But that’s the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.
Look at ANY metric of “having money or stuff” and people today are better off
Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today
There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that’s why they closed those loopholes later
Evidence please.
Remind me how much rich people pay in taxes now.
We don’t have good WAGE data before 1964
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_(red,_in_constant_2017_dollars).png
but we also have household income data for earlier years
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html
but it doesn’t match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)
but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970
You made a claim about 1950s income you now can’t back up? Interesting.
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html
Look at it, family income was lower
Yes, because women generally didn’t work. That’s a terrible metric.
But that’s the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.
Look at ANY metric of “having money or stuff” and people today are better off