Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy
31–35 of 35 posts
Re: Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person in that cohort, I suspect it was the booming economy that led us to think that growth would go on forever, so we could vote ourselves infinite riches on the back of our children and grandchildren, secure in the knowledge that infinite growth would bail them out. We are the worst generation.
>As a person in that cohort, Me too. >We are the worst generation. Nah. >Pulled the ladder up on those after them. It was only the ones that voted themselves infinite wealth and got it, and they pulled it up on most everybody in their same age group too way back then. IOW only a handful of boomers by comparison to all the rest. When you do the math the vast majority of people over 65 have assets that are dwarfed by a…
Tax cuts, beginning back in the 80s, and continuing to this day. Broadly popular, contributing to the spiraling national debt.
Re: Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As a person in that cohort, Me too. >We are the worst generation. Nah. >Pulled the ladder up on those after them. It was only the ones that voted themselves infinite wealth and got it, and they pulled it up on most everybody in their same age group too way back then. IOW only a handful of boomers by comparison to all the rest. When you do the math the vast majority of people over 65 have assets that are dwarfed by a…
Tax cuts, beginning back in the 80s, and continuing to this day. Broadly popular, contributing to the spiraling national debt.
Very accurate observation.
Similar to today, tax cuts didn't "trickle down" to the majority.
Whom wouldn't have ever accepted if if they knew that, but the voters' behavior was obtained through the work of what many of us instantly recognized as ordinary propaganda, the misdirection just wasn't completely on steroids like the communists were using.
Many knew at the time that the budget could be balanced if tax cuts were heavily applied to wage income, and only to incomes below a certain level, with the difference made up by taxing commerce.
Which is why it was so popular.
Even if that was to include tariffs.
As we have seen, if there is any chance that tariffs need to be as stupidly high as they are now in some cases, they should have started being increased back then, no more than something like 1% per year where otherwise there was nothing.
It would have made for a whole lot more prosperity along the way, and conformed to the theoretical advantage the garbage-faced economists think it's having right now. Most likely without having ever to rise to today's actual percentages.
If tariffs had been done correctly and gradually, there would have been no pain progressing all the way to zero income tax on average Americans a bit earlier in the 21st century than now, and it would have been worth waiting for. Especially as soon as the budget got balanced it was very stupid not to take this kind of action which could make it consistently be a bigger surplus every year after that.
And think how many decades of sending once-valuable dollars to China in exchange for low-value trinkets could have been avoided. Dollars used to be worth a whole lot more back then (don't ask me how I know), the Communists got in on the ground floor by allowing a mere sliver of free-enterprise, then took in huge amounts of dollars faster than US wage earners were doing. Look how the value of all that hard work by American wage-earners back then has grown for the CCP by now, at the expense of average working Americans who actually toiled for that same dollar in the first place. There is no excuse for anybody involved to ever let the US slip to less than 10x as "rich" a country as China. All the equations which were meaningful were based on more like a 100x factor, how do stupid people get to occupy such important positions?
And this is just one of the things where it's good to have checks & balances to curtail the possibility of doubling the stupidity overnight.
Re: Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper middle absolutely causes a lot of problems; surprised more people aren't focused on them
IOW alot of the parents of the young people who are complaining quite a bit themselves.
Sorry, on HN I wasn't expecting any attention from somebody who is fully convinced that no young people have parents, or something like that.
Re: Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As a person in that cohort, Me too. >We are the worst generation. Nah. >Pulled the ladder up on those after them. It was only the ones that voted themselves infinite wealth and got it, and they pulled it up on most everybody in their same age group too way back then. IOW only a handful of boomers by comparison to all the rest. When you do the math the vast majority of people over 65 have assets that are dwarfed by a…
>>Pulled the ladder up on those after them. > It was only the ones that voted themselves infinite wealth and got it, It was also the ones who spent generations pressuring their govs for ever restrictive zoning laws, wanting to freeze their neighborhood in time by tanking new builds. This is very much pulling up the ladder behind them.
Not my downvote btw, corrective upvote actually.
I've seen your observation be confirmed in other places besides California sometimes, so I think it's 100% a problem, I just don't know much about it or how widespread it is across the country.
There's probably 1000 other cuts that things are dying from which all add up.
If this is the biggest problem holding back the prosperity locally where development was already difficult, there's probably something equivalent in the rural communities where it's not so crowded.
When opportunity all recedes at once nationwide, it's got to be due to the sucking sound coming from Washington more than any one local area I would think :)