I've already told you Web. When this country flourished as you mentioned in your first post the rich were paying taxes



no, no no no no. Not true. Spending was miniscule compare to what it is now. But that's not the main thing wrong with your thinking.

Its history, dont argue with me.

I am going to argue with you because you are wrong. It’s a fallacy that high tax rates yield prosperity.

Here’s an exercise for you. How much revenue was generated from those high tax rates you refer to and how many actual earners fell into those categories?

WebsterMark wrote on 08/26/12 at 18:49:12:


We took a safety net and tried to change it into a net full of razor blades ...

Correct it was 4k in 1960 per person and its 11K now ... and what was a loaf of bread in 1960 ? what was a gal of gasoline in 1960 ? what was the cost of electricity in 1960 ? How about the roof over your head ... cos if I remember in 1960 too people still had to have those things to survive.

Its called inflation my friend.
The 11k doesn't mean they are living in luxury as the rich people and if it was just the rich it would be alright ... its the brain washed wanna be rich as well ... would like people to think ...

Its right up there with Joe the Plummer's tax dilema ... Obama was going to raise taxes on me if I statred making over 250K per year ... bad, bad, bad. Yea right moron, you barely make 55K now, you will take decades if not centuries if things go right before you get to 250K. You are worried about your taxes going up then ... really ... really.

The whole taxes on the rich (the 1%) need to be lower so that the soon to be rich (the 99%) will enjoy the lower taxes too has a fine print there, and that is, if they ever get to becoming rich ...

I'm a bit horrified that 11K per head is all we are spending on the safety net ... seriously in 50 years what else has not even tripled in $ ... yea I know, Internet. In 1960 you would have paid billions for the speed we have now ... how about TV's and electronic gadgets ... yea You get the point ... not neccesities for life my friend.

Cool.
Srinath.

Correct it was 4k in 1960 per person and its 11K now ... and what was a loaf of bread in 1960 ? what was a gal of gasoline in 1960 ? what was the cost of electricity in 1960 ? How about the roof over your head ... cos if I remember in 1960 too people still had to have those things to survive.

Its called inflation my friend.
The 11k doesn't mean they are living in luxury as the rich people and if it was just the rich it would be alright ... its the brain washed wanna be rich as well ... would like people to think ...

i stopped reading right there because the numbers have been adjusted for inflatation which is standard practice when comparing one year to the next.

one source below. i found this in several places.

http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_per_resident_over_time.html

2) The chart shows the total federal budget, or how much it spent during each fiscal year - from 1962 to 2009, with projections
through 2015, adjusted for inflation to constant FY2005 dollars - divided by the U.S. resident population over time. Inflation
reduces the buying power of the dollar over time. So constant FY2005 dollars adjusts to constant buying power over time.

Thank you for posting that webster mark - Now I'd like to get a tally of the $ paid out to veterans+retirees+medical from that 1960 number vs 2011 is it - OK yea ... if I recall 1960 was pre vietnam. We had ww2 then.
So yes numbers like this for the wars and the retirementshould be compared too.

have at it, do whatever you want.

OK this is all I could find -

http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_as_percent_GDP_over_time....

The 07 recession has caused that last bit to climb a bit, but in historic terms its very well manageable and close to the 1960 mark. Plus remember, retiring people and returning war veterans will have that number climbing more and more in the future unless the economy expands rapidly.
Cool.
Srinath.

And in 2005 dollars, GDP numbers ...

http://supportingevidence.com/Government/US_GDP_over_time.html

Man that sorta increase in GDP comes with its own set of rules ... its doubled from 70 to 95, and stayed with that same rate of rise through to now.

You do know that your 4k-11K rise from 1960 to 2010 is a bit pathetic incomparison right - in 1960 we were @ less than a trillion. in 2008 we were @ 13 trillion. 15 fold increase vs a 3 fold increase ... OK who says they have to increase in lock step ... Ok fine ... however if you count in the mandatory payments I am gonna say the 4k to 11K rise is closer to a 4k-5K rise than to 11.
Cool.
Srinath.