Financial Repression

Exactly what is happening now. Here in the UK the government is taking more and more and providing less and less:

Financial repression is a term that describes measures by which governments channel funds from the private sector to themselves as a form of debt reduction. The overall policy actions result in the government being able to borrow at extremely low interest rates, obtaining low-cost funding for government expenditures.

1 Like

One reason for wanting less government.

The Captain


If the UK has gone Shiny, the taking more and providing less, would be the perception of most people. The services that the people used to receive, for their taxes paid, have been curtailed to give the “JCs” a free ride.

Michigan was soundly Shiny, for 30 years. Today, personal income tax and sales tax, each provide about 30% of revenue. The “JCs” however, only provide 4%, only slightly more than what people throw away on the lottery, on top of the 30% they pay in income tax and the 30% they pay in sales tax. Yet, the “JCs” constantly cry about the “job killing” tax “burden” they suffer.

Same thing at the Federal level. Taxes on business, as a percentage of total government revenue have fallen a great deal since the 50s%

So that is where your tax money is going.



Well, Steve, the chart you posted says where it’s coming from…not how it is spent. :wink: And since taxes on business end up being paid by the consumer indirectly, I don’t see your point.

(ready for SteveRant # 2,784,301) :slight_smile:

But wait, there’s more!

Then taxes on consumers end up being paid by corporations indirectly (because they pay salaries to consumers).

And then taxes on businesses end up being paid by the consumer indirectly.

And then taxes on consumers end up being paid by the business indirectly.

…. ad infinitum.

Which came first, the business or the consumer?

Actually, it’s ok for corporations and individuals to pay some taxes.


The is the dark blue portion of the graph. What you have to add to that part is a bit over half of the yellow portion, ‘social insurance/payroll tax’. Then the company portion goes from about 30% in 1950 to about 30% in 2019.


1 Like

If you do that, then you need to add the other half of the yellow part to individual taxes, so, while the “JCs” contribution to revenue is flat, worker’s contribution to revenue has increased.


1 Like

In Michigan, the money is not “spent” on the “JCs”, specifically. The “JCs” just don’t pay much for what they use.

Some years ago, for instance, the state used it’s good credit rating to make funds available for for-profit companies to build or expand trash dumps at below market rates. Michigan also charges a far lower tip fee than surrounding states. This has made Michigan the trash and toxic waste destination of the Great Lakes. Toxic waste from the train wreck in Ohio was going to be shipped to Michigan, until local authorities objected, loudly. At one time, trash was even hauled here from Toronto, because dumping trash in Michigan is so cheap.

Water bottling companies pull well over a million gallons of ground water out of Michigan, per day. All the state realizes from all that water, is a $200/year permit fee. Can you see Texas giving away oil and gas, the way Michigan gives away water?

But Michigan “JCs” still cry a river about how “burdened” they are.



…and the benefits to workers from Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc., etc., also have increased, not to mention tax code benefits which result in half of the taxpayers not paying any Federal income taxes.


1 Like

True enough. So, since 1950 percentage-wise (now there’s a '50s phrase) the corporate contribution has remained constant while individuals are paying more (mostly for increased social services as military has decreased). Who/what has been paying a smaller percentage? Excise tax – taxes on specific items such as fuel, tires, alcohol, tobacco.




That is Walmart’s recipe to have something like half of their workers on the state while drawing a check.

Yes half the workers are not paying income taxes. That inherently means they are underpaid.

The states that pay $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage are destroying Social Security. That is the root of the SS funding problems.

1 Like

This can’t be true. Only about 1.5% of all workers earn minimum wage, and about half of them are single and under 25, who always start off with low wages as they gain their first work experience.


Please link or document this.

The larger point though is slightly different. The larger point is a very high percentage of people do not earn a living wage so how do you tax them? Yet they do have to pay payroll taxes. The amount collected by people not earning a living wage or a fair wage is very low and is strangling the SSA funding.

We have seen here a study of the perspectives of what almost all Americans see as fair wages v the actual wages. The bottom 80% are well underpaid. Again all of those people paying into the SSA far less than they would under conditions of fairer pay.

It was the first result in a google search that I did before I posted my reply above. It’s also a pretty well-known fact that VERY few people still earn federal minimum wage.

This is also inaccurate. The bottom 99+%, see themselves as underpaid. On Wall Street, even the heavy hitters, partners and all, think they are underpaid. Some of them even leave their multi-million paycheck to start hedge funds so they can earn more. :joy: #nolinkforthisonesorry


Nearly 52 million U.S. workers — or 32% of the country’s workforce — earn less than $15 an hour, according to a report published Tuesday by Oxfam America.Mar 22, 2022

Note in my area min wage really should be in the $22 per hour area. How do you tax people that do not make enough to live in after doing an honest job for a week? How else do you explain SSA’s lack of funding on a substantive manner? Wages have been held back since 1981 for the majority of Americans. Cutting pensions also figures into cutting pay. The massive layoffs also played a role as people often went to jobs that paid less. We tore down the experience of worker pay in this country for most American workers.

Our best option is to rebuild the American middle class and that is not based at all on supply side economics.

1 Like

That is truly funny. I am not worried about the top 20%.

If the bottom 80% do better so will the top 20%. My ideas in fact do not take from anyone. Even if taxes go up on the top 20%. Ironic but if you know more about demand side econ it is true. In simple terms the investor class gets back its consumer and saver.

To where does that water get shipped? VERY IMPORTANT. If shipped out of the Great Lakes region, it is a violation of the Great Lakes Compact (covers both US and Canada).

We’ve had this discussion here on the fool boards before (maybe 15-20 years ago, when the phrase “living wage” became popular). The discussion went back and forth, and back and forth, with many of the people claiming that $X per hour is simply too low to live on. I then posted what the median wage was (pretty close to $X/hr), and the response to that comment was literally “That’s crazy, you couldn’t live on that here. Nobody should earn less than median wage!”


Its ground water, not water from the lakes. Michigan voters took redistricting out of the hands of the (L&Ses) and created a bipartisan commission to handle the task, in 2018. For the first time since the early 80s, the Shiny faction does not have it’s gerrymandered lock on power in Lansing. Now, Lansing is starting to look at the way the state has been giving away water.


Yeah that about sums up any debate here. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The median income in Germany is 41,125€ per year. The median income in Berlin is 41,800€ per year. Berlin salaries are lower than in other German cities, 3 but the cost of living is also lower. In Germany, people sometimes mention their monthly income instead of their yearly income.Mar 16, 2023

Demand side econ Germany v US supply side econ into 2019. Someone is taking roughly $10k per worker just for ha ha’s.