were in their mid 30s. Another present co-worker and his wife bought new as their first house.  I hate to admit it but they fit an earlier discussion I had with Waterboy (I think) about getting more house for your $ in the burbs.  Nice house, small lot.  When my parents bought their first house in the early 50s, it was about 7 years old.  Dad got one of the last 4-1/2% GI bill mortgages.  It just seems strange to me for anyone to be able to buy new construction when in their 20s.

I didn't mean to imply everyone drove junkers.  There were many one car families with a nice but not new car. Obviously someone was buying the new cars or the relatively new used ones wouldn't be available.  I just don't remember that many in our neighborhood.  One family, a few houses up, got a new 57 Chevy, green as I remember.  They had a kid my age and I could hitch a ride to elementary school if the weather was really bad. The other new cars were bought by late teens/early 20s single guys still living at home.  62 409 Chevy. 66 289 Mustang fastback.  A couple of guys in the volunteer fire company I belonged to bought new cars when they got out of the Army in the late 60s.  By the mid 60s, more families bought new cars. 

I believe most of the families with children were one income families in our neighborhood.  I remember it because it was unusual for the kids I knew in elementary school to be latch key kids.  I can only think of two of my aunts (out of 7) that regularly worked outside the home.  One was divorced with grown kids, the other only had one kid (cousin to me of course) and as she (cousin) got old enough, my aunt got a job because she was bored around the house. Of course the extra money enabled them to buy more toys.

It was the same with my parents.  They were renting a duplex at 15th and Elgin (now the east leg of the IDL; that's why we had to move in 1973) and then purchased their first home in Meadowood Heights (Traffic Circle, think flood) in 1973.  I was just out of kindergarten and I can remember alot of this.

The home, as they bought it, was 1400 sq ft, one car garage, all gas, window unit a/c.  It was sick.  My parents (well, dad, mom stopped working after she had me..she worked for Shell as a keypunch operator at the time) paid .... wait for it.... $14,500 for the house.  The mortgage payment was $120 a month for 30 years (I believe) and they paid it off in about 20.

It's now the house I currently live in.

I spent more on my last car then my parents did on this house...LOL.