A new New Deal? More like a Raw Deal.

Please visit our fantastic new website by clicking this link!

From www.calculatedriskblog.com.

Eric is keeping an eye on the debt-ceiling crisis along with the Murdoch scandal — both are significant illustrations of current astrology in one way or another. Just last night he mentioned that the far-right in the US is trying to roll back the New Deal, that set of social and economic reforms championed by FDR that pretty much saved the country’s collective ass during the Great Depression. Carol Van Strum just sent along the link to this graph, which illustrates the point beautifully. Please read the brief explanation here at calculatedriskblog.com. – amanda

This entry was posted in Daily Astrology Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A new New Deal? More like a Raw Deal.

  1. zerosity zerosity says:

    From the materials at the link, it’s noted that “another hidden” factor are estate taxes which are included in “Excise and other taxes.” That tax rate has significantly declined in recent years.

    What I’d be interested in seeing is a comparison of the various individual income tax rates and revenues over the same time period. Specifically, I’d like to see some analysis of what it was like when the “tax on the wealthy” was over seventy percent. Even Warren Buffett finds is ridiculous that he pays a lower tax rate than the receptionist in his office building.

    Ah, well…how to keep the masses in tow? Keep them in fear and in debt.

  2. Patty says:

    oh gosh Eric, I’m sure you were worth much more. sorry!

    I’d like to compare federal wages with private counterparts, while setting aside wages of people who work at companies who contract with government. I’ve seen an employee at Rolls Royce (for instance) get a nice fat promotion at federal doing the same work because when hired, you are generally given a promotion. It’s a game really. I’m sure private sector does not operate like that at all. In fact, where I work now I am making the top of the level for which i was hired, but it still isn’t very much money but I took it because I’m retired and wanted the extra cash.

    In 1969, many corporate jobs were still not unionized but i remember all of the strikes over the years and the gradual rise of employee wages (especially mine). So I started at 85 a week in one company and ended exponentially higher when I retired from another. I make significantly less in retirement, but it is a nice retirement. I’d say my taxes were about 0 in 1969 and in 2006 i was at well over 30% when my spouse earnings were added, and that is just federal. We always owe a small fortune in state taxes. Should move to Texas.

    I know my dad worked in a factory for very little money during the 50s. I’d guess the taxes they paid were low. A lot of companies pay very good wages today. Even Walmart pays a fair amount, compared to 1969. My mom worked in a war factory in the 40s and I’m sure she was happy with whatever they gave her. one of my grandfather’s tax returns from 1935 declared $3.00 in earnings for the year. That was when you put up your own food and caught rabbits in a trap because you couldn’t afford bullets.

  3. Eric Francis Eric Francis says:

    Hmm, when I started my astrology career, I was making $70 a month.

    When I was an investigative reporter, I made $65 a week. That was in 1994.

    In actual fact, US tax rates are some of the lowest in the world — and we are a corporate tax haven. That’s why Murdoch put News Corp in Delaware.

  4. Amanda Painter Amanda Painter says:

    patty and elsie — point taken. just curious, did you read brief materials at the link? that contained other links to stats/sources that i don’t have time at the moment to explore fully. since you both seem to be on top of this sort of thing, it would be great if you could lend a hand sussing it all out.


  5. elsie says:

    Yes – I agree with Patty – this is truly an incomplete picture – unless you have corresponding data reflecting employment/unemployment for the same time period – this is meaningless. Could be considered propaganda.

  6. Patty says:

    1946? Really? How many jobs were created since that time? Not saying corps shouldn’t pay a fair share, but they also employed a lot of us. I made 85 a week in 1969, so how much tax do you think i paid????

    Please look at different data sets and re-report. I should think most mathematicians would not see this as a valid construct.

Leave a Reply