Minimum Wage 1968=$1.60. With grown and distribution it would be $21.16 today?

Asa is still continuing with his lying ass ways. He can't admit there's a labor market, and still keeps trying to keep convincing people nothing has changes since the 1950s.

He's so full of shit his eyes are brown.
 
evince said:
Um your fucking lying
Click to expand...

Interesting assessment, and a bushel of class and decorum thrown in for good measure.

The average effective tax rate in the 1950s was mid to low 30%. It's funny your chart showed that as well.
 
Look at the chart.

Its interactive fool.

Click the top money amount in the purple rectangles.

10 million a year.


then look at the chart.



It starts off automatically on ten thou a year.


now click the ten million a year and read them and weep asshole
 
see how stupid and knee jerk you are ?


you spoke way too soon and didn't read very closely huh
 
Im sure you wont come back and admit your wrong

that is not what right leaning people do.

they don't have decent morals
 
AssHatZombie said:
Asa is still continuing with his lying ass ways. He can't admit there's a labor market, and still keeps trying to keep convincing people nothing has changes since the 1950s.

He's so full of shit his eyes are brown.
Click to expand...

I never said there was not a labor market, only that the labor market is not the same as the labor costs of manufacturing.

Now you seem to be projecting; this argument is effective tax rates in the 1950s.
 
evince said:
Look at the chart.

Its interactive fool.

Click the top money amount in the purple rectangles.

10 million a year.


then look at the chart.



It starts off automatically on ten thou a year.


now click the ten million a year and read them and weep asshole
Click to expand...

Two points: the average, and the chart does not take into account the tax shelters of the 1050s. Try using IRS data rather than The Google.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Purchasing power is zero for anyone who's job has been sent overseas.
Click to expand...

It is apparent you cannot have a discussion on economics. Calculate the purchasing power for the lowest quintile under protectionism vis-a-vis globalization if you want to make an argument.
 
Asa said:
It is apparent you cannot have a discussion on economics. Calculate the purchasing power for the lowest quintile under protectionism vis-a-vis globalization if you want to make an argument.
Click to expand...

Ive made an argument, and an effective one. I don't have to jump through your hurdles. And re: having an economic discussion, you cannot even admit there's a labor market. So take your stupidity and fuck off.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ive made an argument, and an effective one. I don't have to jump through your hurdles. And re: having an economic discussion, you cannot even admit there's a labor market. So take your stupidity and fuck off.
Click to expand...

Show me your calculation of the purchasing power for the lowest quintile under protectionism vis-a-vis globalization if you want to make an argument.
 
Asa said:
Show me your calculation of the purchasing power for the lowest quintile under protectionism vis-a-vis globalization if you want to make an argument.
Click to expand...

No. I'll make an argument my way. You explain to me how purchasing power increases for someone who loses their job overseas.
 
Asa said:
Two points: the average, and the chart does not take into account the tax shelters of the 1050s. Try using IRS data rather than The Google.
Click to expand...


it is effective tax rate just like you asked you fucking lair
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. I'll make an argument my way. You explain to me how purchasing power increases for someone who loses their job overseas.
Click to expand...

There is only one legitimate economic method of making that argument: the purchasing power of various quintiles under protectionism and under globalization. You cannot answer either. This is a macroeconomic equation.
 
evince said:
it is effective tax rate just like you asked you fucking lair
Click to expand...

My, someone forgot to take their anti-philistine medication this morning. It is an interactive chart. Try using actual days from the IRS on effective tax rates.

Plug this into your chart: the top 3% income earners earned 14.7% of the income in 1958 and paid 29.2% of all taxes under a 81% top rate, but under the tax rates in 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of all income and paid 51% of all taxes with a top rate of 51%. Why?
 
Asa said:
There is only one legitimate economic method of making that argument: the purchasing power of various quintiles under protectionism and under globalization. You cannot answer either. This is a macroeconomic equation.
Click to expand...

You don't get to dictate what an effective argument is. Again, you will not deal with the purchasing power of those who lose their jobs overseas. Newsflash, it decreases. And that is meaningful. My argument is effective. you are ineffective.
 
got a link to your numbers?


I provided the proof you asked for so do the same smuck

BTW if it was so UNDIFFERENT from what we have now why do the corps scream bloody murder at the suggestion of doing it again?


because your full of shit.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You don't get to dictate what an effective argument is. Again, you will not deal with the purchasing power of those who lose their jobs overseas. Newsflash, it decreases. And that is meaningful. My argument is effective. you are ineffective.
Click to expand...

I don't dictate the argument, economics dictates.

Why don't you tell me the purchasing power of those who lose their jobs overseas by calculating the income of the lowest quintile versus receiving all forms of available government assistance.

Then after that, address the purchasing power under protectionism and under globalization for the lowest quintile since you have not made an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top