10 dead 35+ injured in New Orleans terror attack

[coldmeat]

Yes it is both correct and inaccurate. The only rates that really matter are effective rates, and they definitely weren't paying anywhere near 91%.

Not exactly. It also matters what they were spending their money on instead of paying those taxes. Was it through incentives and deductions, like giving out end of year bonuses or making donations to public services like schools, hospitals, libraries? Better to have your name on the building than just give the money to the government. Now they can just hoard it.

 

[Pens1566]

Yes it is both correct and inaccurate. The only rates that really matter are effective rates, and they definitely weren't paying anywhere near 91%.

And there are always going to be assholes who try to push the rules: that's why we need enforcement and regulations to come down hard on those cases.

 

[Brainonska511]

Most of the loopholes were writeoffs for spending. Encouraging the millionaire class to spend rather than horde INCLUDING EMPLOYEE WAGES. This is what gave us the incredible growth in the 50s and 60s and even 70s in ACTAUL wages and grew the worlds largest middle class.

Now much of the horded wealth is in the stock market... which explains its explosive growth since the 80s.

But some of it was also paper write-offs, like depreciation from businesses. It wasn't real spending. There was also plenty of wealth hoarding: tremendously wealthy families and individuals existed then too.

The wealth being hoarded into the market is more due to changes in the 80s under Reagan that made it easier to do bs like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks, explained

The tax cuts have put stock buybacks in the spotlight. Here’s what they are — and why you should care.

www.vox.com

---

I think it's more useful to talk about effective tax rates (then) and focus on the present, instead of a largely imagined idea of how things used to work.

 

[sdifox]

Tax the stock market to hell since 90+ percent of it is in rich people pocket

 

[Heartbreaker]

You should look closer.

Who was it good for? What (and how much) could you buy with that money?

The median American is much better off today than the median 1950s American.

Let's check that:

	1959	2024
Median Income	$5,400	$80,020
Median House price	$12,400 ( 2.3X Income)	$420,400 ( 5.25 X Income)
Average car price	$2,200 (41% of income)	$48,000 (60% of income)

Looking at the two biggest purchases things look much better in 1959 than today. With housing being over double the cost relative to income today, and cars being about 50% more relative to income today.

Maybe you should look closer.

 

[Brainonska511]

Let's check that:

	1959	2024
Median Income	$5,400	$80,020
Median House price	$12,400 ( 2.3X Income)	$420,400 ( 5.25 X Income)
Average car price	$2,200 (41% of income)	$48,000 (60% of income)

Looking at the two biggest purchases things look much better in 1959 than today. With housing being over double the cost relative to income today, and cars being about 50% more relative to income today.

Maybe you should look closer.

And what were the sizes of those houses? What was the lifespan and maintenance costs of those cars? How many did families own? Average car price is also misleading, since there is no upper bound.

Personally, I'd rather live in today, where median income are higher, quality of life is better, and more rights are protected.

As for housing: it greatly helped white homeowners that the government took a heavy hand in subsidizing their purchases at the time and blocking competition from other demographics. Then those same people pulled the ladder up behind them and made it impossible to build any new infill housing, driving up costs for all of us today.

 

[sdifox]

Let's check that:

	1959	2024
Median Income	$5,400	$80,020
Median House price	$12,400 ( 2.3X Income)	$420,400 ( 5.25 X Income)
Average car price	$2,200 (41% of income)	$48,000 (60% of income)

Looking at the two biggest purchases things look much better in 1959 than today. With housing being over double the cost relative to income today, and cars being about 50% more relative to income today.

Maybe you should look closer.

Average house size in 1950s was around 990sqft. In 2024 it's 2430sqft.

 

[Brainonska511]

Average house size in 1950s was around 990sqft. In 2024 it's 2430sqft.

And there were likely more people per household too.

 

[manly]

I think it's more useful to talk about effective tax rates (then) and focus on the present, instead of a largely imagined idea of how things used to work.

I suspect the top 1% are paying a clearly lower effective tax rate than they did in the 1950s. Elon basically only ever pays federal income tax when he exercises options and needs to pay the tax man.

Recall that LT capital gains tax is also a lot lower % than it used to be.

And as everyone has alluded to, its way easier to pay taxes when the ratio of CEO/worker pay has skyrocketed since the 1980s.

 

[Heartbreaker]

And what were the sizes of those houses? What was the lifespan and maintenance costs of those cars? How many did families own? Average car price is also misleading, since there is no upper bound.

This drive to own more, and bigger everything doesn't increase happiness, and externally it's very harmful to the environment. Buying a bigger more expensive house, and more expensive cars doesn't mean you have more buying power, it just means you are taking on more debt.

Even that same 1950's bungalow that was cheap in 1950's is probably a small fortune today.

Personally, I'd rather live in today, where median income are higher, quality of life is better, and more rights are protected.

You haven't made that case that current median income is actually higher in buying power, when the number one expense for everyone (housing) is now twice as high.

This tangent was answering your "don't want to live [economically] " back then. I was already acknowledging the societal inequities of that straight white, patriarchal dream of the 1950's.

But for the economics of the time, their dream is probably close to reality. The post war boom was a great period of economic expansion, with income exceeding inflation like no other period.

 

[MrSquished]

And what were the sizes of those houses? What was the lifespan and maintenance costs of those cars? How many did families own? Average car price is also misleading, since there is no upper bound.

Personally, I'd rather live in today, where median income are higher, quality of life is better, and more rights are protected.

As for housing: it greatly helped white homeowners that the government took a heavy hand in subsidizing their purchases at the time and blocking competition from other demographics. Then those same people pulled the ladder up behind them and made it impossible to build any new infill housing, driving up costs for all of us today.

You've also argued that wealth inequality isn't so bad today, so I'll take that all with a grain of salt.

 

[Brainonska511]

You've also argued that wealth inequality isn't so bad today, so I'll take that all with a grain of salt.

I have not argued that at all.

 

[pmv]

Average house size in 1950s was around 990sqft. In 2024 it's 2430sqft.

Needs more detail as to what is meant by "average" in that claim. Mean or median?

Also, does that mean "average house size of the entire housing stock in existence at that time" or does it mean "average size of the houses constructed in that era"?

 

[MrSquished]

I have not argued that at all.

You did in another thread. I pointed it out. You kept arguing Americans are doing fine with wealth regardless.

 

[pmv]

I personally don't know (and have never known) anyone who is nostalgic for the 1950s (of those who can remember that time). Everyone I know who was young(ish) in that decade remembers it as being grim, austere, and, above all, extremely boring (because fun hadn't been invented then, apparently).

But that's largely because the post-war boom (and the advent of mass consumerism) started much later in Europe than the US (and spluttered out a bit earlier). It's also partly because most of those I have known who remember that decade were either female or not white or both.

But even if things have gotten better over the long run, it does seem that that has started to reverse in more recent times.

 

[Brainonska511]

You did in another thread. I pointed it out. You kept arguing Americans are doing fine with wealth regardless.

Americans are doing well, relative to the past.

That does not mean that there are no problems to fix.

 

[sdifox]

Needs more detail as to what is meant by "average" in that claim. Mean or median?

Also, does that mean "average house size of the entire housing stock in existence at that time" or does it mean "average size of the houses constructed in that era"?

I just googled. I mean the numbers he provided are also generalised.

 

[HomerJS]

The greatest expansion of the middle class was after the GI bill and top tax rates were 90%

Black people were squeezed out of full GI bill benefits.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Most of the loopholes were write-offs for spending. Encouraging the millionaire class to spend rather than horde INCLUDING EMPLOYEE WAGES. This is what gave us the incredible growth in the 50s and 60s and even 70s in ACTUAL wages and grew the worlds largest middle class. This is why wages stagnated precisely when the top tax bracket was dropped and write-offs eliminated.

Now much of the horded wealth is in the stock market... which explains its explosive growth since the 80s.

Yup, whether the dragons give their money to the peasants for work or dump it on the countryside as payment for the sheep they eat, as long as it leaves the hoard.

Gotta get that scratch circulating through the economy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Average house size in 1950s was around 990sqft. In 2024 it's 2430sqft.

I mean, should it be? That 2430 costs a lot more to maintain and operate.

 

[pmv]

The greatest expansion of the middle class was after the GI bill and top tax rates were 90%

Black people were squeezed out of full GI bill benefits.

That's true, but the GI Bill may be over-rated in general. At least this paper claimed to find most of those who benefited were people who would have gone to college anyway. At least with regard to the 'elite' colleges it did nothing to increase the representation of students from lower-income backgrounds.

The G.I. Bill, Standardized Testing, and Socioeconomic Origins of the U.S. Educational Elite Over a Century

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

We compile, transcribe, and standardize historical records for 2.5 million students at 65 elite (private and public) U.S. colleges. By combining these data with more recent survey and administrative data, we assemble the largest dataset on the socioeconomic backgrounds of students at American colleges spanning the last 100 years. We document the following: First, despite a large increase in the share of lower-income students in the overall college-going population, the representation of these students at elite private or public colleges has remained at similarly low levels throughout the last century. Second, the representation of upper-income students at elite colleges decreased after World War II, but this group has regained its high representation since the 1980s. Third, while there has been no increase in the economic diversity of elite private and public colleges, these colleges have become more racially and geographically diverse. Fourth, two major policy changes in the history of American higher education, namely the G.I. Bill after World War II and the introduction of standardized tests for admissions, had little success in increasing the representation of lower- and middle-income students at elite colleges.

 

[KMFJD]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/05/us/new-orleans-attack/index.html

The New Orleans attacker visited the city twice in the months prior to New Year’s, and used Meta smart glasses to film Bourbon Street and plan out his attack, FBI New Orleans Special Agent in Charge Lyonel Myrthil said Sunday.

finally a use for meta smart glasses

New Orleans has been installing new, removable stainless-steel bollards along several blocks, but those were not expected to be ready until the Super Bowl next month.Those new barriers are only able to withstand vehicle impacts of 10 mph, according to a Reuters report.

what's the point?

 

[Fenixgoon]

what's the point?

I wonder if a vehicle will be sufficiently damaged that it is disabled - absent something extremely large like a tractor truck. A physically stopped (stalled) car and one with a dead engine are identical for practical purposes.

 

[DaaQ]

That's true, but the GI Bill may be over-rated in general. At least this paper claimed to find most of those who benefited were people who would have gone to college anyway. At least with regard to the 'elite' colleges it did nothing to increase the representation of students from lower-income backgrounds.

The G.I. Bill, Standardized Testing, and Socioeconomic Origins of the U.S. Educational Elite Over a Century

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

after World War II, but this group has regained its high representation since the 1980s.

It's in your quote.

When the remedial public became fantasized with actors, celebrities, as politicians, as if this is some WWE soap opera playing out IRT.

Trickle down doesn't work, hasn't worked, and the dumbtards still believe their bootstraps are the same as their idols.

 

[pmv]

after World War II, but this group has regained its high representation since the 1980s.

It's in your quote.

When the remedial public became fantasized with actors, celebrities, as politicians, as if this is some WWE soap opera playing out IRT.

Trickle down doesn't work, hasn't worked, and the dumbtards still believe their bootstraps are the same as their idols.

The study, I gather (and should have said more explicitly), was specifically about "elite" colleges. It's true that they said lower income groups representation in the total college population went up, but seems that was never the case for the top schools, even before the Reagan era reversal. So I guess the GI Bill wasn't ineffectual, but it had its limitations.

First, despite a large increase in the share of lower-income students in the overall college-going population, the representation of these students at elite private or public colleges has remained at similarly low levels throughout the last century