A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways:
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041625/13-ways-90-percent-top-tax-rate-fixes-economy
I love it. Let's go all you Reganites! You don't want your 1950's country back?
I like it. That's one way to get all these lazy rich people and their filthy money to move overseas.
(http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r419/jlv706/1272298426.jpg)
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."
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2010, 11:31:37 AM
I like it. That's one way to get all these lazy rich people and their filthy money to move overseas.
Yeah, those rich people who provide jobs, give generously to charities, invest money, and take risks should leave to appease afterbirths like fotd.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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."
" consistently wreck the threads here" Pompous Conanus 4/26/10
Quote from: guido911 on April 27, 2010, 12:37:54 PM
Yeah, those rich people who provide jobs, give generously to charities, invest money, and take risks should leave to appease afterbirths like fotd.
The wealthy ( a small diff from calling them "rich people"... ) did all those things when rates were at their highest. Most come out before the bottom line. Providing jobs is an expense. Philanthropy is a tax offset. Investing is what the code was most encouraged to promote in the 50's and 60's and even in the 70's until interest expense became non deductible in most cases and the provision was eliminated by whom? Was it under Reagan?
Rich stuff, Doe Doe.
Quote from: fotd on April 27, 2010, 12:50:38 PM
The wealthy ( a small diff from calling them "rich") did all those things when rates were at their highest. Most come out before the bottom line. Providing jobs is an expense. Philanthropy is a tax offset. Investing is what the code was most encouraged to promote in the 50's and 60's and even in the 70's until interest expense became non deductible in most cases and the provision was eliminated by whom? Was it under Reagan?
Rich stuff, Doe Doe.
You are such an unbelievable moron. I was not "wealthy" in the 70s or 80s or 90s yet I managed to give generously to charities (although I changed who I gave money to after 2008), invest in business, and (dare say) employ people without being taxed at 90%.
Quote from: guido911 on April 27, 2010, 12:54:35 PM
You are such an unbelievable moron. I was not "wealthy" in the 70s or 80s or 90s yet I managed to give generously to charities (although I changed who I gave money to after 2008), invest in business, and (dare say) employ people without being taxed at 90%.
You must hate Eisenhower too.
If the %90 bracket existed for those with net income over $4 million a year would you negotiate?
Gwee, how did America make it through those times?
We have a winner. That's the stupidest article ever regurgitated by fotd. It's even got charts and graphs from angry doodlers.
If I was taxed 90%, why the fv(k would I want to produce anything? I'd be better off just living off the govt teet.
Why innovate?
Why invent?
Why expand?
Why employ?
Why compete?
Why live here?
Not even Turkey, Sweden, Packistan, Zambia, Guyanna, or France conspire against their citizens at this level.
I love this country, but would choose to live elsewhere under such conditions. Not that I am in that bracket, but such policies would certainly limit my goals, and I can't allow that.
Conservatives dream of new machines, liberals lust for lotteries.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 01:07:41 PM
We have a winner. That's the stupidest article ever regurgitated by fotd. It's even got charts and graphs from angry doodlers.
If I was taxed 90%, why the fv(k would I want to produce anything? I'd be better off just living off the govt teet.
Why innovate?
Why invent?
Why expand?
Why employ?
Why compete?
Why live here?
Not even Turkey, Sweden, Packistan, Zambia, Guyanna, or France conspire against their citizens at this level.
I love this country, but would choose to live elsewhere under such conditions. Not that I am in that bracket, but such policies would certainly limit my goals, and I can't allow that.
Conservatives dream of new machines, liberals lust for lotteries.
I would be gone immediately if my federal taxes reached just 50%. Back in the 1950s, I suspect the world economy was not as global as it is now. Today, companies and people can pull up their tent pegs and take their money, jobs, charity, and investment just about anywhere.
We did innovate, invent, expand, employ, and compete during those times because the family element ruled and the tax code was designed with incentives. Today, greed rules as the tax code repels risk taking based on reducing taxable income for the individual.
Why live here? I agree....you should move to someplace where freeloading is easier for conservatives. Make more room for the worker bees from outside our borders.
You avoid answering my questions but are quick with the name calling, Guidope.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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."
Let's see, I wrecked this thread, which mentioned Reaganites by mentioning a liberal revisionist view on the effects of Reagan tax cuts. It's relevant, just not in your world.
Quote from: fotd on April 27, 2010, 01:15:37 PM
We did innovate, invent, expand, employ, and compete during those times because the family element ruled and the tax code was designed with incentives. Today, greed rules as the tax code repels risk taking based on reducing taxable income for the individual.
Why live here? I agree....you should move to someplace where freeloading is easier for conservatives. Make more room for the worker bees from outside our borders.
There's still enough incentive in the tax code to reward those who donate to charity or create jobs without resorting to putting the 90% tax rate in their back like an SKS rifle. If the current tax code rewards passive investment, what's the problem with that? Isn't finding available capital one of the major problems facing business and individiduals these days?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
Let's see, I wrecked this thread, which mentioned Reaganites by mentioning a liberal revisionist view on the effects of Reagan tax cuts. It's relevant, just not in your world.
Be more specific. Was it a liberal revisionist view under Eisenhower? He wasn't an actor, he was a great man.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 01:19:01 PM
There's still enough incentive in the tax code to reward those who donate to charity or create jobs without resorting to putting the 90% tax rate in their back like an SKS rifle. If the current tax code rewards passive investment, what's the problem with that? Isn't finding available capital one of the major problems facing business and individiduals these days?
Well, sure doesn't looks like the past 30 years have really done wonders compared to the previous 30 years. You seem clueless. The %90 tax rate won't affect you. What's with the gun in the back reference? Rewarding passive income has little impact on incentives to take risk when there is no offset for taking that risk. And we are talking about active income for the most part. Do you fend for the super rich often?
Quote from: fotd on April 27, 2010, 01:15:37 PM
We did innovate, invent, expand, employ, and compete during those times because the family element ruled and the tax code was designed with incentives. Today, greed rules as the tax code repels risk taking based on reducing taxable income for the individual.
Why live here? I agree....you should move to someplace where freeloading is easier for conservatives. Make more room for the worker bees from outside our borders.
You avoid answering my questions but are quick with the name calling, Guidope.
Freeloading? WTH are you talking about. I have done far more than you to make this country more safe and prosperous than you could ever hope. I busted my @ss to get through college and grad school and to build a practice while many in the bottom-feeding class just did as little as they could to get by. As for me leaving to make room for the worker bees, I would like to know how many people you employ and that you are responsible for paying so they can find a job?
Quote from: guido911 on April 27, 2010, 01:30:09 PM
Freeloading? WTH are you talking about. I have done far more than you to make this country more safe and prosperous than you ever had. I busted my @ss to get through college and grad school and to build a practice while many in the bottom-feeding class just did as little as they could to get by. As for me leaving to make room for the worker bees, I would like to know how many people you employ and that you are responsible for paying so they can find a job?
You used this quote: "Conservatives dream of new machines, liberals lust for lotteries". So, my comment on freeloading was directed at that theory. Who put the conservative in the dreamers seat? Conservatives make it on the backs of the oppressed. Frankly, I don't care to know about you personally. Let's not get into jobs because during the 30's and through the 70's my network employed more than any group in the state for several years. And then came a change in the tax code that made it better to be a passive investor.
Quote from: fotd on April 27, 2010, 01:38:29 PM
And then came a change in the tax code that made it better to be a passive investor.
Isn't that what greedy conservatives are doing? Sitting in front of their computer and day-trading instead of creating jobs?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 01:43:32 PM
Isn't that what greedy conservatives are doing? Sitting in front of their computer and day-trading instead of creating jobs?
Unless you work for the SEC and the you are surfing porn.
fotd,
If I gave you 1 million dollars, what would you do with it?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 01:52:19 PM
fotd,
If I gave you 1 million dollars, what would you do with it?
Nobody would know.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 01:43:32 PM
Isn't that what greedy conservatives are doing?
Sitting around hating our government and talking about tax burdens.
Quote from: fotd on April 27, 2010, 01:56:09 PM
Sitting around hating our government and talking about tax burdens.
I don't think you understand.
Government must be regulated by the people, not the other way around. That is the only thing that makes government successful.
Government is tolerated. Elected officials are tolerated. We do not hate them, we tolerate them until we have the opportunity to change them.
The most dangerous people in the world are those who love government. These people love force, and the opportunity that government gives them to impose their will on others.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787
Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts. – Ronald Reagan
There is some merit to the argument that the tax code has, of late, been detrimental to the middle class, albeit indirectly. There is also merit to the argument that shrinking the middle class by expanding the ranks of the poor leads to more crime.
Blaming it on Reagan is not really supportable, though. The middle class was being murdered before we made it to Reagan.
Gaspar, you might want to rethink using Jefferson quotes, unless you also advocate returning to an agrarian society with tariffs we would consider punitive today and no central bank. Since that's what Jefferson wanted for our (young) country, his writings only make sense in that frame of mind.
Also, do you have any context for that Clinton quote? It sounds like a particularly heinous pull quote that loses any real meaning out of context.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 03:27:10 PM
There is some merit to the argument that the tax code has, of late, been detrimental to the middle class, albeit indirectly. There is also merit to the argument that shrinking the middle class by expanding the ranks of the poor leads to more crime.
Blaming it on Reagan is not really supportable, though. The middle class was being murdered before we made it to Reagan.
Gaspar, you might want to rethink using Jefferson quotes, unless you also advocate returning to an agrarian society with tariffs we would consider punitive today and no central bank. Since that's what Jefferson wanted for our (young) country, his writings only make sense in that frame of mind.
Also, do you have any context for that Clinton quote? It sounds like a particularly heinous pull quote that loses any real meaning out of context.
I have no need to rethink quoting Jefferson. I understand that the founding fathers are not popular among liberals, but the philosophy is as applicable now as it would be a thousand years ago or a thousand years into the future.
As for the Clinton quote, I've seen it attributed to one speech and two interviews, but you're right I can't find an actual transcript of either. It's been bounced around the media and internet for 17 years now. Supposedly it was made durring an MTV interview on August 12, 1993, but I can't find any evidence of it so I will scrub it.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
I have no need to rethink quoting Jefferson. I understand that the founding fathers are not popular among liberals, but the philosophy is as applicable now as it would be a thousand years ago or a thousand years into the future.
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.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 27, 2010, 04:06:58 PM
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.
There are a few things you can pin Jefferson down on, and one that is pretty liberal, which is seperation of church and state. The more I learn about Jefferson the more I like him, though I may not agree with everything of his.
The Louisiana purchase was kinda happenstance and was originally intended to be closer to the size of current Louisiana, maybe a bit smaller. Jefferson really didn't know what all Napoleon was including when he made his decision to sell it all, and also felt greif stricken (according to the historians) after making the deal because he felt that the deal was unconstitutional.
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
The Louisiana purchase was kinda happenstance and was originally intended to be closer to the size of current Louisiana, maybe a bit smaller. Jefferson really didn't know what all Napoleon was including when he made his decision to sell it all, and also felt greif stricken (according to the historians) after making the deal because he felt that the deal was unconstitutional.
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.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
I have no need to rethink quoting Jefferson. I understand that the founding fathers are not popular among liberals, but the philosophy is as applicable now as it would be a thousand years ago or a thousand years into the future.
Well, in my case you understand wrongly. I like Jefferson. I'd be delighted if we were still the bucolic agrarian nation Jefferson so loved and desired to perpetuate. Sadly, we are not that nation and have not been in a very long time.
In any event, Jefferson was not the be all and end all of early US political thinking. In fact, he was mostly alone in his desire to see us remain an agrarian nation. The majority were more like Adams and Hamilton, who believed in a strong central government and were generally for cities and industrialization.
It is interesting how you feel the need to claim the founding fathers as your own, as if they are not the proud legacy of all of us. Rigid thinking like that is what leads to the fractured political climate we have in this country today. You attempt to demonize 'liberals' with a completely unsubstantiated straw man. That sort of discourse brings us all down.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 27, 2010, 04:06:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 04:32:41 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 04:34:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 27, 2010, 04:41:36 PM
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.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 27, 2010, 04:19:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: we vs us on April 27, 2010, 09:40:44 PM
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.
Quote from: we vs us on April 27, 2010, 09:40:44 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 10:29:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 27, 2010, 11:14:17 PM
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.