American incomes fall for 3rd straight year as inflation pushes prices up even faster.

[Bugsy McGurk]

Your post has already been refuted. It had no links.

Nonsense. Those are two different concepts.

Let me know if you wish to claim that anything in my post was inaccurate.

 

[RickWA]

You didn’t refute a thing in that thread. You wandered into this thread and whined.

Man up.

*yawn*
ANYTHING that cannot be described as abject DNC tush-smooching can ever be recognized as legitimate, substantive, or correct by the shut-in clown prince of stoogery. Enjoy your day of hackery.

 

[RickWA]

Well, if it comes from the census bureau, thar means the millions of low income and homeless people were excluded. Unlike payroll data, which is inescapable.

Yep. So even the census bureau (partial picture that skews toward established folks) confirms your OP (while the stooge hack lackey toadies deny it).

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

*yawn*
ANYTHING that cannot be described as abject DNC tush-smooching can ever be recognized as legitimate, substantive, or correct by the shut-in clown prince of stoogery. Enjoy your day of hackery.

Your whining and babbling aside, you still haven’t refuted a thing.

 

[Zam-Zam]

View attachment 76120​

Photo above - the charming "Hancock" 1,600 SF mobile home. In the midwest this will set you back about $140,000 before site prep, permits, fees, water and sewer hookup. Land not included. If you need THAT, it will be a lot more. The total cost - if you're lucky might actually be under the 2.5X ratio of home cost to the average US income of $63,000. Not for a normal house, which now costs $420,000.

US incomes fall for third straight year as inflation rises (nypost.com)

Yeah . . . who DOESN'T love inflation? Finding out that everything on the mc-dollar menu now costs $2.50. Hyundais start at $30,000. And the average house price of $420,000 is 7 TIMES higher than the average income of $63,000. Government and bank lending guidelines say your house should be no more than 2 and half times your annual income. See link above for details on how and why your paycheck can't even keep pace with Starbucks' latte grande menu.

Okay . . . these things come in pairs – the second shoe drops: We might be getting SOME pay increases (unless you're a Fed-Ex driver, and you got boosted to $170,000 a year), but for most of us the pay not only doesn't keep up with the cost of living, it pushes us into higher federal (and state, and municipal) tax brackets. These tax rates are NOT indexed for inflation. If you got a 5% pay increase last year, the odds are good that you might be paying a higher tax rate on those earnings. Even though your paycheck doesn't cover the same expenses it did a year ago.

This is not some weird, freak statistical result applicable just to Bidenomics. The government NEVER indexes taxes to inflation. They WANT us to pay more on our stagnating wages. It's how politicians vacuum up more tax dollars to spend on all the stuff we don't want: 800 military bases around the world; 256 separate agencies to supervise public schools and teacher certification; 100,000 unused Ebola virus moon suits in storage since the Obama era; border walls that never got built and wouldn't have worked if they had been.

Okay . . . a few socialists in the back are getting fidgety. “I'm part of the 50% of Americans who pay ZERO in federal income tax”, they're cat-calling me. “So you're a lying bee-atch!”. To those deep thinkers I have one piece of advice – check out the history of Social Security withholding over the years.

Income taxes was first invented in the early 1900s (previous iterations were ruled unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was passed). If you earned $500,000 a year, your tax rate was . . . wait for it . . . 7%. But of course, $500,000 was worth a lot more back then. That would be $16 MILLION in 2023 dollars. And your tax rate would be 39%, plus state and local bites.

When the tax law first passed in 1913, everyone below $3,000 income paid zero. Starting at that level, you paid 1%. If you're good at math, you've already figured that $3,000 1913 dollars is about $100,000 today. One percent, let me repeat.

If taxes had been indexed for inflation, they'd be a lot lower today. In fact, the opposite happened, Over the years congresspersons made endless radio and TV speeches saying tax rates needed to go higher. Because the rich were too rich.

Today, congress has declared “rich” as about $200,000 for a single earner. Which, as it turns out, is just a little more than a senator's salary. If congress had declared themselves to be rich, all hell would have broken loose, no? So to provide further limbo room under this level, congress also awards itself travel perks, meal perks, fee parking, free banking at the congressionally operated bank, and who knows what else you can get by flashing your “Senator” badge in the checkout line.

In the meantime, the tax rates you and I pay keep going up, because inflation is pushing us into higher and higher tax brackets. So we spend less on ourselves (and our kids), and we depend more on federal student loans, section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, and in some cases tent cities for the homeless, just to get by.

The US dollar is a joke. Only land, and precious metals (and some stocks) have managed to keep up with inflation. Taxes have gone through the roof – if you're lucky enough to have a roof, 90% of senators and congresspersons are reelected each year, if they choose to run again. Because we're poorly represented, and poorly informed.

An average earner can't buy an average home. Despite 30-year mortgages. Some banks are experimenting with 40 and 50 year terms. When you die and see me in heaven, please let me know how this turned out. I'm not signing up for anything like that.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Politicians can and do lie about a great deal, and some folks are eager to eat it up. Trying to sell this economy as "strong" however, is simply not going to work...People grocery shop, they buy gas and spend money on housing. They know how much things cost.

So Joe and his cheerleader squad can say whatever they want. The people already know the truth.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

View attachment 76124


Politicians can and do lie about a great deal, and some folks are eager to eat it up. Trying to sell this economy as "strong" however, is simply not going to work...People grocery shop, they buy gas and spend money on housing. They know how much things cost.

So Joe and his cheerleader squad can say whatever they want. The people already know the truth.

Again, with the carping about the global inflation, as if Biden caused that.

So lame.

 

[Colorforms]

Please forgive the human shield automatons. There’s no “thinking/thoughtfulness” to be seen there. It’s all reflexive defense (they consider nonsense “defense”) of the Democratic Party. They rush to any post made that could possibly be construed as less than EXPLOSIVELY effusive with heavenly praise for their political gods.

Why…one of these two made a top post trying to make the case that we may well be enjoying “the best economy of all time”.

…then he accuses you of “gaslighting” here. You. Can’t. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

These shut-ins are mentally ill and dishonest as well. Enjoy!

Plus, none of what they posted includes lending rates, which can make a huge impact on the overall price.

 

[TBLee]

He's doing the best that he can. No hating !!

Lol. I don't "hate" anyone. But I would prefer to see our Country moving in a better direction. I have seen very little from the Biden administration that leads me to believe that will happen with Biden in power.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I just refuted the facts - income and wages are up, not down. AND I maligned the “messenger” - Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda rag. No serious person forms judgments based on the rants in the NY Post.

Nominal, meet real...real, meet nominal. May the best measure win...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nominal, meet real...real, meet nominal. May the best measure win...

Note that the Rupert Murdoch rag didn’t note that they were talking about “real” income, (which is a very odd way to describe income that is less than actual income). They just do their propaganda thing, which then gets repeated in forums like this.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Note that the Rupert Murdoch rag didn’t note that they were talking about “real” income, (which is a very odd way to describe income that is less than actual income). They just do their propaganda thing, which then gets repeated in forums like this.

On what economic planet is income, irrespective of general price levels, a valid measure of, well, anything?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

On what economic planet is income, irrespective of general price levels, a valid measure of, well, anything?

On the planet Earth.

Income and inflation are two different concepts. Inflation decreases buying power, of course, but they are still different concepts. And actual incomes have gone up, not down. But the Rupert Murdoch rag blurs the distinction to give political hacks some misleading jive to post in Internet forums. As we see here.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

On the planet Earth.

Income and inflation are two different concepts. Inflation decreases buying power, of course, but they are still different concepts. And actual incomes have gone up, not down. But the Rupert Murdoch rag blurs the distinction to give political hacks some misleading jive to post in Internet forums. As we see here.

Which, of course, is why gaslighters like you focus on nominal and not real incomes. YOUR measure is the fake one. It is irrelevant how how high incomes go if the general price level increase outpaces them. It's kind of "obvious" why propagandists would attempt to decouple incomes from price levels, of course any normal person understands one simple truism - what good is income if you can't buy what you need?

 

[reason10]

View attachment 76120​

Photo above - the charming "Hancock" 1,600 SF mobile home. In the midwest this will set you back about $140,000 before site prep, permits, fees, water and sewer hookup. Land not included. If you need THAT, it will be a lot more. The total cost - if you're lucky might actually be under the 2.5X ratio of home cost to the average US income of $63,000. Not for a normal house, which now costs $420,000.

US incomes fall for third straight year as inflation rises (nypost.com)

Yeah . . . who DOESN'T love inflation? Finding out that everything on the mc-dollar menu now costs $2.50. Hyundais start at $30,000. And the average house price of $420,000 is 7 TIMES higher than the average income of $63,000. Government and bank lending guidelines say your house should be no more than 2 and half times your annual income. See link above for details on how and why your paycheck can't even keep pace with Starbucks' latte grande menu.

Okay . . . these things come in pairs – the second shoe drops: We might be getting SOME pay increases (unless you're a Fed-Ex driver, and you got boosted to $170,000 a year), but for most of us the pay not only doesn't keep up with the cost of living, it pushes us into higher federal (and state, and municipal) tax brackets. These tax rates are NOT indexed for inflation. If you got a 5% pay increase last year, the odds are good that you might be paying a higher tax rate on those earnings. Even though your paycheck doesn't cover the same expenses it did a year ago.

This is not some weird, freak statistical result applicable just to Bidenomics. The government NEVER indexes taxes to inflation. They WANT us to pay more on our stagnating wages. It's how politicians vacuum up more tax dollars to spend on all the stuff we don't want: 800 military bases around the world; 256 separate agencies to supervise public schools and teacher certification; 100,000 unused Ebola virus moon suits in storage since the Obama era; border walls that never got built and wouldn't have worked if they had been.

Okay . . . a few socialists in the back are getting fidgety. “I'm part of the 50% of Americans who pay ZERO in federal income tax”, they're cat-calling me. “So you're a lying bee-atch!”. To those deep thinkers I have one piece of advice – check out the history of Social Security withholding over the years.

Income taxes was first invented in the early 1900s (previous iterations were ruled unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was passed). If you earned $500,000 a year, your tax rate was . . . wait for it . . . 7%. But of course, $500,000 was worth a lot more back then. That would be $16 MILLION in 2023 dollars. And your tax rate would be 39%, plus state and local bites.

When the tax law first passed in 1913, everyone below $3,000 income paid zero. Starting at that level, you paid 1%. If you're good at math, you've already figured that $3,000 1913 dollars is about $100,000 today. One percent, let me repeat.

If taxes had been indexed for inflation, they'd be a lot lower today. In fact, the opposite happened, Over the years congresspersons made endless radio and TV speeches saying tax rates needed to go higher. Because the rich were too rich.

Today, congress has declared “rich” as about $200,000 for a single earner. Which, as it turns out, is just a little more than a senator's salary. If congress had declared themselves to be rich, all hell would have broken loose, no? So to provide further limbo room under this level, congress also awards itself travel perks, meal perks, fee parking, free banking at the congressionally operated bank, and who knows what else you can get by flashing your “Senator” badge in the checkout line.

In the meantime, the tax rates you and I pay keep going up, because inflation is pushing us into higher and higher tax brackets. So we spend less on ourselves (and our kids), and we depend more on federal student loans, section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, and in some cases tent cities for the homeless, just to get by.

The US dollar is a joke. Only land, and precious metals (and some stocks) have managed to keep up with inflation. Taxes have gone through the roof – if you're lucky enough to have a roof, 90% of senators and congresspersons are reelected each year, if they choose to run again. Because we're poorly represented, and poorly informed.

An average earner can't buy an average home. Despite 30-year mortgages. Some banks are experimenting with 40 and 50 year terms. When you die and see me in heaven, please let me know how this turned out. I'm not signing up for anything like that.

I'm just sayin' . . .

This is what happen when (a) voters are stupid enough to vote Democrats into power, or (b) an election is STOLEN and an aging pedophile trashes the American economy.

 

[reason10]

On what economic planet is income, irrespective of general price levels, a valid measure of, well, anything?

Indeed. Your money is only worth whatever it will buy.

 

[RickWA]

Which, of course, is why gaslighters like you focus on nominal and not real incomes. YOUR measure is the fake one. It is irrelevant how how high incomes go if the general price level increase outpaces them. It's kind of "obvious" why propagandists would attempt to decouple incomes from price levels, of course any normal person understands one simple truism - what good is income if you can't buy what you need?

That dude is this forum’s most prolific liar - and there is NO TRACE of a conscience there whatsoever.

 

[EatTheRich]

This is what happen when (a) voters are stupid enough to vote Democrats into power, or (b) an election is STOLEN and an aging pedophile trashes the American economy.

The recent inflation is based on government spending and borrowing not just in Biden's first years but throughout the Obama and Trump administrations, and also the snap back from an economy artificially depressed by Covid. It would have been high no matter who was president.

 

[georgephillip]

The recent inflation is based on government spending and borrowing not just in Biden's first years but throughout the Obama and Trump administrations, and also the snap back from an economy artificially depressed by Covid. It would have been high no matter who was president.

Corporate price gouging contributed more to our current levels of inflation:

"Normally, Andrew says, profits contribute less than a third to inflation.

"He found that in 2021, corporate profits could account for about double that, nearly 60% of inflation, meaning it was not costs driving inflation.

"It was corporate profits.

"Now, some economists hear this and think this is proof that companies were just using inflation as an excuse to gouge customers."

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflation#:~:text=He found that in 2021,an excuse to gouge customers.

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 76120​

Photo above - the charming "Hancock" 1,600 SF mobile home. In the midwest this will set you back about $140,000 before site prep, permits, fees, water and sewer hookup. Land not included. If you need THAT, it will be a lot more. The total cost - if you're lucky might actually be under the 2.5X ratio of home cost to the average US income of $63,000. Not for a normal house, which now costs $420,000.

US incomes fall for third straight year as inflation rises (nypost.com)

Yeah . . . who DOESN'T love inflation? Finding out that everything on the mc-dollar menu now costs $2.50. Hyundais start at $30,000. And the average house price of $420,000 is 7 TIMES higher than the average income of $63,000. Government and bank lending guidelines say your house should be no more than 2 and half times your annual income. See link above for details on how and why your paycheck can't even keep pace with Starbucks' latte grande menu.

Okay . . . these things come in pairs – the second shoe drops: We might be getting SOME pay increases (unless you're a Fed-Ex driver, and you got boosted to $170,000 a year), but for most of us the pay not only doesn't keep up with the cost of living, it pushes us into higher federal (and state, and municipal) tax brackets. These tax rates are NOT indexed for inflation. If you got a 5% pay increase last year, the odds are good that you might be paying a higher tax rate on those earnings. Even though your paycheck doesn't cover the same expenses it did a year ago.

This is not some weird, freak statistical result applicable just to Bidenomics. The government NEVER indexes taxes to inflation. They WANT us to pay more on our stagnating wages. It's how politicians vacuum up more tax dollars to spend on all the stuff we don't want: 800 military bases around the world; 256 separate agencies to supervise public schools and teacher certification; 100,000 unused Ebola virus moon suits in storage since the Obama era; border walls that never got built and wouldn't have worked if they had been.

Okay . . . a few socialists in the back are getting fidgety. “I'm part of the 50% of Americans who pay ZERO in federal income tax”, they're cat-calling me. “So you're a lying bee-atch!”. To those deep thinkers I have one piece of advice – check out the history of Social Security withholding over the years.

Income taxes was first invented in the early 1900s (previous iterations were ruled unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was passed). If you earned $500,000 a year, your tax rate was . . . wait for it . . . 7%. But of course, $500,000 was worth a lot more back then. That would be $16 MILLION in 2023 dollars. And your tax rate would be 39%, plus state and local bites.

When the tax law first passed in 1913, everyone below $3,000 income paid zero. Starting at that level, you paid 1%. If you're good at math, you've already figured that $3,000 1913 dollars is about $100,000 today. One percent, let me repeat.

If taxes had been indexed for inflation, they'd be a lot lower today. In fact, the opposite happened, Over the years congresspersons made endless radio and TV speeches saying tax rates needed to go higher. Because the rich were too rich.

Today, congress has declared “rich” as about $200,000 for a single earner. Which, as it turns out, is just a little more than a senator's salary. If congress had declared themselves to be rich, all hell would have broken loose, no? So to provide further limbo room under this level, congress also awards itself travel perks, meal perks, fee parking, free banking at the congressionally operated bank, and who knows what else you can get by flashing your “Senator” badge in the checkout line.

In the meantime, the tax rates you and I pay keep going up, because inflation is pushing us into higher and higher tax brackets. So we spend less on ourselves (and our kids), and we depend more on federal student loans, section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, and in some cases tent cities for the homeless, just to get by.

The US dollar is a joke. Only land, and precious metals (and some stocks) have managed to keep up with inflation. Taxes have gone through the roof – if you're lucky enough to have a roof, 90% of senators and congresspersons are reelected each year, if they choose to run again. Because we're poorly represented, and poorly informed.

An average earner can't buy an average home. Despite 30-year mortgages. Some banks are experimenting with 40 and 50 year terms. When you die and see me in heaven, please let me know how this turned out. I'm not signing up for anything like that.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Too many words.

 

[protectionist]

The recent inflation is based on government spending and borrowing not just in Biden's first years but throughout the Obama and Trump administrations, and also the snap back from an economy artificially depressed by Covid. It would have been high no matter who was president.

NONSENSE! Inflation was 1.4% when Trump left office and it hovered near ZERO, for a year before that. Inflation skyrocketed after Biden took over.

Because of his obsessive attacks on the fossil fuel industry, oil production plummeted (344 MB/mo to 277MB/mo in Feb 2021). The lower supply caused higher gas/deisel prices, thereby raising transport costs for manufacturers. Guess who got the increases passed on to them.