TAXES-Do we pay enough?

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!

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.

Col,

As to being the "idiot", I may not be the sharpest apple in the barrel, but I DO know the definition of the word "average". And I know that if the "average" home is just short of $300,000, I can probably get something cheaper, if I look hard enough.

My wife and I live on one income. And we raise five children on it, Col. So apparently, we are "idiots" because we're too stupid to know our wage isn't actually a LIVING wage and haven't dropped dead yet to comply!

I think we pay too much in taxes for what we are getting in return.

I think we pay too much in taxes for what we are getting in return.

I think we pay WAY too much in taxes, period. The reason for such a poor rate of return is that taxes are simply government led pyramid schemes. They have to pay people at various levels to distribute the money.

When I managed group homes for the developmentally disabled, I sat down one day and figured that, up to the county level, every person in the group home was at least partially responsible for the employment of 8-10 people. That's just plain NUTS!

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.

At 11 acres you're paying for the house and the land.  Most houses are on a 100 x 100 lot. That's in feet.

Most houses are on a 100 x 100 lot.

Actually, that's a sizable lot, Brad. Most of the "regular" lots around here are 30x125.

Mine is a "whopping" two double lots, slightly larger than 100 x 100. But a lot of homes are built on MUCH smaller lots.

Col Gene:

The average house price in the US is not $300,000. That's crazy.  As others have linked to, there are sites that will tell you the average price.

Moreover, even a $260k mortage at 5.9% interest is a $1,500 payment:

http://client.aavirtualoffice.com/calculators/Mortage-Results.asp

Mortgage calculators are easy to find.  You will have a hard time making the case that the average American today isn't far better off than the average American in 1941. 

We don't NEED two peple to work.  We WANT to pepole to work so that we can afford all the goodies out there that weren't available in 1941 (DVD players, computers, fancy laundy machines, dishwashers, much larger houses, 2 cars, televisions, cable, Internet, etc. etc. etc.).   You also ignore the fact that many women simply want to work.  We live in an age where laundry and food preparation don't involve hours of work per day. There's a lot more time available and many women are choosing to go to the work place. I say good for them.

The reason for such a poor rate of return is that taxes are simply government led pyramid schemes. They have to pay people at various levels to distribute the money. - Gideon

I'm certain that is part of the problem but I really think the major issue is that our government spends our money on things average citizens don't see a return on.

Such as Military Spending. It's debated we are currently spending a little over 60% of our budget on military spending alone.

Keep in mind that this spending doesn't simply include the projected 20% shown in the latest 2007 budget for new spending. This includes past debt acquired from wars we're still paying for (thanks McNamara), the costs for veteran's benefits, and the interest added to our federal deficet by these costs.

Now, if I came to your house, and asked you to please give me things from your home you thought I needed in exchange for my one hundred dollars, I'd probably first receive some food, then maybe some medical supplies - like band-aids and antiseptic, clothing, maybe a radio, maybe tools for a job I could do or some books I could learn from.

Now when I go to 'Uncle Sam's' house, according to today's budget, I might get a small sampling of some of those things I received at your home, but the increments of all those items would be slashed by half and replaced by bullets, grenades, the people to use them, the cost of repairing those people, replacing those people, maintaining their equipment, research of new weapons, rebuilding other countries after destroying them, etc. etc. . Then I would be informed by Uncle Sam that I was suddenly so far in to debt because I took out an involuntary loan to pay for the military goods and services I don't think I really need that my children and their children would pay the interest on it for decades to come.

You see my point Gideon? I'm not seeing a fair return on my tax money that benefits me.

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!

Well lets start with I live in SW PA! I guess you didn't bother looking at the links I posted. They are "WELL ABOVE" average no matter where you live. And just for you and to further prove you wrong, below is a link for an average home in a "upscale" SW FLA area. As you can see it falls below your supposed 300K mark.

Link

BTW....I'm the idiot? I and others here have given you information that "DIRECTLY" refutes your points! Yet according to YOU, "I'm" the idiot.

Most houses are on a 100 x 100 lot

Most of the "regular" lots around here are 30x125.

wow. That's too close for me. Every place we've ever lived the land was measured by acres not feet and this is since I was a kid!! But then again, our biggest city is small in comparison to the rest of the country. That's how I like it.

I actually do all the bookkeeping for three RE (Century 21) Offices paying all their commissions. I rarely see homes over 300K . Most that I see fall under that with an occasional one over that price. I will talk to the owner of these companies and get his take. I also coach with another owner of a RE office (Remax) and he says anything over $300,000 is hard to sell. I think it's between $300-500K that's hard. Over and under those amounts are easier to sell at least around here.

Most of the "regular" lots around here are 30x125. wow. That's too close for me. Every place we've ever lived the land was measured by acres not feet and this is since I was a kid!! But then again, our biggest city is small in comparison to the rest of the country. That's how I like it. I actually do all the bookkeeping for three RE (Century 21) Offices paying all their commissions. I rarely see homes over 300K . Most that I see fall under that with an occasional one over that price. I will talk to the owner of these companies and get his take. I also coach with another owner of a RE office (Remax) and he says anything over $300,000 is hard to sell. I think it's between $300-500K that's hard. Over and under those amounts are easier to sell at least around here.

Now I "will" say this....in southern CA (San Diego), 300K is about the norm. But that is just CA.