Not so. The homeownership rate in the United States[1][2] in 2009 remained similar to that in other post-industrial nations[3] with 67.4% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner. Home ownership rates vary depending on demographic characteristics of households such as ethnicity, race, type of household as well as location and type of settlement. Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable having increased 5.6% since 1960 when 62.1% of American households owned their own home. However, homeowner equity has fallen steadily since World War II and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average.[4] Homeownership was most common in rural areas and suburbs with three quarters of suburban households being homeowners. Among the country's regions the Midwestern states had the highest homeownership rate with the Western states having the lowest.[2] Homeowners in the United States also tend to have higher incomes and households residing in their own home were more likely to be families (as opposed to individuals) than were their tenant counterparts.[5] Among racial demographics, European Americans had the country's highest homeownership rate, while those identifying as being African American had the lowest homeownership rate. It is important to note that the name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States#Historical
You guys are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. This isn't a Republican/Democrat thing, this is a corruption thing. This is about corporations controlling Washington DC because of lobbying and campaign donations. Seriously, people need to put their petty grudges against one party or the other aside and focus on the fact that this country is broken and we need to fix it. I'm sure the Puritans, the Anglicans, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania didn't all agree on things but they recognized that the governance from Britain was flawed and they banded together. I'm tired of people hating a piece of legislation simply because it comes from one party or the other.
Median family income was $5,620 in 1960. Median family income was $49,777 in 2009. Even now, a house costs considerably more than $50k.
It depends on where you live. Median family income with 2 earners is consistently over $70K in all states. It's $75K in Nevada. You can buy a home in Vegas for $70K.
I love it the bitching, complaining and general bitterness of these people. The best part is everyone makes a point to mention they don't whine and then they write: These people have COMPLETELY missed the point. Where is this idea coming from that the protesters are all lazy, hippies who don't pay taxes? It's an anti-corruption movement.
It means that I am not sure you ARE being paid less. You can buy things now that you couldn't buy previously. That increases your buying power, and diffuses the effects of inflation on other aspects of life. Check out this link, which has prices of electronics from the 1970's. It's amazing how--even in nominal dollars--many things aren't much more expensive now. http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70selectrical.html A 25" TV was selling for $599 in 1976. You can buy 26" TVs (that are lighter, higher resolution, etc.) for less than half that (example). In real dollars, $599 is over $2300 dollars today, so the TV is about a tenth of the cost. Ed O.
It's not a corruption thing. It's a question of the role of government: the Occupiers want government to be bigger and more involved in protecting us. Ed O.
The point is that everyone has problems. Not everyone tries to disrupt the lives of others to get them solved. They're paying taxes while they're sitting in a park... how? How are they feeding themselves? Do they have a trust fund? Are they on food stamps? Or are they taking paid vacation time? Or burning through savings? Where do you get the sense that it's an anti-corruption movement? Or that the people protesting are people with jobs who pay taxes? Ed O.
You're funny. I think it might be possible that they paid taxes in the spring and then went to the park after that (I'm going to look into it further). They receive food donations from supporters. Some of them, yes. Because, Ed, I bothered to actually go to their website and look at what they want: a presidential commission to separate money from politics. http://occupywallst.org/ The union is there and I assume they pay taxes. What kind of proof are you looking for? BTW, this is really awesome. It's just like how the Tea Party was painted with a broad stroke.
"Separate money from politics" means nothing. We pay taxes (money) because of laws (passed by politicians). We receive benefits (money) based on laws (politics). There HAVE to be rules, and the people protesting simply don't like the rules. That's their right, of course, but their rules would be far, far worse, IMO, and their approach is a joke to me. I'm answering your question of how people can get the idea that people who are occupying Wall Street don't pay taxes. Of course they have paid taxes at SOME point (anyone who's ever bought anything or had a job has done that) but lounging about in public parks doesn't pay (m)any bills. Or taxes. "Separate money from politics" isn't a broad stroke? Ed O.
I like the idea of separation of economy and state. As long as you don't have that, there cannot be separation of money and politics. Otherwise, many companies will see some benefit govt. can provide and will provide the quid for the pro quo. And they should, and there's nothing you can do about it as long as the state has so much influence on their well being.
You know why the rich get richer? They have interest and inflation working on their side. The Fed creates inflation. Inflation not only kills peoples' buying power, it kills peoples' retiring power.
How does one separate money from politics, yet have more governmental control over the same money? I'm going to guess that most of the protesters have no idea what they're actually protesting. In this thread alone, I've seen at least four different reasons.
