and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Perhaps that what the original author thought the problem was? All these women out there workin', causing new taxes to appear. If it weren't for independent women escaping the kitchens of America there wouldn't be an accounts receivable tax!

Many of the taxes sighted are state and local taxes and have NOTHING to do with FDR or LBJ.

I think we should do two things-- Simplify our tax structure which includes reducing the number of taxes and insure the tax revenue is EQUAL to the amount we agree to spend! Most administrations have made BOTH of these issues worse. We spend more then we tax and the tax laws become more complex. Only during the 1990's did we begin to bring our spending and taxing into balance. GWB ended that process and his tax cuts have made the Federal tax laws worse and created an annual budget deficit.

To answer the question in this Blog-- Do we pay enough taxes-- The answer is NO. We are not paying as much in taxes as we SPEND!!! We are not willing to cut spending so we must insure the tax revenue is increased!

All these women out there workin', causing new taxes to appear. If it weren't for independent women escaping the kitchens of America there wouldn't be an accounts receivable tax!

Well I was thinking he was saying, one income was enough back then, now because of all the taxes we need duel incomes just to stay afloat. Even if a mom wanted to stay home now, it's very difficult to do so.

In our state, do you know who the biggest employer is? The STATE. So who's going to start voting to spend less? The State government? The Federal? The people on welfare? It's got to start somewhere but where? Raising taxes is not going to solve the problem. It's only going to raise the revenue. So the people like me have to pay more.
It's going to take a tax payer's revolt to stop this. The government is not going to do this nor the people who are living off the system. Anyone want to start?

Perhaps that what the original author thought the problem was? All these women out there workin', causing new taxes to appear. If it weren't for independent women escaping the kitchens of America there wouldn't be an accounts receivable tax!

  I love your sarcasm.

At least they aren't making us pay a blood tithe yet...oh wait, that's what the Red Cross does...but it's voluntary...for now. muahahahahaha!

~Zoo

The reason why it takes two incomes has little to do with taxes. If you go back to 1940 and track the increase in the cost of Homes and Cars and compare those increases with the increase in the average annual wage you will see the reason why it takes two incomes.

The increase in the cost of homes has far outstripped the increase in wages. The same thing is true of the cost of cars which in 1940 most families had ONE car now they have two or more.

In 1941 the average annual income was $1,770. The Average new car was $850 and the average new home was $4,050. My parent’s mortgage payment was $15 per month. Today mortgage payments for the average new home are over $2,000 per month which is more then a 125 times higher. That would mean the average wage would need to be over $220,000 per year.

Two things:

1) Industrialized Warfare

2) Social Safety nets (social security, medicare, etc.).

The reason why it takes two to have what is considered a middle-class lifestyle is because we have raised the bar on what constitutes a middle class lifestyle.  If you have 3 families and 2 of them have wives who decide to go into the workplace then those two families will earn more. The median income will thus rise and the third family, who hasn't actually lost anything, will be described as being poorer because they are poorer relatively.

The reason why it takes two incomes has little to do with taxes. If you go back to 1940 and track the increase in the cost of Homes and Cars and compare those increases with the increase in the average annual wage you will see the reason why it takes two incomes. The increase in the cost of homes has far outstripped the increase in wages. The same thing is true of the cost of cars which in 1940 most families had ONE car now they have two or more. In 1941 the average annual income was $1,770. The Average new car was $850 and the average new home was $4,050. My parent’s mortgage payment was $15 per month. Today mortgage payments for the average new home are over $2,000 per month which is more then a 125 times higher. That would mean the average wage would need to be over $220,000 per year.

Incidentally, one would have to have a mortage over over $350,000 for the mortgate payment to be over $2,000 per month.  A $350,000 house will get you typically a 3,500 square foot house ($100 per square foot national average).  The cuople in 1941 lived in a house that was less than 1/3rd that size.   The funny thing about statistics is that dumb people are easily confused by them.  Be wary of falling for "median" and "average". 

Quick look on the Internet:

What Things Cost in 1941:
Car: $925
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,900
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 34 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 111
Average Annual Salary: $2,050
Minimum Wage: 30 cents per hour

Go back and find houses from the 1940s and you'll find houses that are around 1,000 square foot as being average. That would be around $100,000 in today's dollars.  If you're going to play with statistics, do apples and apples. A $15 mortage would only be for a $2,000 mortage which is 1/3rd your claim (I mean you can't even keep your numbers straight within a single sentence? How lazy are you?). The average new home in 2001 (when they were over-valued) was about $200,000. That's for a 2,000 or so square foot home -- twice the size. The median single income is around $30,000 today. 

The net of this is that how much an individual can buy today has grown significantly since 1941 and it's of much better quality.  The fact is that it doesn't take 2 to make due. It's just that most Americans are not willing to live like they did in 1941. They want the 2,500 square foot house, the two cars, the annual vacation, the kids going to Soccer and other non-free activities, along with the other modern conveniences that come with disposable income.

 

I've always wondered how much of our GDP is the result of taxes. If it costs more to do business now, that automatically translates to higher prices for consumers. By the time we pay for goods and services we not only cover the cost of all taxes for everyone who had anything to do with the product before we bought it, but we get the added honor of paying a sales tax on top of that.

The ignorant could look at their expenses and only figure their tax expense as what they were actually taxed, but everyone who takes time to think about it knows that the greatest bite out of our incomes is that bite the government takes.

But then again, we are living in a day when the government talks about "windfall taxes" on the petroleum industry when they are already enjoy a bigger "windfall" than any level of petroleum production and distribution... and complete ignorant people rise up and cheer... even if it doesn't change their lives in the least.

Some people (We call them Democrats) worry far too much about how much other people make as if someone else having more hurts them.

The fact is that it doesn't take 2 to make due. It's just that most Americans are not willing to live like they did in 1941. They want the 2,500 square foot house, the two cars, the annual vacation, the kids going to Soccer and other non-free activities, along with the other modern conveniences that come with disposable income.

yes, this is so true. With three babies almost all at once I stayed home for many years, and we did without the fancy stuff. My kids did not have all the latest fads.......and it turned out to be so much for the better. I'm actually glad we didn't have the money now looking back. When we started our own CPA business we made 8,000 that first year. We got no outside help except the local church we attended gave us 500 for Christmas and the kids got free lunch at school which I was very grateful for. It wasn't fun, but we made it.....and that was in 1990. It can be done. I was the coupon queen and could save 25-30 a week just there.

Incidentally, one would have to have a mortage over over $350,000 for the mortgate payment to be over $2,000 per month. A $350,000 house will get you typically a 3,500 square foot house ($100 per square foot national average).

I believe you must be talking building a house? Because otherwise there are so many variables. We have a 2,000 or so sq foot house with 11 acres and it's in the range of much more than $200,000.

Some people (We call them Democrats) worry far too much about how much other people make as if someone else having more hurts them

hahahahah.....I think I know those people.

The reason why it takes two incomes has little to do with taxes. If you go back to 1940 and track the increase in the cost of Homes and Cars and compare those increases with the increase in the average annual wage you will see the reason why it takes two incomes. The increase in the cost of homes has far outstripped the increase in wages. The same thing is true of the cost of cars which in 1940 most families had ONE car now they have two or more. In 1941 the average annual income was $1,770. The Average new car was $850 and the average new home was $4,050. My parent’s mortgage payment was $15 per month. Today mortgage payments for the average new home are over $2,000 per month which is more then a 125 times higher. That would mean the average wage would need to be over $220,000 per year.

Col, how does it feel to be proven wrong once more?

Incidentally, one would have to have a mortage over over $350,000 for the mortgate payment to be over $2,000 per month. A $350,000 house will get you typically a 3,500 square foot house ($100 per square foot national average). I believe you must be talking building a house? Because otherwise there are so many variables. We have a 2,000 or so sq foot house with 11 acres and it's in the range of much more than $200,000.

Drmiler

I do not know where you get the BS but here are the facts:

To buy a 300,000 home with 40,000 down and about 10,000 in closing costs would give the buyer a $250,000 mortgage. At 5 5/8% for 30 years fixed that is:

P & I $1,439
Tax escrow 400
Insurance 125
Mortgage Ins under 20% equity 50


Mortgage payment $2,014

Thus my statement about the mortgage payment is correct. In many areas the average price of a home is HIGHER then the $300,000 I used which will make the mortgage payment even higher. YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

The cost increase in cars is correct and most families do have two cars. Thus the increased cost to provide cars is correct in my post and you are AGAIN WRONG!

I understand that homes are larger then in 1941 but that is a fact and the cost increases in providing housing and cars to the average family has increased FAR MORE then the AVERAGE WAGE which is WHY it takes TWO working to pay the bills!

Go crawl under a rock defecate on yourself!

Such niceitys there.

We aren't talkin about some area's though, 10 miles west of me, you could buy a pretty nice rather large house for 35k. 10 miles east the same house would cost 125k. Same house in my town, about 80k or so. The figures quoted are based on an average, not "in some areas"

Apples to apples would mean the same thing to the same thing, not 1 car vs 2 cars. when both parents are working, then yes, both need a car, but when only one works, 1 car is just fine, I know a lot of people with both spouses working that make due with only 1 car. So that is not a proper compairison.

How has the average family increased since the baby boom?!?! HELLO! average now is 2.5 kids, average then was what??

Drmiler I do not know where you get the BS but here are the facts: To buy a 300,000 home with 40,000 down and about 10,000 in closing costs would give the buyer a $250,000 mortgage. At 5 5/8% for 30 years fixed that is:

Hey IDIOT! I can see you don't read much. First off, "I" didn't post the figures. KFC did!

Secondly, his figures are spot on! I have been dabbling is real estate for awhile and "your" figures are waaaaay off. The average home goes for 150K to 250K. NOT 300K like you're trying to tell us. 300K will buy you a custom home built to your spec. So going by current "correct" figures you are "once again" proven wrong! Here's one at 260K starting. You will see this is NOT an average home.
Link

Here's one that is: Link

And another: Link


As you can see these are average homes running between 150K to 200K. 5 bedroom homes aren't really average. 3 bedroom w/ 2 full bath is average. Kind of shoots your cockeyed theory in the a** don't it? And here is calculated mortgage payment with 0 down!



Monthly Payment: $1,024.67

Loan Amount: $178,000
Interest Rate: 5.625%
Term of Loan: 30 years (fixed)




So now YOU go find a rock to crawl under. And while you're at it, take a goat with you so you can perform un-natural sex acts with it.

drmiler

I do not know where you live but I know SE PA and SW Florida and the average home in just short of 300,000.


In areas where the averages may be lower so are the wages. My point remains correct-- The cost of housing and cars has increased far more then the average wage and is the principal reason why it takes TWO WAGES to live. You are just about the biggest idiot I have ever come across!