From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: CLinton Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:57:33 GMT

In <ATAYLOR.92Aug5105822@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <1992Aug5.133726.8713@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
><   >>|> >	The real reason for two-wage earner families
><   >>|> >	is the huge TAX load that we all pay; is that
><   >>|> >	exclusively the fault of George Bush, or does
><   >>|> >	the Democratic-party controlled Congress have
><   >>|> >	just a little bit to do with it?

><   Just to clear the air, I did not write the above. 

>	Correct. I wrote it and stand by it.

><I think it was Jim but
><   can't be certain. What I did respond to the above statement was that two
><   wage-earner families were caused by the adoption of pay-for-performance
><   salary plans where the employees were blamed for poor management plans
><   and generally received raises that were less than the inflation rate.

>	Nope. I must disagree; in the 1950's, the overall tax
>	load was much lower (and the Federal load dramatically
>	lower). When 40% of a middle-income persons gross wages
>	are taken in taxes, something has to give. That "something"
>	is the partner getting a job; remember that the economic
>	necessity of 2-wage-earner families started in the "stag-
>	flationary" 1970's and accelerated in the 1980's.

>	For example, an engineer I know recently retired. As part
>	of the process, he obtained his payroll records as far
>	back as 1953; in 1953, he was paid $3,500 (gross), a
>	house cost about $10,000, 3% of his gross was with-held
>	for Social Security and the dependant deduction was 
>	$1,000. Today, a reasonable starting salary for an 
>	engineer is $35,000, a new house costs about $100,000,
>	Social Security takes a bite of 7.51% and the dependant
>	deduction is what, $1,300?

>	Can we see how taxes have changed in 40 years?

>	It is a grim coincidence that, among older middle-aged
>	couples, the wife who works outside the home often
>	earns about 40% of what the husband earns; in essence 
>	her entire salary goes for taxes....

><   The stupid part of this whole deal was that with an economy that is
><   about 2/3 driven by the consumer, as the consumer lost real wages, the
><   economy lost also. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to have foreseen
><   the result of this idiocy.

>	Uh, suppose that wage earners "generally" received raises
>	that were above the inflationary rate (as in the early
>	1970's). Where does that money come from, please? Who
>	pays? Can we all agree that the wage-price spiral is
>	a fact, or is a rehash of the economic history of 1974-
>	1982 in order?

Well, we will probably see a new variation on this with NAFTA.
No doubt some companies will move to Mexico and take advantage
of the low wages. Then they will wonder why they don't sell as
much product as before. It will never dawn on them that the
people they put out of work here were the 'customers' that
they counted on to buy their product. Both Reagan and Bush are
free traders. Nice idea if the other guy cooperates, but the
Japanese are not cooperating, nor are the Koreans, nor are the
French, nor are ........ Great deal, we get cheaper imports
but we are also getting the bill. Companies have gone under,
people have had wages NOT matched inflation (I never said they
should exceed inflation BTW)

If everyone plays by the rules, great. But why have we given
away the store *before* the other guys showed whether they
would play by the rules. That is not free trade, that is
simple being a sucker.

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc