US Income by Family Type
Using the CPI (Consumer Price Index) the Census Bureau estimates that the average US household income between 1969 and 1996 increased by 6.3% to $35,172. A father with children but no wife is the only household income that decreased, down 8% to $31,020, while unmarried women with children increased 10.2% to $18,000. The fastest growing household incomes were single households with no children whose income increased 63%, to $14,586 for men and $11,454 for women. Incomes for men in households with no children increased 22.7% to $41,792, and for women increased 25.3% to $33,566. Incomes for families where the wife didn't work increased 1.5% to $36,786 and where the wife did work by 25.3% to $51,950, which means that working wives are responsible for 17% of family incomes.
CHANGE IN DYNAMICS DISCOURAGES MARRIAGE
A married man with children in 1969 earned 6.5% more than an unmarried man without children, but today he earns 12% less, which is a fundamental shift in the financial dynamics which encourage the creation of families. It is a serious flaw in our economic model to provide a financial incentive for family break up, or to prevent the formation of families in the first place. It amounts to a negative 12% "Marriage Benefit" for a man to marry and have children. The only incentive for him to marry is that he reduces his income even more, by 25.8%, if he has children outside of marriage. Conversely, a single working woman without children who marries and has children raises her income by 72% if she doesn't work, and by 142% if she does work, but if she has children without marrying she reduces her income by 46.4%.
Is this an accurate way to measure the contributions of wives and children to a man's income? You could say that wives and children reduce men's productivity by 12% but that not having wives reduces it another 13.8%, which puts a value of $5,767 per year on married women who don't work.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX VS. GOLD STANDARD
The CPI is a fraud. It suggests that the value of the dollar was 4.3x higher in 1969 than in 1996, whereas by the gold standard it was 9x higher.
Suggesting that average incomes increased 6.3% also ignores the 66% increase in the number of US employees. In current dollars, 1969 GDP was $947.9 billion, which was 23.1 billion ounces of gold at $41 per ounce of gold, and in 1996 was $7,529.8 billion, which was 20.4 billion ounces of gold at $369 per ounce of gold. This is an 11.7% decrease in worldwide purchasing power of US GDP in only 27 years.
The 66% increase in the number of employees, from 80.7 to 133.9 million, must be considered. GDP per employee in ounces of gold in 1969 was 286.4 ounces, and in 1996 was 152.4, which is a 46.8% reduction in productivity per employee. If productivity per employee had just remained stable at 286.4, today's 133.9 million employees would be producing $14.2 trillion in GDP. If our GDP had grown at the same after-inflation growth rate of countries like Japan, then rather than 286.4 ounces it would have been 529.2, which means that those 133.9 million employees would have been producing a GDP of $26.1 trillion. If the productivity of the 80.7 million employees in 1969 had increased at a rate equivalent to Japan's, and if no additional employees had been added, GDP would have been $15.8 trillion.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY
Affirmative action forced employers to hire incomptent, counterproductive, emotional women employees who couldn't do the job, who sued for the same incomes as men who scored 40-82% higher than them on most standardized tests, who demanded and got preferences in hiring and promotions even though men were more qualified, and who looted corporate R&D and capital expansion funds with massive litigation when they attempted to blame corporate America for their own failure through discrimination suits. It is estimated that affirmative action related litigation alone costs $800 billion per year. The increase in the percent of the population in the civilian workforce from 38.7 to 48% was due mostly to the increase in the percent of women in the workforce from 14.4 to 22.2%, which is 20.6 million unwanted women employees.
If it is assumed that our reduction in productivity was due entirely to these unwanted 20.6 million women employees (a gross oversimplification), then each unwanted woman employee reduced GDP by between $323,786 and $901,456. Using 286.4 ounces of gold, or $105,682 per year at the 1996 value of gold as the average productivity of a man employee, the positive contribution to productivity of 3 to 8 1/2 men employees is required to compensate for the negative contribution of each unwanted woman employee.
"Income" includes AFDC (Aid to Families With Dependent Children), PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Social Security payments, SSI payments, Railroad Retirement Income, Unemployment Compensation, government workers' compensation benefits (like black lung disease payments), veterans payments and military retirement benefits, private pensions, Keogh plans, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Simplified Employee Pensions (SEPs), individual annuity contracts, federal and state and local government employee pension payments, "Income" does not include non-cash benefits received by welfare recipients, workers' compensation benefits from private disability insurance, medicare and medicaid benefits, nor education benefits.
What many don't seem to realize is that "liberals" don't *want* a tax cut because they don't even pay taxes in the first place.
Women are 11% more of the voters than men. But women as a group, who make up 44% of the workforce, don't pay federal taxes. AS A GROUP they get back directly from the IRS $98 billion more in "tax credits" and "Earned Income Tax Credits" than they pay out in federal taxes. So here you have 57 million women employees and 100 million voting age women who know something you don't--a tax cut would only take money FROM their pockets. From this perspective it's not too hard to understand why tax cuts are a very boring subject to the majority of our voters, eh?
But wait. Who pays the taxes? The 4.4 million black men in the American workforce earn an average of only $23,566, and you don't need to be an accountant to realize that with the graduated income tax, someone in that income range also doesn't pay taxes. They might not get much back (it is black women who get the majority of the welfare dollars, not black men), but they AS A GROUP put nothing into the IRS in the first place. Why would they want a tax break? That's why they don't.
The 4.5 million hispanic men who work full time in the workforce are in the same boat as black men. They earn an average of only a few thousand dollars per year more than black men, so they as a group also get more back from the IRS than they put in.
So who's left to pay the taxes? White families? Not exactly. The median increase in income that a family gains by putting a wife to work is $15,164, which is less than the cost of reasonable child care. Why, then, would so many families have the wife go to work if they don't have more left over after they pay their expenses? Well, now we're getting somewhere. Because of tax credits like the child care credit, the tax bill for a family with a working wife, which has a family income $15,164 higher than a family where the wife doesn't work, is two to four thousand dollars per year lower than when the wife doesn't work.
This is the real "marriage tax penalty".
The IRS is a social engineering agency which first provides the economic incentive for wives to go to work, which then creates stress in the family and on the children, which then breaks up the family, which then provides fodder for divorce lawyers, judges, social workers, and millions of other bureaucrats whose very careers would suffer if the IRS didn't continue to do this.
The real taxpayers, the ones who pay much of the taxes, are the 42 million White households where only the husband works, who have a median income of $41,792.
In other words, White men, who are only a third of the voters, pay close to 100% of all federal taxes.
Our complaint against King George when he took 2% of our income for taxes was "taxation without representation". What should our complaint be called today?