Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Rory Sutherland made a quietly devastating observation about one of the biggest societal shifts of the last 50 years. He said the move to the double-income household started as an option but quickly became an obligation. The big winners? Governments (twice as many people to tax) and property owners...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

462,486 subscribers

386,226 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."
1:06

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."

illuminatibot

28,855 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Rory Sutherland drops a sharp observation about the double-income trap that a lot of people quietly feel but rarely say out loud. It started as a nice option: two salaries, more money, better life. But over time it became something else. House prices rose to absorb the extra income. Governments collected more tax. Homeowners got richer. And the typical double-income household? They gained a bit more stuff… but lost around 35 hours of discretionary time every week. What began as freedom quietly turned into an obligation. Now even high-earning single professionals (like hospital consultants) often struggle to afford a decent place to live on one income. Raising kids on a single salary — something that was possible for working-class families a generation ago — has become much harder. Sutherland’s point lands hard: what looked like progress for families ended up benefiting governments and existing homeowners far more than the people actually living it. It makes you wonder how many “lifestyle upgrades” in modern life are actually traps in disguise. Have you seen this shift in your own life or circle — where two incomes went from advantage to necessity?
1:39

Rory Sutherland drops a sharp observation about the double-income trap that a lot of people quietly feel but rarely say out loud. It started as a nice option: two salaries, more money, better life. But over time it became something else. House prices rose to absorb the extra income. Governments collected more tax. Homeowners got richer. And the typical double-income household? They gained a bit more stuff… but lost around 35 hours of discretionary time every week. What began as freedom quietly turned into an obligation. Now even high-earning single professionals (like hospital consultants) often struggle to afford a decent place to live on one income. Raising kids on a single salary — something that was possible for working-class families a generation ago — has become much harder. Sutherland’s point lands hard: what looked like progress for families ended up benefiting governments and existing homeowners far more than the people actually living it. It makes you wonder how many “lifestyle upgrades” in modern life are actually traps in disguise. Have you seen this shift in your own life or circle — where two incomes went from advantage to necessity?

Camus

79,560 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The double-income household started as a choice. It ended as the new minimum. Rory Sutherland laid it out cleanly. Early on it felt like freedom - two salaries, more options. Then housing prices adjusted upward, taxes doubled, and the extra money mostly paid for the same roof that once required one paycheck. What disappeared was 35 hours of discretionary time every week. A single hospital consultant now struggles to buy what a working-class parent once managed on one wage. That matters because the shift never felt like a policy decision. It arrived as individual progress and settled as collective necessity. In the U.S. dual-income households climbed from under half in the late 1960s to around 60% while housing costs rose far faster than wages. What begins as an upgrade quietly rewrites the baseline until the old normal looks impossible.
1:34

The double-income household started as a choice. It ended as the new minimum. Rory Sutherland laid it out cleanly. Early on it felt like freedom - two salaries, more options. Then housing prices adjusted upward, taxes doubled, and the extra money mostly paid for the same roof that once required one paycheck. What disappeared was 35 hours of discretionary time every week. A single hospital consultant now struggles to buy what a working-class parent once managed on one wage. That matters because the shift never felt like a policy decision. It arrived as individual progress and settled as collective necessity. In the U.S. dual-income households climbed from under half in the late 1960s to around 60% while housing costs rose far faster than wages. What begins as an upgrade quietly rewrites the baseline until the old normal looks impossible.

Camus

64,075 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

What if the biggest “win” for families in the last 50 years was actually a trap? Rory Sutherland dropped this on Alex O’Connor’s podcast: The two-income household started as a nice option. Both partners work, more money comes in. Feels great at first. Then reality shifted. Governments got double the tax. Existing homeowners watched their property values soar. House prices rose to match two salaries. Suddenly one income wasn’t enough anymore — even for high-earning singles like consultant surgeons. Families traded ~35 hours of free time per week for only modest gains in lifestyle. What began as freedom quietly became an obligation. And it left single people and parents who want to raise their own kids at a real disadvantage. This one stings because we sold it as pure progress. Personally, it makes me question how many modern “upgrades” we’ve normalized without counting the real cost — especially lost time with family. What’s something you once thought was clear progress that now feels like it came with a heavier price than we admitted?
1:39

What if the biggest “win” for families in the last 50 years was actually a trap? Rory Sutherland dropped this on Alex O’Connor’s podcast: The two-income household started as a nice option. Both partners work, more money comes in. Feels great at first. Then reality shifted. Governments got double the tax. Existing homeowners watched their property values soar. House prices rose to match two salaries. Suddenly one income wasn’t enough anymore — even for high-earning singles like consultant surgeons. Families traded ~35 hours of free time per week for only modest gains in lifestyle. What began as freedom quietly became an obligation. And it left single people and parents who want to raise their own kids at a real disadvantage. This one stings because we sold it as pure progress. Personally, it makes me question how many modern “upgrades” we’ve normalized without counting the real cost — especially lost time with family. What’s something you once thought was clear progress that now feels like it came with a heavier price than we admitted?

Camus

321,226 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

5. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.
1:20

5. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.

MatrixMysteries

969,148 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.
0:20

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.

Rob Henderson

23,588 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

President Trump just suggested replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, & if the American education system wasn’t hijacked more people would know that there was no federal income tax the first 137 years in America as a country. In fact under President James Monroe there was not only no federal income tax, but there were no internal taxes at all, no excise taxes, nothing, he got rid of all of them… & not only did he use tariffs to create a budget surplus, but he cut America’s debt in half, purchased Florida from Spain, and facilitated the creation of infrastructure that bolted the American economy into the future. The American people are beginning to remember what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.
1:31

President Trump just suggested replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, & if the American education system wasn’t hijacked more people would know that there was no federal income tax the first 137 years in America as a country. In fact under President James Monroe there was not only no federal income tax, but there were no internal taxes at all, no excise taxes, nothing, he got rid of all of them… & not only did he use tariffs to create a budget surplus, but he cut America’s debt in half, purchased Florida from Spain, and facilitated the creation of infrastructure that bolted the American economy into the future. The American people are beginning to remember what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

Brett Pike

663,352 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:
2:10

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:

CTrefugees

123,821 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Why Ordinary Life Became a Luxury What this graphic is really showing is the slow transformation of what an ordinary life costs. In 1990, a household could still imagine that one decent income might carry most of the structure of adulthood. A home, children, health insurance, some expectation of education, some room left over for living. By 2026, income is much higher in nominal terms, but the things that define stability have risen much faster. The numbers on the paycheck grew. The purchasing power attached to them did not keep pace. That distinction matters because people do not experience the economy through GDP or nominal wages. They experience it through the mortgage payment, the insurance deduction, the tuition bill, the grocery cart and the question of whether another child would require another bedroom, another car, another decade of financial strain. Over time, the dollar has lost purchasing power, but not evenly. The cost of technology fell. Entertainment became cheap and abundant. At the same time, housing, health care and education became increasingly expensive. The things we can live without became easier to afford. The things around which we build a life became harder. And that changes families. The second income was once something that could create additional security. Now, for many households, it is necessary simply to maintain the same basic standard of living. Two people work because the mortgage requires two people working. Health insurance assumes continued employment. Childcare exists because both parents have to remain employed in order to pay for the house and the childcare that allows them to remain employed. It becomes circular. A family can earn more money than its parents ever imagined and still feel less secure because every dollar has already been assigned somewhere before it arrives. This is part of why marriage, children and homeownership increasingly happen later. These decisions have become financial decisions in a way they were not always experienced before. People calculate whether they can afford the second child. They calculate whether one parent can stay home. They calculate whether losing a job for six months would mean losing the house. None of this means earlier generations had easy lives. They faced recessions, high interest rates, layoffs, wars and their own forms of insecurity. What changed is the amount of leverage required to reproduce what used to look like an ordinary middle class life. And leverage changes people. It makes households more productive but also more fragile. It makes careers harder to leave, marriages more economically intertwined and mistakes more expensive. It narrows the space between doing fine and being in trouble. That may be the deeper story behind the graphic. The modern household has more dollars, more technology and more access to credit than the household of 1990. But it often has less freedom to stop earning. The erosion of purchasing power did not just change what money buys. It changed how families live, when they marry, whether they have children, how much risk they can tolerate and how dependent ordinary life has become on two uninterrupted incomes. The finish line moved, but so did the consequences of falling behind.
0:46

Why Ordinary Life Became a Luxury What this graphic is really showing is the slow transformation of what an ordinary life costs. In 1990, a household could still imagine that one decent income might carry most of the structure of adulthood. A home, children, health insurance, some expectation of education, some room left over for living. By 2026, income is much higher in nominal terms, but the things that define stability have risen much faster. The numbers on the paycheck grew. The purchasing power attached to them did not keep pace. That distinction matters because people do not experience the economy through GDP or nominal wages. They experience it through the mortgage payment, the insurance deduction, the tuition bill, the grocery cart and the question of whether another child would require another bedroom, another car, another decade of financial strain. Over time, the dollar has lost purchasing power, but not evenly. The cost of technology fell. Entertainment became cheap and abundant. At the same time, housing, health care and education became increasingly expensive. The things we can live without became easier to afford. The things around which we build a life became harder. And that changes families. The second income was once something that could create additional security. Now, for many households, it is necessary simply to maintain the same basic standard of living. Two people work because the mortgage requires two people working. Health insurance assumes continued employment. Childcare exists because both parents have to remain employed in order to pay for the house and the childcare that allows them to remain employed. It becomes circular. A family can earn more money than its parents ever imagined and still feel less secure because every dollar has already been assigned somewhere before it arrives. This is part of why marriage, children and homeownership increasingly happen later. These decisions have become financial decisions in a way they were not always experienced before. People calculate whether they can afford the second child. They calculate whether one parent can stay home. They calculate whether losing a job for six months would mean losing the house. None of this means earlier generations had easy lives. They faced recessions, high interest rates, layoffs, wars and their own forms of insecurity. What changed is the amount of leverage required to reproduce what used to look like an ordinary middle class life. And leverage changes people. It makes households more productive but also more fragile. It makes careers harder to leave, marriages more economically intertwined and mistakes more expensive. It narrows the space between doing fine and being in trouble. That may be the deeper story behind the graphic. The modern household has more dollars, more technology and more access to credit than the household of 1990. But it often has less freedom to stop earning. The erosion of purchasing power did not just change what money buys. It changed how families live, when they marry, whether they have children, how much risk they can tolerate and how dependent ordinary life has become on two uninterrupted incomes. The finish line moved, but so did the consequences of falling behind.

EndGame Macro

12,231 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Angela Rayner, "It's an honour of my life to address this house as the first time as the Deputy Prime Minister" "We've been given a mandate by the British people to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and start a new chapter that they deserve" "I know first hand how government can change lives for the better.. I say that not as a politician but as someone whose own life was changed for the better by the previous Labour government.. And I am determined to do the same for others" Well said and good luck Angela Rayner 👏
13:20

Angela Rayner, "It's an honour of my life to address this house as the first time as the Deputy Prime Minister" "We've been given a mandate by the British people to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and start a new chapter that they deserve" "I know first hand how government can change lives for the better.. I say that not as a politician but as someone whose own life was changed for the better by the previous Labour government.. And I am determined to do the same for others" Well said and good luck Angela Rayner 👏

Farrukh

790,858 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?
5:14

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?

Codie Sanchez

509,831 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

I am not sure what to make of this, keen to know your thoughts: · There's an amendment to switch Withholding Tax on betting/gaming from having it pegged on winnings to having it pegged on withdrawals · The rate of Withholding Tax on this is also being revised from 20.0% to 5.0% · These changes are very consistent with what we saw being moved at the Committee of the Whole House stage Musings: · Now that this is being done via an amendment to the Income Tax Act, can a withdrawal by a punter be legally deemed to be an income? · It's important to look at this matter in reference to the historic Sep 2021 judgement on the famous Kitengela Bar Owners Association vs National Assembly & 2 others which threw out Minimum Tax as unconstitutional · The judgement read & in part that "The imposition of the said tax has the potential of not only subjecting the people to double taxation but also unfairly targeting people whose businesses, for whatever reason, are in loss making positions, to pay taxes from their capital rather than from their profits" · Emphasis here is on the fact that the court took issue with taxes being levied based on "capital rather than from profits" · So again the question begs, can a withdrawal from a betting/gaming wallet be deemed to be an income that should then be taxable?
0:34

I am not sure what to make of this, keen to know your thoughts: · There's an amendment to switch Withholding Tax on betting/gaming from having it pegged on winnings to having it pegged on withdrawals · The rate of Withholding Tax on this is also being revised from 20.0% to 5.0% · These changes are very consistent with what we saw being moved at the Committee of the Whole House stage Musings: · Now that this is being done via an amendment to the Income Tax Act, can a withdrawal by a punter be legally deemed to be an income? · It's important to look at this matter in reference to the historic Sep 2021 judgement on the famous Kitengela Bar Owners Association vs National Assembly & 2 others which threw out Minimum Tax as unconstitutional · The judgement read & in part that "The imposition of the said tax has the potential of not only subjecting the people to double taxation but also unfairly targeting people whose businesses, for whatever reason, are in loss making positions, to pay taxes from their capital rather than from their profits" · Emphasis here is on the fact that the court took issue with taxes being levied based on "capital rather than from profits" · So again the question begs, can a withdrawal from a betting/gaming wallet be deemed to be an income that should then be taxable?

Julians Amboko

14,950 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

At the turn of the 20th century America used tariffs to rise and become the manufacturing center of the world. American oil, American steel, American automotive. The country was so rich that it shocked the world by raising $50 million without using bonds or debt to fight the Spanish American war. A tremendous amount of money at the time. Spain knew they were going to lose as soon as they saw that. In 1913 globalist forces manipulated America into the federal reserve act, and the 16th amendment, which brought in the federal income tax. The goal was to subvert American sovereignty and replace it with a form of corporate globalism. It worked, and by the time you were born, American manufacturing had been shipped across the world, American jobs had been shipped across the world, American sovereignty had been shipped across the world, but people are waking up, and we are going to take it all back.
1:26

At the turn of the 20th century America used tariffs to rise and become the manufacturing center of the world. American oil, American steel, American automotive. The country was so rich that it shocked the world by raising $50 million without using bonds or debt to fight the Spanish American war. A tremendous amount of money at the time. Spain knew they were going to lose as soon as they saw that. In 1913 globalist forces manipulated America into the federal reserve act, and the 16th amendment, which brought in the federal income tax. The goal was to subvert American sovereignty and replace it with a form of corporate globalism. It worked, and by the time you were born, American manufacturing had been shipped across the world, American jobs had been shipped across the world, American sovereignty had been shipped across the world, but people are waking up, and we are going to take it all back.

Brett Pike

20,737 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

NO INCOME TAXES: President Trump states that INCOME TAX will most likely be abolished for a great number of people due to the massive amount of money being brought in from TARIFFS. This is how the U.S. used to operate and why TARIFFS are a massive success to the country. Only a very small fraction of people used to pay income taxes. Specifically, around the years 1894 and the early 1900s to 1917, the federal income tax applied to less than 1% of the population. "I believe in the not-too-distant future you won't even have income tax to pay. Because the money [from tariffs] is so enormous." "Whether you get rid of it, or keep it around for fun, or have it really low, much lower than it is now. But you won't be paying income tax." – President Donald J. Trump
0:28

NO INCOME TAXES: President Trump states that INCOME TAX will most likely be abolished for a great number of people due to the massive amount of money being brought in from TARIFFS. This is how the U.S. used to operate and why TARIFFS are a massive success to the country. Only a very small fraction of people used to pay income taxes. Specifically, around the years 1894 and the early 1900s to 1917, the federal income tax applied to less than 1% of the population. "I believe in the not-too-distant future you won't even have income tax to pay. Because the money [from tariffs] is so enormous." "Whether you get rid of it, or keep it around for fun, or have it really low, much lower than it is now. But you won't be paying income tax." – President Donald J. Trump

The SCIF

27,822 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

I never wanted to be a politician and I still don’t. I’ve had two successful careers and have started a few small businesses. I’ve also worked for some big corporations. I was ready to retire and spend more time with my family – which I’ve done for the past 3 years. I think they’re ready for me to find something else to do. I’m tired of seeing the leaders of our country being influenced by the toxic divisions that are tearing apart our families and society. It’s time for me to step up and do my civic duty. To give back and try and change things for the better. If not me, who? If not now, when? It’s easy to look at the economy and realize that something has gone horribly wrong. Working people, the middle class, and small businesses have been losing ground over the past 20 years. The goose that lays the golden eggs for our country has been kicked around and squeezed to the point where laying more golden eggs is almost impossible. Consider that since 2000 the cost of food has risen more than double the rise in average household income. The cost of a home has risen 6 times and the amount of government spending 5 and a half times. The S&P 500 has gone up 9 times more than the rise in average household income. To everyone who works and is trying to do the right thing for their family, to everyone who is young and wonders why their lives are worse than their parents: you are not wrong. And yet, who have we allowed to have the most influence over our government? Big corporate executives and big union bosses. Big tech, big pharma, big media, big whatever – all trying to control big government in Washington DC. This needs to stop. Our government spends money on the wrong things and spends way too much. One thing the federal government should certainly be responsible for is the security of our borders. Instead, we see millions of people coming in without any accounting for who they are, what they intend to do, or what they’re bringing with them. And they’re being given access to all sorts of handouts at our expense. At a minimum, the federal government and the state governments should be working together to enforce existing laws and secure the border. Seeing our government at war with itself is unacceptable. For my whole life, in every place I’ve ever lived, I’ve seen people working to provide for their family. Values like self-sacrifice, faith, integrity, fidelity, and valor are simply part of who these people are. They do these things not because the government tells them to, but because they know the right things to do - moral obligations that are freely chosen, not mandated by a government. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a family, and it takes families to make a village. The sad reality is that many children in our country are suffering. Years of ridiculing and demeaning old fashioned “family values” have taken a toll. Our society’s strength, fundamentally linked to the vitality of the family structure, has been eroded. I want to champion the traditional family as critical for a child’s development and success. The data proves this. However, my approach will be inclusive, recognizing all who step up to provide for their children. I’m not worried about the government being a safety net. I want the government to stop being an impediment. I’m ready to go to DC and see if I can help bring back sanity and civility to the public discourse on these issues and all the other issues that face our great nation. We need bold leaders for such a time as this.
1:15

I never wanted to be a politician and I still don’t. I’ve had two successful careers and have started a few small businesses. I’ve also worked for some big corporations. I was ready to retire and spend more time with my family – which I’ve done for the past 3 years. I think they’re ready for me to find something else to do. I’m tired of seeing the leaders of our country being influenced by the toxic divisions that are tearing apart our families and society. It’s time for me to step up and do my civic duty. To give back and try and change things for the better. If not me, who? If not now, when? It’s easy to look at the economy and realize that something has gone horribly wrong. Working people, the middle class, and small businesses have been losing ground over the past 20 years. The goose that lays the golden eggs for our country has been kicked around and squeezed to the point where laying more golden eggs is almost impossible. Consider that since 2000 the cost of food has risen more than double the rise in average household income. The cost of a home has risen 6 times and the amount of government spending 5 and a half times. The S&P 500 has gone up 9 times more than the rise in average household income. To everyone who works and is trying to do the right thing for their family, to everyone who is young and wonders why their lives are worse than their parents: you are not wrong. And yet, who have we allowed to have the most influence over our government? Big corporate executives and big union bosses. Big tech, big pharma, big media, big whatever – all trying to control big government in Washington DC. This needs to stop. Our government spends money on the wrong things and spends way too much. One thing the federal government should certainly be responsible for is the security of our borders. Instead, we see millions of people coming in without any accounting for who they are, what they intend to do, or what they’re bringing with them. And they’re being given access to all sorts of handouts at our expense. At a minimum, the federal government and the state governments should be working together to enforce existing laws and secure the border. Seeing our government at war with itself is unacceptable. For my whole life, in every place I’ve ever lived, I’ve seen people working to provide for their family. Values like self-sacrifice, faith, integrity, fidelity, and valor are simply part of who these people are. They do these things not because the government tells them to, but because they know the right things to do - moral obligations that are freely chosen, not mandated by a government. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a family, and it takes families to make a village. The sad reality is that many children in our country are suffering. Years of ridiculing and demeaning old fashioned “family values” have taken a toll. Our society’s strength, fundamentally linked to the vitality of the family structure, has been eroded. I want to champion the traditional family as critical for a child’s development and success. The data proves this. However, my approach will be inclusive, recognizing all who step up to provide for their children. I’m not worried about the government being a safety net. I want the government to stop being an impediment. I’m ready to go to DC and see if I can help bring back sanity and civility to the public discourse on these issues and all the other issues that face our great nation. We need bold leaders for such a time as this.

Marty O'Donnell

16,063,347 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?
0:36

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?

Camus

16,695 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Trump promises to abolish the Income Tax, which this economy professor says is going to put an average of $30,000 a year in the pockets of American families. #Agenda47 Here’s how: 1. The current income tax costs the American people $2.4 trillion a year. 2. Trump proposes to replace the income tax with tariffs: - 20% tariff on everybody except China - 60% tariff on China 3. The tariffs are expected to bring in about $900 billion a year. 4. This tariff system is predicted to: - Grow the American economy by 20% in the near term - Provide a $15,000 raise for the typical American family - Save the typical American family $18,000 in income tax - Result in a net additional income of about $30,000 for the typical American family 5. The economic growth under this system could potentially double, reaching 5% annual growth as the new normal. 6. Comparing to countries like Singapore, the U.S. could save around $2 trillion or more. 7. There is an expectation of strong Congressional support for this proposal due to the significant economic benefits and potential for voter approval. 8. The proposal includes action items for the President, economic team, trade team, finance team, and policy team to implement and analyze the impacts of the tariff system.
1:50

Trump promises to abolish the Income Tax, which this economy professor says is going to put an average of $30,000 a year in the pockets of American families. #Agenda47 Here’s how: 1. The current income tax costs the American people $2.4 trillion a year. 2. Trump proposes to replace the income tax with tariffs: - 20% tariff on everybody except China - 60% tariff on China 3. The tariffs are expected to bring in about $900 billion a year. 4. This tariff system is predicted to: - Grow the American economy by 20% in the near term - Provide a $15,000 raise for the typical American family - Save the typical American family $18,000 in income tax - Result in a net additional income of about $30,000 for the typical American family 5. The economic growth under this system could potentially double, reaching 5% annual growth as the new normal. 6. Comparing to countries like Singapore, the U.S. could save around $2 trillion or more. 7. There is an expectation of strong Congressional support for this proposal due to the significant economic benefits and potential for voter approval. 8. The proposal includes action items for the President, economic team, trade team, finance team, and policy team to implement and analyze the impacts of the tariff system.

Justin Deschamps (Just In Stillness)

447,373 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr