how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

[LoneLaugher]

US History: Economics of the 1950

 

[Camp]

Tax rates. We had a thing called "obscene wealth" and greed was an unacceptable negative and shame. The main tax loophole was giving to charity. Hospitals were built. Colleges were supported. Museums and librarys were built. The rich cared about their legacy and the legacy of their family. After a certain amount of income they paid that hight tax and didn't whine about it.

The high tax rate enabled us to invest in public projects like the Interstate Highway System that was a tremendous beinifit to industry and agriculture. We built dam's that provided electric to oppressed areas and that brought industry and jobs to depressed areas. We financed the developement of recovery and industry in Europe, creating a market for our products. We invested in the space program and that brought us amazing developments in science and technology. We invested in agriculture in a way which supported small farmers across the country and produced a surplus of food and kept our food prices low, and instead of foreign aid being mostly military weapons, our foreign aid was ship loads of food sent to poor nations. We took our excessive and surplus wealth and invested it ourselves.

Today we accept obscene wealth. Greed is Ok. We see nothing wrong with people owning multiple mansions (castles?), having multi-million dollar automobil "collections", hiding money in secretive "off shore" accounts and paying lower tax rates than their empoyees. We, at least some of us, selected one to perhaps be our President. We have done a 180 degree turn from being a good decent, fair and wise nation to being whatever it is we have become. We became a great nation because we did great things. We aren't doing great things anymore and there isn't much on the horizon to indicate we will do any great things in the near future. We are busy fighting over whether we will even let our grandmothers and kids go to the doctors office or have enough to eat everyday. Thats what we argue about. We have decided that our priority is money, wealth and the accumulation of material toys and stuff. Not for most of us. Most of us will never have a problem of to much money. We are in this arguement at the behest of the super wealthy. We are being ruled by the greedy and obscene wealthy who have managed to find a way to snooker and fool enough people into fighting for their evil.

your argument is compelling, however, i would ask, what was the effective tax rate?

if the effective tax rate then helped this country, as you point out, then why should we not go back to such a rate now?

btw...don't take every question or statement i make in this thread as "my opinion"...i'm seeking ideas via socratic method

Middle class tax rates in the 50's were in the 23 to 34 pecent range. Most families had one worker. The rate increased to about 95 percent, but nobody paid that. Loopholes were available that allowed investments into projects and areas that were thought to benifit the nation. A "well to do" or what we called "comfortable" earner could expect to pay 35 to 45 percent.

 

[Yurt]

it would be nice to hear your opinion lonelaugher

 

[konradv]

what was the effective tax rate?

Much lower, if they went out created jobs. Now the incentive just isn't there.

if that is the case, then why do you believe the income tax rate made the middle class grow? or are you saying the effective tax rate was only lower for those who created jobs?

that then begs the question, who creates jobs?

The tax rates din't make the middle class grow, good jobs did. The problem now is that there's more incentive to sit on the money than put it to work. If you did that in the 50s and 60s, taxes ate it up.

 

[Yurt]

Tax rates. We had a thing called "obscene wealth" and greed was an unacceptable negative and shame. The main tax loophole was giving to charity. Hospitals were built. Colleges were supported. Museums and librarys were built. The rich cared about their legacy and the legacy of their family. After a certain amount of income they paid that hight tax and didn't whine about it.

The high tax rate enabled us to invest in public projects like the Interstate Highway System that was a tremendous beinifit to industry and agriculture. We built dam's that provided electric to oppressed areas and that brought industry and jobs to depressed areas. We financed the developement of recovery and industry in Europe, creating a market for our products. We invested in the space program and that brought us amazing developments in science and technology. We invested in agriculture in a way which supported small farmers across the country and produced a surplus of food and kept our food prices low, and instead of foreign aid being mostly military weapons, our foreign aid was ship loads of food sent to poor nations. We took our excessive and surplus wealth and invested it ourselves.

Today we accept obscene wealth. Greed is Ok. We see nothing wrong with people owning multiple mansions (castles?), having multi-million dollar automobil "collections", hiding money in secretive "off shore" accounts and paying lower tax rates than their empoyees. We, at least some of us, selected one to perhaps be our President. We have done a 180 degree turn from being a good decent, fair and wise nation to being whatever it is we have become. We became a great nation because we did great things. We aren't doing great things anymore and there isn't much on the horizon to indicate we will do any great things in the near future. We are busy fighting over whether we will even let our grandmothers and kids go to the doctors office or have enough to eat everyday. Thats what we argue about. We have decided that our priority is money, wealth and the accumulation of material toys and stuff. Not for most of us. Most of us will never have a problem of to much money. We are in this arguement at the behest of the super wealthy. We are being ruled by the greedy and obscene wealthy who have managed to find a way to snooker and fool enough people into fighting for their evil.

your argument is compelling, however, i would ask, what was the effective tax rate?

if the effective tax rate then helped this country, as you point out, then why should we not go back to such a rate now?

btw...don't take every question or statement i make in this thread as "my opinion"...i'm seeking ideas via socratic method

Middle class tax rates in the 50's were in the 23 to 34 pecent range. Most families had one worker. The rate increased to about 95 percent, but nobody paid that. Loopholes were available that allowed investments into projects and areas that were thought to benifit the nation. A "well to do" or what we called "comfortable" earner could expect to pay 35 to 45 percent.

this is the meat and potatoes of the issue.

our tax rates today, or what most paid in effective taxes back then are almost the same. thus, azmike has a strong point. today....we have the romney's et al, paying only 15% effective tax on much, if not all of his income. that was not the case back then. granted, that is only for capital gains, nonetheless, the difference is striking.

should we go back to the same tax rates, with the same loop holes or do we keep our tax rates now and further decrease the loopholes?

 

[Yurt]

Much lower, if they went out created jobs. Now the incentive just isn't there.

if that is the case, then why do you believe the income tax rate made the middle class grow? or are you saying the effective tax rate was only lower for those who created jobs?

that then begs the question, who creates jobs?

The tax rates din't make the middle class grow, good jobs did. The problem now is that there's more incentive to sit on the money than put it to work. If you did that in the 50s and 60s, taxes ate it up.

i don't understand, on the one hand, you say tax rates didn't help, but on the other hand, taxes ate up money just sitting there. seems to me....it is still a tax problem.

again, just fleshing out the arguments.....so far this thread has been enlightening.

 

[LoneLaugher]

it would be nice to hear your opinion lonelaugher

It would be repetitive. I am one of those people that thinks the recipe for success is to decrease the income gap. Some of the other liberal posters have done a nice job of discussing that. No need for me to repeat the theme.

I just wanted you to see that the 1950's was not all wine and roses.

 

[Yurt]

it would be nice to hear your opinion lonelaugher

It would be repetitive. I am one of those people that thinks the recipe for success is to decrease the income gap. Some of the other liberal posters have done a nice job of discussing that. No need for me to repeat the theme.

I just wanted you to see that the 1950's was not all wine and roses.

thank you. i agree, the income gap needs to decrease.

 

[konradv]

if that is the case, then why do you believe the income tax rate made the middle class grow? or are you saying the effective tax rate was only lower for those who created jobs?

that then begs the question, who creates jobs?

The tax rates din't make the middle class grow, good jobs did. The problem now is that there's more incentive to sit on the money than put it to work. If you did that in the 50s and 60s, taxes ate it up.

i don't understand, on the one hand, you say tax rates didn't help, but on the other hand, taxes ate up money just sitting there. seems to me....it is still a tax problem.

again, just fleshing out the arguments.....so far this thread has been enlightening.

The reason you don't understand is that I was talking about the 1% "job creators". You've confused the issue by bringing the middle class into the equation. I made no statement about the effect of taxes on them. If they're wage earners rather than job creators, they weren't part of the point I was trying to make.

 

[alan1]

i would like someone to explain this:

how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

what political and economic policies were involved? or did it not expand.

i'm having this debate with my...shall remain anonymous...nevermind...curious as to what USMB has to say

note to mods: i want both political and economic so i thought political forum would be best

Work ethic?
Drive to improve oneself?
Personal ownership of life?

Oh wait, those weren't government policies.

Blaming the victims of the Pub Great World Depression/Great World Recession? Absolute Pubcrappre, perfect chump of the greedy idiot GOP. Their rape of the country started in the 80's- along with the brainwashing you love LOL. See sig para. 1...

Why don't you read my post if you are going to respond to it?
I didn't "blame" at all.
Besides, the question was about the 50's and 60's, not the 80's. Try to keep up.

 

[Camp]

your argument is compelling, however, i would ask, what was the effective tax rate?

if the effective tax rate then helped this country, as you point out, then why should we not go back to such a rate now?

btw...don't take every question or statement i make in this thread as "my opinion"...i'm seeking ideas via socratic method

Middle class tax rates in the 50's were in the 23 to 34 pecent range. Most families had one worker. The rate increased to about 95 percent, but nobody paid that. Loopholes were available that allowed investments into projects and areas that were thought to benifit the nation. A "well to do" or what we called "comfortable" earner could expect to pay 35 to 45 percent.

this is the meat and potatoes of the issue.

our tax rates today, or what most paid in effective taxes back then are almost the same. thus, azmike has a strong point. today....we have the romney's et al, paying only 15% effective tax on much, if not all of his income. that was not the case back then. granted, that is only for capital gains, nonetheless, the difference is striking.

should we go back to the same tax rates, with the same loop holes or do we keep our tax rates now and further decrease the loopholes?

The Mitt's of the world were not allowed to exist in the 50's. This was the blood and bone period. Everyone had made great sacrifice for the war. Eveyone lost friends, neighbors and many lost family to the war. On the homefront people sacrificed with rations and long hard work days supporting the war effort. When the troops came home they were not going to be taken advantage of. No way. They earned a good life and they were going to get it. They elected their General, Eisenhower and followed him with a Navy war hero, Kennedy. Guys like the Romney types would have been slapped down fast. There was Howard Hughs, but thats a whole different story, and a exception.

 

[boedicca]

Middle class tax rates in the 50's were in the 23 to 34 pecent range. Most families had one worker. The rate increased to about 95 percent, but nobody paid that. Loopholes were available that allowed investments into projects and areas that were thought to benifit the nation. A "well to do" or what we called "comfortable" earner could expect to pay 35 to 45 percent.

this is the meat and potatoes of the issue.

our tax rates today, or what most paid in effective taxes back then are almost the same. thus, azmike has a strong point. today....we have the romney's et al, paying only 15% effective tax on much, if not all of his income. that was not the case back then. granted, that is only for capital gains, nonetheless, the difference is striking.

should we go back to the same tax rates, with the same loop holes or do we keep our tax rates now and further decrease the loopholes?

The Mitt's of the world were not allowed to exist in the 50's. This was the blood and bone period. Everyone had made great sacrifice for the war. Eveyone lost friends, neighbors and many lost family to the war. On the homefront people sacrificed with rations and long hard work days supporting the war effort. When the troops came home they were not going to be taken advantage of. No way. They earned a good life and they were going to get it. They elected their General, Eisenhower and followed him with a Navy war hero, Kennedy. Guys like the Romney types would have been slapped down fast. There was Howard Hughs, but thats a whole different story, and a exception.

ORLY? There were no rich people who were successful in business in the 1950s?

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

it would be nice to hear your opinion lonelaugher

It would be repetitive. I am one of those people that thinks the recipe for success is to decrease the income gap. Some of the other liberal posters have done a nice job of discussing that. No need for me to repeat the theme.

I just wanted you to see that the 1950's was not all wine and roses.

thank you. i agree, the income gap needs to decrease.

The only way that gap decreases is through individual opportunity. Obama is trying to tax people to pay for another persons income and that can not and never has worked. The only thing that accomplishes is lowering the standard of living for everyone. If we really wanted prosperity we would set up a flat tax, reduce regulations to allow new competitors into the game and get the government out of the majority of our decisions. There will still be poor people there always are but this will give the majority the chance to succeed.

 

[Camp]

this is the meat and potatoes of the issue.

our tax rates today, or what most paid in effective taxes back then are almost the same. thus, azmike has a strong point. today....we have the romney's et al, paying only 15% effective tax on much, if not all of his income. that was not the case back then. granted, that is only for capital gains, nonetheless, the difference is striking.

should we go back to the same tax rates, with the same loop holes or do we keep our tax rates now and further decrease the loopholes?

The Mitt's of the world were not allowed to exist in the 50's. This was the blood and bone period. Everyone had made great sacrifice for the war. Eveyone lost friends, neighbors and many lost family to the war. On the homefront people sacrificed with rations and long hard work days supporting the war effort. When the troops came home they were not going to be taken advantage of. No way. They earned a good life and they were going to get it. They elected their General, Eisenhower and followed him with a Navy war hero, Kennedy. Guys like the Romney types would have been slapped down fast. There was Howard Hughs, but thats a whole different story, and a exception.

ORLY? There were no rich people who were successful in business in the 1950s?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Where do you see that? Bit more than just out of context. There were lots of rich people in the 50's. The 50's were all about prosperity and being able to succeed. It was boom time for small business. Plenty of wealth to go around. But the people who got rich had morals and felt an obligation to do the right thing. The poplulation of people who sacrificed in WWII demanded it. Do you honestly believe a guy or group of guys could buy up a manufacturing plant, lay off all the workers, tear out the machinery and ship it overseas and declare bankruptcy in the 50's? Do you really believe those veterans would be snookered into the bs that is handed out today from pundits and corrupt politicians?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The Mitt's of the world were not allowed to exist in the 50's. This was the blood and bone period. Everyone had made great sacrifice for the war. Eveyone lost friends, neighbors and many lost family to the war. On the homefront people sacrificed with rations and long hard work days supporting the war effort. When the troops came home they were not going to be taken advantage of. No way. They earned a good life and they were going to get it. They elected their General, Eisenhower and followed him with a Navy war hero, Kennedy. Guys like the Romney types would have been slapped down fast. There was Howard Hughs, but thats a whole different story, and a exception.

ORLY? There were no rich people who were successful in business in the 1950s?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Where do you see that? Bit more than just out of context. There were lots of rich people in the 50's. The 50's were all about prosperity and being able to succeed. It was boom time for small business. Plenty of wealth to go around. But the people who got rich had morals and felt an obligation to do the right thing. The poplulation of people who sacrificed in WWII demanded it. Do you honestly believe a guy or group of guys could buy up a manufacturing plant, lay off all the workers, tear out the machinery and ship it overseas and declare bankruptcy in the 50's? Do you really believe those veterans would be snookered into the bs that is handed out today from pundits and corrupt politicians?

If you're going to be completely honest here they also didn't have a government that made moving the job over seas much more profitable or as we are today profitable at all. There are reasons those jobs left and continue leaving and they all begin with some type of government regulation.

 

[OKTexas]

Government programs like the GI bill opened up college for a whole generation of young men who otherwise would not have gone. Eisenhower, a republican, authorized huge government investment in the infrastucture of the US, which btw helped businesses thrive.(ie. interstate highway) If he proposed such a thing today he would be called a Rhino and primaried. Unions were strong and wages remained high enough that only one parent had to work.

Ike built the interstate highway system as a defense project, modeled after Germany's autobon and were designed to provide fast movement of the military and allow for alternate landing strips for aircraft. Since it has morphed into major pork projects for congressmen.

 

[OKTexas]

i would like someone to explain this:

how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

what political and economic policies were involved? or did it not expand.

i'm having this debate with my...shall remain anonymous...nevermind...curious as to what USMB has to say

note to mods: i want both political and economic so i thought political forum would be best

The short answer is we built most everything we needed in the US. Then que the enviroweenies, unions and the EPA. Then throw in the federal governments plan to force the US economy into a consumer driven, service based piece of crap and you get a collapsing middle class.

 

[Old Rocks]

I graduated catholic grammar school in 1951...and had all the education I needed right then. I could read, write, speak, add, subtract, multiply and divide. I knew what sacrifice, self denial and self discipline meant. I had a reasonable fear of God, knew the Ten Commandments and respected women...the nuns said girls hated sex...and I believed them. Life has changed...I am amazed at what my grand kids must learn...and what they must learn to avoid. God help them.

You thought you had all the education you needed right then. There is no such thing as all the education you need. You do not have time to get such. The best we can do is continual education throughout our lives, beginning to end.

 

[Political Junky]

Government programs like the GI bill opened up college for a whole generation of young men who otherwise would not have gone. Eisenhower, a republican, authorized huge government investment in the infrastucture of the US, which btw helped businesses thrive.(ie. interstate highway) If he proposed such a thing today he would be called a Rhino and primaried. Unions were strong and wages remained high enough that only one parent had to work.

Ike built the interstate highway system as a defense project, modeled after Germany's autobon and were designed to provide fast movement of the military and allow for alternate landing strips for aircraft. Since it has morphed into major pork projects for congressmen.

While it would serve defense purposes it was hardly the only reason for constructing the Transcontinental Highway System.

 

[Old Rocks]

it would be nice to hear your opinion lonelaugher

It would be repetitive. I am one of those people that thinks the recipe for success is to decrease the income gap. Some of the other liberal posters have done a nice job of discussing that. No need for me to repeat the theme.

I just wanted you to see that the 1950's was not all wine and roses.

The 1950's were not wine and roses for sure. I remember them clearly. However, progress for the American Worker was being made. Now, for the last 30 years, the workers lot has been declining in real terms.

Tax codes that favor the creation of large fortunes is one cause. Another is the amount of education needed on the jobs that pay well. We have a backlog of over 5 million technical jobs that need people to fill them. But there are far too few people with training to fill those jobs. It is no longer possible for one to simply have a high school education and exptect to work up to a middle class wage. There are many unskilled jobs today that literally pay the same as they did 20 years ago. Because there are no other jobs available for the unskilled, there is no need to compete for their services.

To have a strong middle class again, we need to have a system that not only encourages people to get a technical or college education, but rewards them for doing it. One simply has to compare the number of technicians and engineers that South Korea is graduating, compared to their populaton, and the number that we are at our population to understand how far behind we are falling in this area.

A third area is the fact that we emphasize the individual economic success over the society. To the point that we give more honor to a miscreant that amasses a fortune, than to a scientist the enriches all of our lives. We give more respect to an athlete that has no other positive attributes, than to a teacher that inspires and touchs thousands of live. As a society, we worship Mammon above any other Diety.