[...]In thinking about the need for future tax increases, we also have to realize that the revenue base won’t be expanding in the future anything like it did in the past. In the 1960s, according to Department of Labor data, the labor force grew faster than the population. The same thing happened in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. The primary driver for this forty-year surge was the flood of women into the workplace.
In 1960 men held two of every three jobs. By 2000 the sexes were near parity: men held 53 percent of the jobs and women 47 percent. During those forty years, the participation rate of men fell from 83 percent to 75 percent. The decline was easily offset by the participation rate for women. It rose from 38 percent to 60 percent.
Viewed as a competition for jobs, women won. In the half-century from 1950 to 2000, the labor force grew from 62.2 million to 140.9 million—an increase of 78.7 million, roughly the size of Germany’s current population. The participation of women grew from 18.4 million to 65.6 million, an increase of 47.2 million. Women, in other words, won six positions while men landed only four.
[...]
Priapic angst aside, the flood of women workers was about as good as it gets for government revenues. The number of workers—read taxpayers—rose faster than the population. Better still, since most of the new workers were women, they paid their full share in taxes but increased the long-term liabilities of government very little.
Why?
Simple. As we’ve seen, in the Leave It to Beaver notion of social structure used in the creation of Social Security, men weren’t just the primary earners. They were the only earners. Women were scheduled to receive Social Security retirement benefits based on the earnings record of their husbands. Policy called for them to receive half the benefit of their husbands while the husband was living. After his death they would receive the larger of the two benefits—all without paying a cent in payroll taxes.
Then Rosie the Riveter joined the labor force. She earned less than her husband, but she paid full freight in payroll taxes. Her retirement benefits increased slightly over not working—at least while her spouse was alive and retired—but she paid the full rate for payroll taxes. Basically, she paid for benefits she was already scheduled to receive. It is difficult to imagine a more positive environment for government revenues.[...]
Source: The Coming Generational Storm What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future
3 comentários:
:)))
É assim mesmo!
Grande homem.
Foi tão bom, não foi? ;)))
[...]In thinking about the need for future tax increases, we also have to realize that the revenue base won’t be expanding in the future anything like it did in the past. In the 1960s, according to Department of Labor data, the labor force grew faster than the population. The same thing happened in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. The primary driver for this forty-year surge was the flood of women into the workplace.
In 1960 men held two of every three jobs. By 2000 the sexes were near parity: men held 53 percent of the jobs and women 47 percent. During those forty years, the participation rate of men fell from 83 percent to 75 percent. The decline was easily offset by the participation rate for women. It rose from 38 percent to 60 percent.
Viewed as a competition for jobs, women won. In the half-century from 1950 to 2000, the labor force grew from 62.2 million to 140.9 million—an increase of 78.7 million, roughly the size of Germany’s current population. The participation of women grew from 18.4 million to 65.6 million, an increase of 47.2 million. Women, in other words, won six positions while men landed only four.
[...]
Priapic angst aside, the flood of women workers was about as good as it gets for government revenues. The number of workers—read taxpayers—rose faster than the population. Better still, since most of the new workers were women, they paid their full share in taxes but increased the long-term liabilities of government very little.
Why?
Simple. As we’ve seen, in the Leave It to Beaver notion of social structure used in the creation of Social Security, men weren’t just the primary earners. They were the only earners. Women were scheduled to receive Social Security retirement benefits based on the earnings record of their husbands. Policy called for them to receive half the benefit of their husbands while the husband was living. After his death they would receive the larger of the two benefits—all without paying a cent in payroll taxes.
Then Rosie the Riveter joined the labor force. She earned less than her husband, but she paid full freight in payroll taxes. Her retirement benefits increased slightly over not working—at least while her spouse was alive and retired—but she paid the full rate for payroll taxes. Basically, she paid for benefits she was already scheduled to receive. It is difficult to imagine a more positive environment for government revenues.[...]
Source: The Coming Generational Storm What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future
:)
Enviar um comentário