jump to last post 1-50 of 125 discussions (1737 posts)

Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?

  1. 0
    HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago

    We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly.

    This question has three parts:

    A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?

    B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?

    C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?

    Let's here what you think HubPages.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A - No.
      B - If it must, then there must be some very stringent, important rules to go along with it, and it should be for minimally necessary assistance. None of this 'I can buy $860 of junk food with my food stamps card'. That's garbage.
      C - Personal responsibility should be the basis of everything. Retirement should be a personal issue. Healthcare should be a personal issue. Contracts should be a personal issue.

      1. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Would you still allow for emergency medical care for someone who couldn't afford it?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If someone wants to provide it? Then yes.

          I don't support government theft to provide unequal benefits.

          The problem is, you coddle everyone, put in place so many safety nets that they can just live down there, dependent, and then wonder what is going wrong with your country.

          1. LucidDreams profile image83
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I can agree that many hand outs from the government get mis-used. Unfortunately, this is the way our society is constructed and would be very hard to change at this point without amending a ton of laws and doing some real soul searching.
            Things could be worse, we could always just cut off the poor and watch our homes, stores and lives get breached while the hungry try to find a way to survive.

            1. AnnaCia profile image85
              AnnaCiaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              LucidDreams I totally agree with you.  This is an interesting topic.  I cannot, by any means, say that the poor in this country should just be restricted from assistance.  This is not a problem created by the poor…all this is created by the beauty of capitalism.  We need to look at the poorest of the poor, and feel what they feel in order to know what means to receive the "trashy" help might receive from the richest people, or taxes or federal government.  What? Each social group has rotten fruits in it…Each social group; and each one of them will have certain people who play around to get the best of everything without needing. 
              1.  The richest should, must pay more taxes because they haven't done that yet…believe it, the biggest chunk of that money does not reach the ones with real necessities.  They mostly pay the ones sitting behind a desk "working" in government offices and defending the unions.
              2. The government should provide for the poor and all the ones who are responsible for the creation of this social status.
              3.  We are all responsible for our nation in some way or another.  But the reality is that not everybody who can adjust the system would necessary want to change anything.  (Ex. Many talk about legal drugs are misused by patients who are not responsible; Who are the ones giving these meds without proper supervision?  The doctors who market certain brands in order to make them richer).  At the end, the patient is the ones getting criticized, abandoned, mistreated, misunderstood.  I studied,used to work hard for a very good salary, had my office, car, penthouse, etc; now I am disabled, and only now I can feel what many others feel when I am labeled as living from the government.  Living from the government is getting the leftovers.  Oh! and I paid over the years my taxes, SS, medicare, disability.  Look at this:  I need an apartment now and the options I have are:
              a.  getting a descent place for $800.00, but I can't because I do not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.5 earning over the rental price.
              b.  getting housing support; which means going to a 3-5 years waiting list, go to a shelter or sleep on the streets while my name comes up.
              c.  getting a low income apartment; great idea, but as I have read, I cannot have $2,000 in savings because then I am not poor. 
              What the heck, I need to have something saved in case of an emergency.

              See how it works?

              1. 60
                BagLadyCambodiaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So the US has set the poverty line at $2,000.  Scary

            2. itucker42 profile image61
              itucker42posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              When it time for you to meet your God, how are you going to justify that answer?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Meanwhile are there some spare rooms at home? or not?

                1. Laura Schneider profile image91
                  Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Many people have no "at home"--they don't have family members with extra space and money to support them. Or, they have family but their family blames them entirely for their situation, as some in this overall discussion would, and would not shelter them or give them handouts. With the economy being what it is, they probably can barely get by as-is.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, JaxsonRaine. If the Government wants to be Dad then it will have to go to work like the rest of us. Maybe the Government needs to create a business and generate its own income...  it needs some other way to make money other than depending on The Industrious. Why make slaves out of them? Why punish THEM???
        Many say they would be happy to pay "their share" so, why don't they figure out how to become wealthy and help out? They could make it their goal! People of like mind could get together and create businesses for the sake of helping out their fellow man!  appropriate names would be: "Utopia INC."  or " Utopian Goods"  or  "Utopias are Us!"

        1. Mitch Alan profile image84
          Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well stated...I love to ask people in the "provide for us/them" camp a simple question...Where is the origin of debt between someone who earns their money and the person to whom it is to be given to without a fair trade of goods or services?

          1. Laura Schneider profile image91
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry for disagreeing, but that makes no sense to me for a number of reasons. Children make up the majority of our homeless/poor. Would you have them repeal the child labor laws and get those infants working in factories as soon as they could turn a crank? Many of the people who receive unemployment or disability (in my instance, all that I know) do their absolute best to get back on their feet and get a good job and not be shunned by society, such as yoursel,f and, once established, they unnecessarily repay the government for the disability or unemployment they have received. Disability and unemployment have been taken out of everyone's pockets for decades--it is a system of monetary sharing in which we all participate to help people who have fallen on hard times such as the loss of a job or their health/ability to work. A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many. I, too, disrespect people who take more than they have earned fairly.

            What do you say to the elderly who collect their social security checks? They have been paying into that system their whole lives just like the rest of us, do they not deserve their share now that their careers are finished? They earned that money by working and paying taxes at an earlier age in life and it is now time for them to be treated to that money without looking down upon them or without expecting, "a fair trade of goods or services"--which they have ALREADY PROVIDED. Would you have them work until death or until they can repay what they're taking, thereby charging them twice?

            Social security, disability, FICA, and social security are all taken out of our paychecks each time. As we work, we pay into the systems in proportion (determined by whom I do not know or care in this particuar case).

            All of these groups of people have already contributed their portion of the "fair trade of goods and services" that you describe, often decades earlier than when they receive it. If we were to take it away, where would be the fair trade, on the government's end of the agreement?

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              " A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many."

              A few people roll like what 10 12?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A decade or two ago a couple of English guys did some research into this and came to the conclusion that about 1-2% of the unemployed did not want to work, the rest did.
                I see no reason why these figures should have changed substantially over the years.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Which Country? 1 to 2% of the United States is quite a few. And what do you mean research? Did they just ask everybody who was unemployed?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not 1-2% of the total workforce, 1-2% of the unemployed.

                    And it was in the UK, not that that makes any difference, 1-2% is !-2% however big or small the sample.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Like Mitt Romney and the great hedge fund inside trader Steve Cohen, two examples that come quickly to mind. There are plenty more.

              3. Laura Schneider profile image91
                Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'll try to find some statistics on that for you, but it will probably take awhile. I stand by my statement that " A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many." This is a very safe statement to make because you are paid only in proportion to what you contributed to the system. If you have kids, their share comes out of what you have put it. So, as far as I can tell, only if the government made a mistake and paid somebody more than they had paid in, or if identity theft occurred, only in those cases would someone get paid more than they had put it. In the case of adult dependants on others (example: grandma never worked, but she collected Grandpa's social security money because she was his dependant), I suppose you could say that that was true, also. But the system has limits built-in: unless people cheat the system, those limits protect the person from getting more than they put in.

                Hasn't anybody ever read their yearly social security statement? Have you ever actually even met a homeless person beyond paying him/her for cleaning your windshield? I can't understand, knowing that the situation is the same in the urban and rural areas,  as it is in the suburbs where I live.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I keep asking... do the rich OWE the poor for some reason? Like did they borrow it from them? Do they owe them interest?
            It really seems like the left thinks the poor are OWED it.
            Why?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This reflects our Judaeo-Christian moral heritage and the results of the laws passed by our duly elected representatives.

              1. Jewel01 profile image60
                Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't believe Christianity has anything to do with the position we are in today.  As stated in Profit over People, "...the richest one-quarter of one percent of the Americans make 80% of all individual political contributions and corporations outspend labor by a margin of 10-1.  Under neoliberalism this all makes sense, as elections then reflect market principles, with contributions being equated with investments....Instead of citizens, it produces consumers.  Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls.  The net result is atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless." 

                If individuals do not look beyond what the politicians are telling us, research and share information, we are doomed.  I don't see anyone up in arms over Facebook receiving over 4 million in a tax refund.  I was upset over my Senator, who stood her ground for a 150 million dollar tax deduction for NASCAR.  Oh My God, and we have all talked about the poor as if they were leaches, asking for food, shelter, and a job! 

                Why anyone would worry about the rich, is beyond me.  They certainly don't worry about the poor.  They lay in bed at night and try to figure out how to increase their profits.  Labor is a factor in the equation, not a person.

      3. rhamson profile image78
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Very simplistic answers to a very complex situation. On the surface should one segment of society foot the bill for another. No. But if the ones who gained at the expense of the other are allowed to turn their faces from the problem because they don't "feel" a need to help because they used the system to better themselves then something should be done. The wealthiest are not all grouped in this situation but many of the most vocaly opposed are. The banks, stockbrokers and manufacturers who sold out the American worker to quickly line their pockets are the ones who are the most guilty. You may make the argument that they were smart and took the risk so therefore they should reap the rewards. But were they really smarter by buying politicians to promote their favorable laws governing their industries and what risk was involved in obtaining that?

        No is too simple an answer and without any dialog to find a compromise the two sides in this debate will still polarize the solutions resolution.

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I reject the notion than someone gained at the expense of another, there are no longer slaves in America, if you work you are paid what you agreed to be paid at the time of employment. The banks buying politicians is a different matter.

          1. rhamson profile image78
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You have that choice to reject what has become more and more evident as we move into this world mainstream. The simple fact is that we manufacture very little of our everyday products and have done so for many years. Globalization has been at the forefront of the political scene for over twenty years since NAFTA was enacted by Bill Clinton and congress. George "W" and even Obama have all added to the coutries we now trade at very relaxed tariffs. The American worker has been thrown into working at much lower wage jobs with little or no benefits and the poverty levels are rising. Is it that there are no hard working indivduals out there who rise to the occassion? No, but the opportunities are shrinking and the people at the top are gaining incredible wealth from it all. It is essentially a race to the bottom for the American worker. How low can it go?

            Look at 2008 when the great reccession somewhat officially began. The banks failed, the government bailed them out and the foreclosures ensured that they would be getting our properties in return for their over zealous lending practices. Their sizes have swelled till now we really can't let them fail. In the meantime the market has rebounded at a staggering rate and the economy creeps along while it adjusts to the (some say doesn't exist) inflation.

            Blanket rejection of the idea is not an argument but the reality is there if you just embrace it.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Then you are deluding yourself if you think that nobody gains at the expense of somebody else. Nobody would ever set up in business if they didn't think they were going to make money.

            As for being paid what you agreed to, ever heard of Hobson's choice?

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No haven't heard of it don't care to either. Move along, nothing to see.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ah, isn't it great to go through life dreaming of how it should be and totally ignoring how it is?

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Instead of fighting against unfairness why don't you create something you think is fair for you and do it?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Have done mate. That doesn't mean that I turn my back on everybody else.

            2. Mitch Alan profile image84
              Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              John, If you know people who are enslaved and not being compensated for thier labor at an agreed upon wage, then you should contact the authorities immediately. Explain to the police that you have discovered a slave trade in your town (or wherever) and you want them to be freed.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                With respect, what a silly answer! The authorities are fully aware and complacent. The police (in the UK), have been since 1983  actively involved in forcing people back to work.

              2. Laura Schneider profile image91
                Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mitch, people aren't "enslaved" in the classic fashion, they are simply salaried employees who are gradually given more and more work to do, requiring more and more hours without increase in pay (and often decrecase). When brought to court, nothing comes of it because the jury members are all in the same boat the plaintiff is in and are not sympathetic.

            3. Laura Schneider profile image91
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              John, I'd like to hear about Hobson's choice... If you are willing to explain it.

          3. Ewent profile image82
            Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, it isn't true that the wealthy support the poor. Not at all. If all of us are taxed according to our earnings, those taxes pay for more than just programs for the poor. Those taxes pay subsidies to some of the wealthiest US corporations. Here's an example of why the wealthy do not support the poor. In 2001, billions of tax dollars were doled out to hire and create jobs. The Government Accountability Office  (GAO) in 2004 reported only 1% who took that funding hire or created jobs. The 99% used that tax funding for high risk investments or to pay off venture capital debts. In 2005, the GAO reported that a single tax cut of 2004 earned an 11% increase in wealth for 1% in the upper income levels. Then, in 2008 and 2009, 2 more tax cuts were issued. Are we to believe that the taxes the Middle Class pay didn't contribute more to the loss of revenue caused by 3 tax cuts that benefitted the 1% more than the 99%? The wealthiest Americans do not always earn their wealth without help from employees who do the work that earns the profits, from consumers who buy goods and services and from taxpayers who make up the losses when businesses take advantage of numerous tax cuts and subsidies. In 2012, the US taxpayers paid over $150 billion to businesses in tax subsidies. CEOs do not need to earn billions in their race to become trillionaires. If you earn your wealth honestly and without any help, more power to you. If not, your wealth creates an obligation to reciprocate to those who help your wealth grow.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Who paid those taxes that the government spent on corporations?

              Was it the people who got $5000 in free money for filing taxes?

              Or was it the people who actually paid taxes?

              1. Ewent profile image82
                Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know of no one who manages not to fill out a W-9 form to declare their tax status on the first day of hire. At present, the Dept. of Labor has the same 8 million unemployed as it reported in December 2008. These people paid state and federal unemployment taxes via their payroll deductions. Should they not get what they paid for?
                Businesses also get $5,000 cut in taxes for every new hire they retain for 18 months. Businesses also get a tax cut for locating in municipalities. CEOs get tax breaks on their capital gains which at present is 15% and should be far higher. Do some research...A family of four on welfare lives on $12,000 a year. One US prisoner in our prison systems costs $26,000 a year. So..you are wrong about the wealthy only paying for the poor. They also pay taxes to keep prisons functioning. Should we allow the prisoners to be released to save the wealthy a few hundred thousand in taxes a year when they are earning billions?

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What is a W-9 form?

                  1. Ewent profile image82
                    Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    When an employee is hired there are three forms the employer is required to provide. The first is the W-9 form. This is the form that is an IRS Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification. The form basically tells the IRS your SS#, the number of exemptions for withholding and the number of dependents you are claiming.  This information then allows you to receive your W-2 (Tax withholding record of your payroll tax deductions) at the end of January of every year. The other 2 are your company's business policy manual and your healthcare (HMO) policy (if the company offers healthcare benefits). Employees should also receive a formal 401K policy guide as well as follow-up data when it becomes available. For those who are self-employed or hired as 1099 employees, the hiring source will provide a completed 1099 form at the end of employment or by January 31st of each year.

            2. Chi Hai Nguyen profile image61
              Chi Hai Nguyenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              policy (if the company offers healthcare benefits). Employees should also receive a formal 401K policy guide as well as follow-up data when it becomes available. For those who are self-employed or hired as 1099 employees, the hiring source will provide a completed 1099 form at the end of employment or by January 31st of each year. sàn gỗ tự nhiên

            3. Breatheeasy3 profile image86
              Breatheeasy3posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Very good and needed perspective!!!!!!

          4. Ewent profile image82
            Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You bring up an interesting point employers today want employees to forget. An employer who hires you has a legal and binding contract to the hired employee to provide work at a living wage. Somehow, over the last decade, employers have managed to gain an upper hand and it became an "employers' market" where employers could easily play bait and switch with hired employees. In the past, these employers were labeled "schlock" outfits and employees knew it wasn't a job that would in any way beneficial to their careers or their paychecks. At present, employers today are holding employees hostage to pay for benefits these employers advertise as "employer paid" to bait new hires and then they switch the game rules and stack the cards against the employees by announcing on the first day on the job "Oh by the way, you'll be paying a monthly premium for your healthcare and oh by the way, "you pay for your own 401K ..sorry the company makes NO match for your 401K contributions." This isn't the way for employers to earn their wealth. When it's easier to rip off employees than it is to rip off taxpayers for more tax cuts and subsidies, this requires a serious change in labor laws.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Please, show me where this legal, binding contract to provide a 'living wage' comes from.

              1. Ewent profile image82
                Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Try the IRS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Dept. of Commerce and a "living wage" refers to employers providing minimum wage as required by state and federal law. Were you planning a return to pre-Civil War free slave labor that was the source of plantation owners wealth?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry to disagree Ewent, but a minimum wage is rarely if ever a living wage.

                  It usually requires topping up by the taxpayer - another subsidy to big business.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure it is.  Any kid just starting out and without the work skills to get a decent job can live on minimum wage.  Put 3 or 4 in together as roomies, eliminate luxuries such as satellite TV, expensive phones and high dollar cars and they'll do OK.  Not good, but OK.

                    It's also good for seniors on SS - the added income can make a huge difference in the life of someone that doesn't want a high stress, 40 hour week.

                    After all, that's what it is for - those beginning in the job market that don't have the skills yet to earn them that "living" wage.  If a person waits until they're 35 or 40 and THEN enters the world of work without skills, well, I'm sorry but their work isn't worth any more.  Being middle aged doesn't automatically convey salable skills.

                  2. Ewent profile image82
                    Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    John Holden...I didn't intend to imply anyone can live on $12,000. We both know that's certainly poverty level wages. I agree with you. Paying those kinds of wages puts huge tax breaks into businesses. Few employers I know or have been employeed by ever lived in ghettos or drove jalopies.

            2. Mitch Alan profile image84
              Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ewent, Could you define "living wage"? A business should decide what it's employees get paid for the work required AND people should decide whether they will/can work for those wages. It's really quite simple.
              And, isn't it the prospective employees PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY to ask questions concerning wages, insurance etc? If you don't ask, then don't be surprised when you're surprised.

          5. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that No One gains at the expense of another. We are free and there is no longer slavery of any kind in America. Of course, some do not live here, in this country and do not realize this fact, I guess.
            ?
            We live in the land of free choice.
            Don't like any of the jobs available?
            Create your own!  (Even if it means a cash only system to begin with. I agree we pretty much have to go back to the roots and foundations of money making, due to over regulation of commerce, business and now the expectation that employees must pay their workers insurance. I know many business owners who have to shut down due to this particular government  mandate and unjust intrusion.)
            But, there are always ways to serve and help our fellows!

            1. Laura Schneider profile image91
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, Kathryn, I agree: there are many ways to serve and help our fellows. For example, someone could start from scratch a car washing business by working the first 5 years on a popular street corner washing windshields for tips, living in shelters at night. Or, they could get a very small loan to set up a regular car wash on a busy street corner and actually have a chance of going back to an apartment of their own in which they can eat dinner they prepared themselves from food they could afford to buy themselves.

            2. Laura Schneider profile image91
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Kathryn, I missed this the first time through your post, "No One gains at the expense of another. We are free and there is no longer slavery of any kind in America" I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken and misinformed if you believe this is the case. I'm not sure what ivory tower you live in, but it is a fairy tale and not representative of real life in the majority of the USA (I've visited and done business in about 40-45 of the 50 states, so my comment is based on personal observation and painful experiences). Besides, we are a capitalist/democratic country: by definition whomsoever builds the best mousetrap wins and all competitors suffer or drop out of business. Yes, absolutely some people succeed at the expense of others: that's the definition of our economy.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Laura,
                My middle name is Laura.  I think it is a beautiful name. Why do you have to say things like  "I don't know what Ivory tower you live in..." It hurts my feelings  (which is ridiculous since I do not know you) and makes me dislike you. You have no Idea about my life and what I say does not reflect it. You seem angry and taking it out on strangers. We are just discussing and sharing view points. I would never say something like that to you...Unless of course you want tit for tat... I can do that very well... just let me know!
                    My view point is still valid even in the light of what you say!  Don't like your job find another one... you even agreed with that! There is no slavery!  We are all free Americans... It is legal fact. it cannot be argued. if people feel forced to stay in their jobs, I feel sorry for them, but it is self imposed!

                1. Laura Schneider profile image91
                  Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Many apologies, Kathryn, my anger for several certain companies was misdirected at you, and I did not mean to make this personal in any way. I should stop writing when I get angry like that, but I tend to get caught up in the moment. It is a failing on my part, and I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings. (Your full name is beautiful--your parents named you well and must be very proud that they raised an intelligent, assertive--not aggressive--daughter who can hold a conversation like this without getting personally angry as I did..)

                  Besides, with my angry blinders on, I think I missed a key point in your argument. You said just now, "There is no slavery! We are all free Americans." I'm still not sure I agree with the fact that all Americans are free and not slaves, but I will accept that as a fact that is supposed to exist by law, regardless of practice.

                  I realized that what I was thinking about was people who were non-Americans working in America either illegally, such as Mexicans who snuck across the border to find work, or people who are here on work visas. In white-collar jobs, I have worked with both sorts of people, though more with people here on visas. For example, I know of one employer who paid a double-PhD visa scientist just above minimum wage to do a $6+ figure sort of job and then, upon finding out that this foreign employee's spouse was also a high-level scientist with 3 PhDs from good schools, he told the employee was that the company would no longer support his/her status here in the United States unless both husband and wife came to work for them--for free, no increased salary, no separate work visa, no separate paycheck, etc. They faced execution back in their home country should they ever return, because of their scientific knowledge,  therefore the two both worked for almost no wages for a tyrant who threatened many times to fire one or both of them if they didn't do such-and-such, and reminded them what would happen if either of them was deported and sent back "home". That company had numerous employees there on work visas and used that status as a way of forcing them to do high-level work for something a grocery clerk would find unacceptably low: they could do whatever the company demanded for whatever wages the company imposed, or be sent back to their home countries to death or imprisonment due to political or religious differences or simply due to them being an escaped member of an ousted royal family who would be killed simply because of his/her blood lines. About 25-35% of this company's workforce consisted of these poor people, who understood about as little as I do about the visa and asylum processes in the US. Is this slavery? According to Merriam-Webster, a slave is "1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another 4: drudge, toiler"  and slavery is, "1: drudgery, toil 2: submission to a dominating influence 3a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding." In both cases, the second definition seems to fit the examples I am talking about well. I also know people who, due to threat of death or severe bodily injury, are held in their positions. And then there is "white slavery": "enforced prostitution." I only know two people who escaped white slavery relatively intact. I know of one person whose spouse literally held a loaded gun to that person's head and told them what would happen should they leave their job and/or not change to a different one. To me, these situations are "forced" and examples of "slavery" in the U.S., and the definitions of slave and slavery tend to support that: if one's "choice" is death or to remain employed (under-employed in most every case, I would assume), I do not consider such cases to be a "choice", but "forced" i.e. slavery. Also you hear on the news about the conditions in the garment industries, primarily involving foreigners.

                  Would you agree that very serious death threats such as those constitute forced labor or slavery in the US? If not, what is your definition of slavery?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    (Thanks for the very nice compliment on my name. I have always had problems with my parents, so it was very touching to me. Also,
                    I am from a time of great peace and prosperity.  Maybe I live with rose colored glasses more than in an ivory tower, for I have also known (mostly self imposed) hard times... I lived in a fixer upper for a year without electricity raising my two year old while relying on kerosine lanterns in very rainy Ft. Bragg Ca., alone. I had to chop my own firewood etc. My transportation was an old truck that would mostly not start. etc.)

                    The fact is that some people utilize loop holes or a gray areas and are evil enough to take advantage of them.
                    To isolate the difficulty :
                    We are supposed to have a moral nation. Democracies will not work without  solid morals. Greed and power is at the root of all of our current problems and throughout history, this has been the case. In America the opportunities are so great that more power and greed occur on a greater scale... affecting a greater number of people.
                    But, As Jaxon Raine said, we have to keep our freedom. We must keep our freedom while, at the same time, attack these issues. We need to pinpoint where each injustice is and introduce legislation or more policing where ever needed! To tax the rich is not the solution because we need to give them the incentives to do what they do which is provide economic opportunities for others. When they take advantage and (as you have explained) enslave others they need to be held accountable. There are laws are already in place which should be called upon to address all these issues. if not, can we do anything about it? We have to!  (without taxing the rich)... through catching them breaking the rules... If they are stretching the rules this too must be addressed.  But, we must maintain the spirit of economic freedom. 
                    It is really horrible that these things are occurring in the land of America. But many things are occurring today that I am sure have never occurred in the past. I am sorry you have had to witness these things. They must be dealt with!

          6. Laura Schneider profile image91
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            More and more often, though, a person is NOT being paid for the work they agreed to do when they were hired. Suddenly a 40-hour-a-week, $50,000 becomes an 60-80-hour-a-week job for $30,000. And you can email me privately offline if you think that never happens in real life, because it does, again and again, and in my 20+ years of experience more often than not. In profession after profession, that is becoming the norm rather than the exception in the middle class.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Did the government contribute to this? How.  I am sure it did but you can explain it better than me because you are willing to see this in the light of reality. I do not want to believe it because I like the idea that we (citizens) are still in control of things.
              No?

              1. Laura Schneider profile image91
                Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rest assured, I don't believe the government contributed to this, except perhaps in its failure to enforce white-collar laws regarding work  hours and break times and days off. I think the answer is that white-collar, salaried people need to stand up for themselves, unionize if necessary and strike if necessary. At the moment, we're all just pretending that this is normal and putting up with it, thereby making the richest people that much richer.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe we need legislation to prevent this.

          7. Laura Schneider profile image91
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am forced to disagree with you again on this same point: despite what is "agreed to" at the time a person is hired, more and more often they are required to work longer hours and for less pay than when they started with the company, else they lose their job. I don't know or care to argue what the tax or other legalities are, I'm just telling you that that's what's happening to more and more people I know across the USA, and it is definitely happening here in my city (Minneapolis/St. Paul), which I can say from personal experiences.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ok. but it is self imposed. they could just as easily gather up all their stuff, and turn it in... and leave with or without giving two weeks notice! And if more people would get up and leave, the company might think twice before they pull all their unfair actions. (There should be laws against this unjust practice of changing everything, in all actuality. Aren't there?) Can't they find another company to work for, in another state or another country even?

        2. 60
          BagLadyCambodiaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The banks, stockbrokers and manufacturers who sold out the American worker to quickly line their pockets are the ones who are the most guilty. You may make the argument that they were smart and took the risk so therefore they should reap the rewards. (Rhansom)
          They didn't actually take any risks.  They gambled and won loads of money in the good times,  and then passed their debts to the public when they got themselves into self-inflicted trouble.  They are now trying to rebuild the bubble for another round of make believe.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            -not to mention the government benefits by bailing them out.

          2. rhamson profile image78
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I totally concur!

          3. Dazed34 profile image60
            Dazed34posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I totally agree. Most of the business policies are antagonistic towards the workers, or laborers and are solely aimed at wringing the maximum possible benefit out of them, while sprucing up their veil of being benevolent in nature. Equality is becoming UTOPIAN nowadays..

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Most of the business policies are antagonistic towards the workers, or laborers and are solely aimed at wringing the maximum possible benefit out of them"

              If you swap the terms "workers or laborers" with "business" you get a statement that is just as true. 

              Business is seldom interested in paying one dime more that it has to and labor isn't interested in providing anything beyond minimum work for maximum pay and benefits.  If the two can't learn to work together to make a company profitable for both there isn't going to be much change.

        3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The government needs money from corporations to keep running. Where else is the government going to make its money?  It can't keep borrowing from China.. it needs money from somewhere!  You really think the money will go to the needy???

          1. rhamson profile image78
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The quick fix of just going deeper into someones elses bank account to bail out the poor is flawed as it is the proverbial robbing Peter to pay Paul. All you do is make the taker flush again while making the one being taken poorer. Poorer being a relative term and not literal.
            The Corporations enjoy using whatever labor in whatever country they please to be able to bring the product back into this country cleansed of the unions and regulationary restraints we have here. They charge whatever they want as they have effectively run the domestic competition out of business in the process. Americans buy cheaper and cheaper because they are being paid less and less in this scenario. We are told that competition will bring the best products for the best price to the consummer but as we are finding out the products are becoming lower in quality every year with the price rising nonetheless.
            We need to have domestic manufacturing that pays a decent wage where we can afford to buy domestically made products and get the cycle back on course. Anything else is a race to the bottom where we can't afford anything because we have no jobs or work. And putting people back to work is a far better scenario than just taking somebody elses money and giving it to them.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Perfectly explained.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) Yes.
      B) Yes.
      C) The moment the government lifts all restrictions on how a person can earn their living. You can't have it both ways.

      1. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can you expand a little on the lifting all restrictions part? What, if anything, would you preclude?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          All restrictions. You can't tell a guy he cannot slaughter a cow in his front garden, and at the same time tell him he gets no welfare.

          How many Government Inc restrictions are there in place?

          Can you drive a car without insurance and having paid Government Inc Taxes?
          How much tax is on a gallon of gas?
          Can I grow my own marijuana and sell it?

          I could go on - but - all the time there are as many restrictions to earning money as there are - we are going to have to accept that we need to support part of the population.

          Make sense? Can't have it both ways. Income taxes and welfare go together.

          I would be more concerned with the government pig troughs if I were you. wink

      2. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "A) Yes. B) Yes. C) The moment the government lifts all restrictions on how a person can earn their living. You can't have it both ways." I agree with Mark. That's part of being in a society, like it or not. If you don't like it, then move to a government-free country like Somalia.

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As long as you have a system that demands that some are unemployed and some are impoverished it is basic humanity to say that those who are profiting the most from this unemployment and poverty should do the most to lessen the effects of it.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yes, capitalism forces people to be unemployed and impoverished...

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hallelujah, he's got it at last!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ...

            whatever, maybe you'll learn to love freedom someday(freedom means freedom, not force, so there's always sad things happening).

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, wonderful freedom to worry about where your babies next meal is to come from, how you will pay your heating bill . . .

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why do those who don't even live in this country decide to throw in their two cents? What's in it for them, I wonder?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I throw in my two cents worth because I am a socialist and a part of the international brotherhood of man.

                  "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
                  Because I was not a Socialist.
                  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
                  Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
                  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
                  Because I was not a Jew.
                  Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    -not making sense to me.
                    Why the inability to speak for Oneself, ever?
                    That's the solution:  Each of us need to speak for OurSelves here, now and always.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Capitalism is an economic and political system based on private ownership of capital goods and the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit.  When that profit becomes a source of greed and power, that is indeed bad news. What is the check on that?
            Lucid Dreams can answer that question.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then why the need to keep putting me down?

              It has become a source of power and greed, that is what this thread is all about, with some of the participants arguing that power and greed are right!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                - no one agrees that power and greed are right. But this is a moral issue.  How can we get the banks and the corporations to care about individuals???????
                One way is the get the government out of the way so that we can get back to creating business services and products... then people can stop working for them (corporations and greedy tyrannical rich bossmen. I know a guy who hates his corporate job. HATES how it is run and how he is treated.  If he could find another job he would leave there tomorrow! )
                If I were President I would tell everyone to stop buying Chinese products. I would make a conscious effort to bring back manufacturing jobs. I would instill a sense of national duty and care... Keep really strict guard over our borders. And make sure all the congressmen and senators relax on the weekends. smile

                1. rhamson profile image78
                  rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Unfortunately the government has been complicit with big business right up to the crash in 2007. The overseers and regulators did not have a clue of what was going on with the credit swaps and hedge funds and it was like the wild west. Everyman for himself. The competition was fierce. That is what happens when government gets out of the way and free enterprise is allowed to seek its own equalibrium. I am sorry but your solution is more of the same bad policy that has put this economy on its' knees.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Kathryn, how would getting the government out of the way reduce the power and greed of the corporations?
                  Agreed we need less government, but the government that I would do away with is that sector of government that quickly bails out the banks and corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.

                  In my argument for some government let me relate an ongoing case in the UK. A company was found to be operating a blacklist of building workers who had raised health and safety issues - care about peoples lives being put at risk and forfeit the right to work!
                  The only people with the authority and backing to prosecute the company are the government. With no government there would be no control over such blacklists.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My badly transitioned ideas... I did not mean the government should get out of the way of corporations.  No. Sorry. I guess there are laws and the crooked should go to jail. Law. not  government. And for gosh sakes, I agree that bail outs are bad!

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The less regard and goodwill for mankind (in general) and our neighbors, (specifically,) the less check on greed. Sigh... without some sort of moral code and a sense of humanitarian values...
              there are no checks.
              Perhaps we need to start there... on ground level.
              So, keep the government out of it.
              It is not their issue to deal with.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Keep the government out if it. Do you agree with that, John? No. You want the government to help the poor. I want the family members to help the poor... or the concerned community.
                Giving the Fed the power and responsibility to distribute wealth is the tricky part. (Wealth being what individuals have  e a r n e d  for themselves... even if some of them are corporations.)
                Do you, John, get that?  It is why we fought so hard against the tyranny of King George III...
                Remember? LOL

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you'd do away with the tyranny of George III and replace it with the tyranny of the corporations?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    -corporations have become a force to reckon with.  It is a problem for the  people who work for them.
                    But the reality is, that if you find the corporation unjust and horrible to work for you really don' t have to work for the corporation in question.
                    I mean. What is bad is that the government is not allowing, fostering or really even concerning itself with a percolating economy!
                    I am advocating a percolating economy with joy, good will, love of life and the love of doing it ourselves!
                    motivation depends on freedom.
                    Forcing is taboo.

          3. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            John,

            I found some interesting quotes.  I thought you might find them interesting.  I sure did.

            Adolf Hitler said:

            "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

            Joseph Goebbels said:

            "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."

            1. 59
              TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Without trying to impugn your motives or call into question your reasons for thinking these quotes "interesting," I feel obliged to point out the illogical absurdity of  these quotes as a counter argument in the defense of capitalism or a valid point in  the condemnation of socialism.

              First of all, Hitler was a pathological bigot, and though the Nazis called themselves the party of "National Socialism," they were, in fact more accurately  right-wing dogmatists who argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and liberal capitalism.

              The quotes of a couple of psychopaths aren't really very interesting and certainly not salient to a rational debate about capitalism or a society's obligations to it's people.

              If you'd care to elaborate on why you think these quotes are so interesting, I most certainly would welcome it.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, Hitler was purely evil.  On that, we can agree.  Yes, he was a psychopathic butcher, a massive racist.  He also claimed to be a socialist, and he described his reasons why he was a socialist.

                There are many who would debate that Hitler was very leftist in many of his ideas.  Yes, I fully understand that is not the typical belief. There is an argument, and it has been made by many people who possess the knowledge and education to make that good argument.  A simple Google search will reveal some interesting results.

                I'm just quoting the man, Hitler.  He not only claimed he was a socialist, he specifically gave examples why.  The problem is that his examples tend to match what many socialists believe to be true.  One can claim that he wasn't a socialist, that he merely called himself a socialist.  I could buy that if it weren't for these additional statements.  ". . . we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."  This clearly demonstrates an understanding of what many would deem modern socialism.  Thus, the quote can't be completely discounted.  Further, you try to discount the quote, because of the source.  When the source is discussing his own beliefs, that's about as primary a source as possible.  Hitler's own words, about himself, give a clear picture of what his beliefs were better than some Wikipedia interpretation.  Hitler wasn't shy about speaking his mind, and he wasn't really known for being politically correct.  His credibility, regarding his own views, should be considered pretty solid.  Historians value primary sources the most.  Hitler's quote and clear description of why he was a socialist can't be discounted as easily as you would like.

                What is my motive?  My motive is to undermine the socialist agenda to whatever minimal extent this may achieve, clearly.  Yes, I have a bias.  I am a conservative who despises socialism.  Don't we all have an agenda on this site?

                1. 59
                  TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Listen, I think it's great that you can admit your bias because many people with a conservative perspective can't or won't.  And yes, everyone has their bias and opinions on society and culture. 

                  However, if you admit that Hitler was a psychopath and a pathological liar, then anything he said about anything is a crock because his thoughts and his words were corroded by his actions.  Moreover, it is no different with regards to any villainous leader —past or present—so nothing they say or have said is worthy ammunition in a debate on capitalism or socialism. 

                  I'm struggling to stay as objective and rational as I can and you seem not to care about objectivity. It's obvious that you have convinced yourself that all of the ideas in socialism are evil, and all the ideas in capitalism are good.  I don't live in an either/or mindset so I have to take issue with your thinking.

                  There are such things as capitalism gone amuck and greed and corruption destroying civilizations.

                  All I know is that ideology and words are always trumped by actions when it comes to history and debate. In all candor, with your bias and your examples you are on very thin ice in this debate. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, I just want to express my opinion too.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You haven't offended me.  I understand your opinions and respect them.

                    Are you a socialist?  You seem overly perturbed by the quotes or by the fact that I have posted them in this forum.

                    I didn't say everything behind socialism is evil.  I said Hitler was evil.  I don't consider the philosophy behind socialism to be evil.  I don't even consider socialism to be evil.  I consider it to be wrong.

                    Because Hitler was a psychopath, you want to discount his credibility.  When he spoke of Jewish people and how he wanted "purification" of the Aryan race, should we have ignored him because he was a psychopath and thus had no credibility?  To discount everything he said, because he was evil, is absurd.  He clearly delineated his views.  Again, Hitler was a primary source when it comes to Hitler.  When it came to war strategy, Hitler concealed many thoughts and ideas.  When it came to ideology, Hitler was an open book.

                    As for objectivity, you're the one who wants to quickly ignore Hitler's comments and accept a conventional view of him, because you say he was a psychopath and thus held no credibility.  I'm trying to be objective enough to discuss the quotes.

                    Best wishes.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Pay attention to what Hitler did, not what he said.

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And yet wages went down considerably under Hitler's rule. He supported the capitalist system giving far more power to the bosses than ever before and he bowed down to wealth and property.
              Germans of the 1930s can be forgiven for believing Hitler, what is your excuse having seen the full impact of his policies?



              Hitler's purge of the Jews was based on his belief that the Jews were Marxists.
              Again, do you really favour propaganda over facts?

        2. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do the wealthy make money? Who buys all of these products and services anyway? If you kill the ability of medium income and yes., poor people, you will lose a substantial amount of consumers who buy products and drive the economy. The solution is not as easy as just shutting down the system which supports those in financial need. Believe it or not, poor people are amongst the biggest purchasers of electronics and such. Think of Apple, imagine how much their stock would take a nose dive if poor people stopped buying their products. How big of a percentage is that? Do you know? My point is, each part of the economy plays a vital role. It's not as easy as saying "stop supplementing the poor"!

          Social services and big business go hand in hand. You may not like giving poor people hand outs which might be mis-used, but the alternative of shutting down the well will be far worse.

          1. 0
            HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Am I the only one that sees this as inherently sad?

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxon, ever heard of business cycles, recessions, depressions?

      2. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who is profiting  from unemployment and poverty?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The employers basically. I could go on to add, and the bankers, and all capitalists generally.

          Have a look at how unemployment is used to control wages and inflation, then come back and ask the same question if you still don't understand.

          1. 59
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No thanks I think I understand you now.

    4. tammybarnette profile image59
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) The wealthy should pay more because they have far more advantage of our infrastructure and should pay more to maintain said infrastructure
      B)Yes, the government should have programs that allow the poor to climb from the ditch to the middle or higher and have the American Dream, otherwise we could have just stayed in England and been strapped to the station of life inwhich we were born...however, these systems do need tighter regulations
      C) I am sick of this responsibility phrase being used in a way to look down your nose on those born into poverty. It is all of our responsibility to enhance this country, to provide education and opportunity, and to make sure NOBODY that lives in this great country ever goes to bed hungry!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, by the looks of things you would have been marginally better off if you'd stayed in England.

      2. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How do the wealthy have "far more advantage of our infrastructure"?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How can you even ask that question?

        2. Ewent profile image82
          Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How many trucks does Walmart put out on the roads from the docks where the goods are imported to their stores? My guess is hundreds of thousands tearing up roads, tunnels and bridges every day of every year. How many US government owned railroads cart these goods across the country when truck transit isn't available? How many millions of US utilities do these stores use that deplete our natural resources?

          It isn't just a matter a wealthy using our infrastructure for their huge corporations from which their wealth largely emanates. It's also the huge drain on government services for these wealthier individuals.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They pay tax, lots of it, for their use of roads or other services. They pay FAR more taxes than poor people do, so in fact they are SUPPORTING the infrastructure more than anyone else.

            1. Ewent profile image82
              Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Janon...NO. They don't. I'll prove it. When a Walmart moved into my town, they were tax rated at $11 a square foot. Small business a fraction of the size of the Walmart were taxed at a rate of $17 a sq. ft. This doesn't count the discount Walmart received for using the town's water supply, fire and emergency services and local police. The Waltons pay minimum wage to their workers, offer no benefits and they get huge tax cuts from the federal government. Do your research. You obviously have no idea what is involved in taxation.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, I'm totally ignorant when it comes to taxes...

                Walmart is going to pay far more in dollars and percentages than the vast majority. They are not being supported by anyone, especially not the poor.

                The poor CANNOT be supporting anyone, because they just don't pay taxes.

                1. rhamson profile image78
                  rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Please try and convince me of poor old Walmarts tax burden being too much. The WALTON FAMILY MAKES $11,000.00 AN HOUR 24/7, 365 DAYS A YEAR AND IT IS INCREASING AS WE WRITE!  That computes to over $137,000,000 a year. I feel so bad for them. All the while driving the small business' in the areas out of business selling their cheap crap.

                  Did you know that the poor pay sales tax, car registration tax, default on loan tax, unemployment benefit tax, welfare taxes etc........ just like everyone else. Because they cannot support themselves adequately does not mean they don't pay any taxes.

                2. Ewent profile image82
                  Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxon ...Yes...I do see the ignorance. So let's start at the beginning. The Waltons' began a business. They are widely known for hiring part-time workers and very low wages with no benefits. Do you deny this? So when a business only hires part-time workers at low salaries, do they lose profit?
                  You can keep telling yourself Walmart is not profiting immensely from paying low wages to their workers but it doesn't change the reputation Walmart has earned by becoming billionaires by exploiting people they know are either too young and ignorant of labor laws or too old to make a living from a lifetime of payments to Social Security and Medicare. For your information, anyone earning $12,000 a year pays both federal and state income taxes. $12,000 is the current threshhold for the requirement of paying taxes. Walmart IS supported by anyone who buys the imported junk they sell. Walmart buys its good from China. Chinese workers earn $11 a month and work 18 hour days. That's not employment. That's a prison sentence some rich Americans are drooling over to have workers in the US tolerate. Most of us are far too educated to be unable to know how to put a stop to the greed. The vast majority of Americans as you seem wont to imply are not poor. Nor do they intend to allow the wealthy to force that upon them. The only poor in the US who pay ZERO taxes are the homeless. Mostly because they have no address and no one will hire anyone who has not known address.

                3. galleryofgrace profile image81
                  galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I repeat- the poor do pay taxes! if they work -they pay!

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you not have sales taxes and the like? Everybody who buys pays tax, working or not.

              2. Mitch Alan profile image84
                Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ewent, So, based on your local tax rates paid on the sq/ft space of a business with Walmart paying $11 per and smaller businesses paying $17 per, you are saying that Walmart doesn't pay more in taxes. First, if the Walmart has 100,000 sq/ft (probably much more) and the small business has 7,500 sq/ft, then Walmart pays $1,100,000 and the small business pays $127,500. Walmart clearly pays more taxes. Now, if you want to agrue percentage, then that's a different story, but they also pay more overall taxes including the taxes on the increased number of employees. Furthermore, those figures probably represent lease per sq/ft prices and not the tax paid on those premises, as no business pays those figures in sq/ft taxes...

      3. AnnaCia profile image85
        AnnaCiaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        With all respect, Hunters, you need to be better with your questions.

    5. 60
      lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?
      ***If taxing is to be retained as the main source of governing money flow, then the idea needs a few tweeks to even be near functional.  First, all BS aside...literally...No shelters, no credits, no laundering...it costs to live, period.  Second, All states, on the same page & all taxing across-the-board, based in gross income.  Third, a yearly Citizen Tax of 10% per person, irregardless of age, is sufficient...along with a 5% other-than-food Sales Tax...these funds should be an abundance of capital for a banking system to manage well the numbers.  If not, then it would be obvious that the job was not being done by the right people, yes? 

      B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?
      ***First, let's define the purpose of Government:  'The Hub of Human Mgmt.'...good def., yes?  If the job was being done correctly, there would be no need of charities or NGOs.  Let's go back to ?A...if such was the case, there would be little 'need', except by those who chose to behold the define of 'needy'...Even free-will allows for its extremists, yes?

      C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?
      ***Wise Governance is not created to 'assist', but rather to 'guide/lead/manage'.  Can't be repeated enough...If the job was being done effectively, the present need of assistance would not be a 'norm', now would it?
        As far as Personal Responsibility:  There are only 2 types of humans being on this planet...Those with brains, and those with brains that use them.   The latter take all responsibility as personal...We are simply in a time of sorting this out.

      Nice to See the conversations here...Good question, HW! wink

    6. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) No, I feel that being forced to have others live at your expense is a form of servitude.
          I feel progressive taxation in general, violates the founding principles of self - government and equal protection under the law and is in violation of the US Constitution.

      B) If the government gets involved at all in assisting the poor, it should be done at the local level as the Constitution dictates and where there is greater accountability. The vast majority of assistance should be done by individual citizens and charitable organizations, in keeping with the principles of self- government and limited government.

      C) This is hard to pinpoint and why those providing assistance should have a substantial knowledge of those requesting assistance.

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Servitude is the unfortunate people who need a job and will work for minimum wage...(not enough to support yourself) to make large corporations wealthy. Could they pay more....yes....will they...no

        Good for the folks who start these companies and put in the time and resources to build great businesses. Shame on them for not looking out for employees and then looking down on people who are poor. The same poor that work for them in order for them to be wealthy!

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good answer, wba108!

      3. Ewent profile image82
        Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, that is part of the problem. Some of the wealthiest states in the US are wealthy as a result of a higher return on the dollar they pay in federal taxes. So you get states like Alaska who pays $1 in federal taxes for a return of $1.72 while a state like New York pays their $1 and gets a 62 cent return. There's a reason why these wealthier states get this kind of return. They insist their state taxes are low. Sure they are. Other states are supporting these states by getting back a lower ROI for the taxes they pay. These states refuse to touch their state tax revenues and end up depleting federal tax revenues looking for handouts their state taxes should pay for.

        1. Mitch Alan profile image84
          Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perfect reason to stop sending money, that is not for funding those few things specifically enumerated in the Constitution, up to Washington. Your argument works better to argue against a bloated federal bureaucracy that to argue for more taxes on anyone.

      4. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        repeating, Good post, wba108

    7. GNelson profile image84
      GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Let's see, the wealthiest 400  have more wealth then the bottom 150 million.  Mainly because of corporate welfare that all of us pay.  If you don't see something wrong with that then you must be one of the 400 or you bought their BS.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who pays what corporate welfare?

        Also, the fact that Americans are so quick to put themselves into debt on their car, home, and credit cards has a LOT to do with the total wealth that the bottom half has. There are a lot of people, even people making 250k+, who have $0 net wealth, or negative.

    8. galleryofgrace profile image81
      galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If the working poor have to pay taxes why shouldn't the rich? A single guy with about 12k income has to pay a few hundred. A single edlerly person has to pay a few hundred in taxes when the income was less than 3k(only 1500 after deductions) and 5 k in social security.
      Whats fair for one should be fair for all!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, those who Invest their money (which has already been taxed) are being taxed (again) at a lower rate.
        This, however, is an incentive to invest.

        Consider the fact of the matter: When these industrious and productive people invest in a working business or create a new business, they contribute  to the amount of jobs and employees (taxpayers) in the land.

        Q. Why should they be double or triple taxed??? ( Especially considering they already payed taxes on the original money they made, in the first place.)

        Also consider when someone dies there is the death tax which takes 55% again... (after the person who died already paid taxes on what he did not spend during his life!)
        Talk about double dipping times two or more!

      2. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not really sure I understand your point. What in the world ever gave you the impression that the "rich" don't pay taxes?

        This idea that somehow the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share" is as insulting as it is misinformed. The top 25% of wage earners in this country pay for 80% of this country, yet it's easy, politically, to vilify them because we have a "one man, one vote" system and, as a voting block, they only represent a small percentage of registered voters. No politician has ever lost by attacking the wealthy.

        As for your "single guy with about 12k income", under the 2012 Tax bracket, he would have paid an effective tax rate of just over 11%, or $1,365. However the standard deduction for a single individual for 2012 was $5,950. Just something to think about, the next time you're getting all "Marxed" up and want to bash the wealthy.

        Source

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And how much of the countries wealth does that top 25% hold?

          1. 0
            HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As long as it's obtained legally, what difference would it make?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Any one would think you did not know who writes the laws. wink

              1. 0
                HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Assuming that your clever, albeit cryptic, implication is that the rich write the laws, why would they pay taxes at all? If they're really in charge, stacking the odds in their favor, then why would they have the offshore accounts in the Caymans, or Switzerland? Why would they need to spend millions a year on Tax Attorneys and Accountants, why not simply legislate away all the ambiguity in the tax code and save themselves the trouble, and money.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The genuinely wealthy do not pay any taxes. Having it openly legal would cause an uproar, don't you think?

                  But you think they are not "in charge?

                  1. Praetor profile image62
                    Praetorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And here all this time I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent individual... imagine my surprise.

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A big difference, if that 25% held 85% of the countries wealth that would be proof enough that they weren't paying their fair share.

              1. 0
                HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How would that be proof that they're not paying their fair share? They pay what's required by the current tax codes, and they take the deductions they're entitled to, just like everyone else does.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Who writes the current tax codes? Not the poor, that's for sure.

                  1. Praetor profile image62
                    Praetorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What was that? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you spending over $60 million a year on the Royal Family.

                    How about you guys get your own house in order "comrade", before you start spouting off on the plight of the American worker.

    9. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) The won't and never will so its a moot point

      B) Yes

    10. UnknownAuthor72 profile image58
      UnknownAuthor72posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A)   I would say yes. The wealthy who make a million dollars or more each year should have to pay 10 % in taxes across the board. No loopholes that the poor get. Those who are in the $500,000 range and higher should have to pay 8% and no one should pay more than 5 % for anyone making below $500,000. There is already taxes for gas, clothes and liquor. Do you feel taxed to death yet?

      B)  The only assistance government should provide is for the people like in Storm Sandy or Newtown. All americans should have access to private and government health care. The cost of living grows and with the folks who are undereducated don't stand a chance! Maybe some laws should be in place to train the under educated in exchange for any support that they need to get back on their feet.

      C) Personal responsibility can only go so far. Then I see how a 14 yr old girl who knows nothing about farming. She gets her grandmother to help her buy some chickens to raise and she sells the eggs! This young girl helped to save their family of three.  It was a very smart idea and thank goodness she will keep a roof over her families heads. When the global warming begins to get worse. This is when the government should of stepped in with regulations. Governement can't be *the end all be all" to the human race. The funds need to be there to build, create jobs. The skills are needed with proper programs and training. The rest is up to the individual. smile

      Thank you for letting me share my five cents. inflation you know? smile

    11. Rod Rainey profile image82
      Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If everyone with the means to really do something substantial about the poor insists on adhering to a system no one asked to be born into, then vast swaths of peripheries worldwide must be reclaimed for the common heritage of all life, human or not.  The system obviously does not work for the poor; to the poor the system could be a bad idea so why should they be forced to adhere to it? The free natural abundance that existed in these swaths of land prior to the rise of this system must be restored.  Whatever infrastructure and housing that remains in these lands must be left to be maintained by those who choose to live there with local materials as they see fit.  Furthermore, the poor must be taught to survive in these lands; the people of pre-colonized nature based cultures were proficient in every skill necessary to their ways of life, most in the modern world are only adept at one or a handful.  It only makes sense that since the modern world removed these traits from humans, the modern world should restore them.  People must be allowed to choose not to play the money game.

      If there is to be a system at all, it should work for the people, not the other way around.  There is a system that has done this. It's called nature and whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, we are a part of this system.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Or we could live like Native Americans used to... in teepees, huts or cliffs.   We could trade shells, and decorative arts, and kill game and cook it over communal fires. And the women could spend their days making reed baskets, and cleaning the game their husbands manage to kill. Children would run free and become extremely intelligent without having to read or write. The bother of school would be eliminated and all that goes with it, immunizations, indoctrinations, bullies, school shootings, grades, pharmaceuticals, teachers molesting students, mothers working outside the home... hmmm maybe he is right.

        1. Rod Rainey profile image82
          Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Those who chose to live there would not have to live in tee-pees or huts.  There is much more know-how now than there was then.  Surely there are those among the poor who know how to build houses.  They could organize and teach the rest. Certainly there would be some house building specialists who would decide to forfeit the rat race too.  (People from all professions and walks of life would defect from this system in droves if given the option.)  People can repurpose the remnants of the housing projects, slums and dumpy houses on postage stamp lots; they can incorporate local materials into their designs.  They should also be free to mine the landfills for materials.  Have you ever heard of an earthship?  The cities could then turn these once bad neighborhoods into golf courses or dog parks. With all the money businesses will save on paying janitors and burger flippers they could buy self cleaning toilets and automate fast food chains.  Seriously, no one really wants to do these things anyway. They do them because if they do not, they would starve or be forced into welfare, charity or crime.
               
          All I am saying is if people decide they do not want to participate in this ancient idea they should not have to.  If the poor are such a burden, teaching them to take care of their selves and giving them the means to do would unencumber system.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But the poor aren't really a burden they are an essential part of the capitalist system - a constant threat to those who might express dissatisfaction with their lot, "Look you aren't as badly off as him"

            1. Rod Rainey profile image82
              Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yup, thank you.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                -do you know what you said YUP to?

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, what if the conservationists take over all beautiful natural areas, and charge us to go in to it... In the name of environmental protection.

            1. Rod Rainey profile image82
              Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              “What if the point of life has nothing to do with the creation of an ever-expanding region of control? What if the point is not to keep at bay all those people, beings, objects and emotions that we so needlessly fear? What if the point instead is to let go of that control? What if the point of life, the primary reason for existence, is to lie naked with your lover in a shady grove of trees? What if the point is to taste each other's sweat and feel the delicate pressure of finger on chest, thigh on thigh, lip on cheek? What if the point is to stop, then, in your slow movements together, and listen to the birdsong, to watch the dragonflies hover, to look at your lover's face, then up at the undersides of leaves moving together in the breeze? What if the point is to invite these others into your movement, to bring trees, wind, grass, dragonflies into your family and in so doing abandon any attempt to control them? What if the point all along has been to get along, to relate, to experience things on their own terms? What if the point is to feel joy when joyous, love when loving, anger when angry, thoughtful when full of thought? What if the point from the beginning has been to simply be?” ~ Derrick Jensen

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know, right?

                1. Rod Rainey profile image82
                  Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Do I sense eye rolling?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    no! I agree. Sorry it took so long to find this. If you do not roll your eyes neither do I! Some one told me that the UN article 21 would absolutely eventually take this kind of control over us. I know it sounds like ridiculous conspiracy theory.
                    But can the one world government push lead us to this?
                    We have to fight the ones on the internet who would have us buy into BS. I hate to sound trite, but only the truth will keep us free.

    12. SealBeach profile image60
      SealBeachposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Should supporting the poor or illegal immigrants be voluntarily by taxpayers?
      I mean; at least it should be considered! In very society, some people are not motivated to succeed.
      Citizens should be afforded the option to designate taxable income to the poor or illegals immigrants--instead of being forced to pay and allow our
      politicians to decide who can them to get elected at the expense of taxpayers.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Huh?

    13. Laura Schneider profile image91
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In reply only to your original, simple question, "Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?" I say, because the poor are being forced to support the wealthy. We are approaching a flashpoint with this divided nation of super-rich and super-poor, where neither side can relate to the other nor can they think for themselves beyond what they hear. No good can come of this growing divide. We are not a "super power" like we used to be if people are freezing to death in the streets or dying for want of a bottle of antibiotics. Mr. Lincoln has seen much from his Memorial in D.C. at the end of the reflecting pool. His eyes are hollow and he almost weeps for the U.S.A. he gave his life to hand down to our generation. We should be ashamed to even ask such questions.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        -poetry like this is hard to handle. What is your concrete solution to the great divide?

        1. Laura Schneider profile image91
          Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have one, other than people who know about such things and have the power to make the right decisions should make the right decisions--the hard decisions. To quote Spiderman (stop laughing), "With great power comes great responsibility." An economy like we're in only came about because those with great power did not use their responsibility honestly and justly and fairly. Somehow they need to make the hard decisions to undo their messes, and hopefully things will return to stability.

    14. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The basic question here is this: "Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?"

      There are five main reasons.

      Reason #1: National stability, a hungry man is a dangerous man, and when things get tough desperate people turn to dangerous political radicalism for help, that is the cause of movements that ended disastrously be it from the French Revolution, the rise of the Nazi movement and the Khmer Rouge. It's in EVERYONE'S best interest to prevent such conditions, the tragedy is many are too short sighted to realize. One should also note that the wealthy have a strong element of self preservation in this situation most radical movements driven by hunger are not kind to the rich.

      Reason #2: Ties into the first in that a hungry man is a dangerous man, poverty and desperation foster crime and violence and those things damage the economy and are harmful all around it's in everyone's best interest to reduce it.

      Reason #3: Patriotic sacrifice and belief in democracy, taxation is the sacrifice that one makes for his country from his personal wealth to aid his country, patriots pay it willingly, they do so not as a gift or because it's the law but because it is a duty and a debt for the protection and aid this nation and it's sons offer, in our democratic system the voter decides the course of the country and if the voter in his wisdom decides that the poor should be supported then it is the duty of those who can afford to to sacrifice for that decision.

      Reason #4: Poor people without help statistically by and large stay poor, poorly educated and do not contribute as much to the economy, helping them allows for much faster growth and is beneficial to the nation's economy, I might add particularly beneficial to the wealthy, it's the rise of the poor from peasants to more educated and participatory that has made the technological and scientific advances we see possible and in turn their entrepreneurial wealth.

      Reason #5: Because it is the right thing to do and thus the law, democratic societies dictate by law what conduct is legal and illegal by it's accepted moral guide, in the same way that failing to come to the assistance of a sinking ship is a crime in maritime law failing to aid the needy when one can afford to is a crime under tax law.

      There is a reason every first world nation in the world has figured this one out, welfare is what has made our relative stability possible. The self interested and short sighted just have not caught up yet.

    15. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Social Contract Theory. Interdependence - that is how society rolls and progresses.

    16. moneyfairy profile image61
      moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A. I believe the wealthy should pay their share of taxes and not contiuously pass it on to the middle class. The uber wealthy people always try to find loopoles not to pay their rightful taxes and it's gone on for way too long. And will continue to go on until something changes.
      B.the government should help out with the poor only if they truly can't help themselves. If they truly are disabled physically or mentally otherwise they should get their butts off the couch and get a job whether it's at a gas station or a waiter or whatever. It really does irk me to no end that some people live off the system and don't even try, when other hard working people hold down 2 or 3 jobs to stay ahead and pay bills and pay taxes that provide for these moochers. But i do beileive for vetrans and people who truly are disabled that they should be provided for. But their should definitely be more policing of welfare and people just living off the system. That's just not right.
      C.Yes one should be responsible for themselves but when they can't there should be a plan for that.
      In a dream case senerio everyone would have skills that could help them live and exist and thrive until their end. The middle class shouldn't have to pay for the wealthy and visa versa. Everyone should have a sense of self worth and have certain standard of morals and values. But they don't and that's why we are where we are. The extreme wealthy and poor and a struggling hard working middle class just trying to make it by the skin of their teeth. It's a very sad situation indeed. I don't know the answer. Good questions and dialog. Thanks!

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What is 'their share'?

        If the wealthiest pay 24%, and half of Americans pay 2%, are the wealthiest not paying their share?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the wealthiest possess more than 24% of the countries wealth then no, they are not paying their share.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We're not talking about wealth taxes, wealth has nothing to do with it.

            The top 1% earn 17% of all the income, and pay 37% of all the taxes. So no, they are paying more than double their share.

        2. moneyfairy profile image61
          moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's the problem some of the wealthiest don't pay their percentage (coorporate loopoles, oil companies etc....) then the middle class end up paying way more than 2% and some of the uber wealthy pay $0.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            24% is the average of the top 1%. Yes, some pay less. Some pay more too. The average is 24%.

            The bottom 50% of Americans pay under 2%. Some pay more, some pay less. The average is 2%.

            Are the ones paying 24% not paying their fair share?

            For all the talk about loopholes, I rarely find anyone able to point out examples. Do you think that large corporations aren't paying any taxes? I'll be happy to show you just how much they are actually paying.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Would you agree that Starbucks is a large corporation?

              For many years they have avoided paying corporation tax in the UK. If you doubt it, google it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know nothing about the UK tax code, and I honestly don't care about it.

                If there's a problem, fix it. In the US, people talk about 'loopholes' and 'tax shelters' all the time, but they have no actual data to support what they are saying. They can't explain how those loopholes or shelters are supposed to work, or give examples.

                Do some dodgy things happen? I'm sure they do, but those who group the wealthy and corporations together into these evil tax-avoiding conglomerates are really no better than illuminati conspiracy theorists.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Er, not much point in dodging taxes if you aren't wealthy or a corporation is there?

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Also, care to show me examples of people who pay 0%?

        3. moneyfairy profile image61
          moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          it's common sense that if you make more you pay more ,if you make less you pay less. but it doesn't work that way.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So, if you make 10% of all the money, how much of all the taxes should you pay?

    17. 59
      Leftenant Nemoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Guys,
          I always find these questions interesting.  It assumes that each of us is an island, unconnected to the main...  Now, don't get me wrong.  I was raised as a rugged individualist in a State that has a honey bee (One of the only places where real communism is found and practiced on our planet) and the slogan "industry" stamped on it's State Flag. 
           So the real question should be:  How can we provide the greates good to the greatest number of both groups of producers, and consumers?
           The problem I find with the "Rich" is that there really are two categories of them:  There are those who don't have, or beleive in the maximum utilization of everyone in a population, and those that do.  In a perfect world, those that see unused potential in population as being evil, or even criminal would be the leading elite.  But sadly what we have seen is the opting out of these people of the economy, and the hoarding of resources such that what passes for Capitalism in our society begins to look more like Mercantilism, which of course led to where we are today.
            It seems apparent that those asking the three questions simply do not understand the problem enough to see the big picture.  To demonstrate, if you ask this group what is the gravest threat to humanity is well let's hear them respond.

    18. The0NatureBoy profile image65
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Before I read anyone's response I will give mine. 

      The questions are:
      A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?   
      B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?  [b][What are NGOs?]

      C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?
      [/b] ... but I believe all 3 questions are answered in my one reply. 

      As the Zeroverse -- {commonly called universe} -- is designed man deviate from our true nature of living parallel to the rest of the self-reproducing environment for the purpose of recognizing every trait we have within ourselves.  The different personalities we see in others we will incarnate to perform them for imprinting them on our lifeforces which, once our earthen time is over, we will be able to use any one alone or them all altogether. 

      Some of those personalities make us selfish, feel superior to others of our and other species and wanting to control others, to name a few of the traits.  It's our being in those states which require us to be civilized -- interdependent man on other man -- and also makes us dependent on things such as money, heat processed foods and clothes, become beings of habit rather than knowledge as our specie's name, man, means -- mind able to comprehend all things[/b] -- .and easily controlled by others.   

      If greed wasn't a personality there would not be rich and poor but since we have it we should look at the land's Supreme Law, the Constitution, to see what it say.  In Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 reads in part "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States and concerning income taxes Amendment 16 in part reads to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.  When we combine those 2 phrases they suggest all taxes from whatever source, income, property or whatever, to be taxed they should be the same. 

      When a nation such as this one deliberately disallow some people from earning the same as others, be it because of ethnic, gender, religion, fraternity  or sorority, when the Constitution's Preamble reads in part "in Order to form a more perfect Union ... promote the general Welfare ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" the government should take steps to see that there are no discrepancies in earnings.  However, the people who are lazy and unwilling to put forth the effort to provide for themselves and the nation should be required to fend for themselves like the other animals and not live civilized.

      1. 59
        Leftenant Nemoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Natureboy, et al.
             Pretty cruel, Yule.  "let the bastards freeze in the dark" would be a pretty tough analogy to the on-going conversation,but President Truman did it during a coal strike, and guess what, he got pretty quick agreement between management and labor.
           So there are some things we can do to mitigate the harsh effects of 'Natural Selection.  Civilization, as we have come to understanding it, is all about limiting the effects of Natural Selection.  The fact that we are asking the question means that two and a half thousand years on we still are talking about Sparta and Athens.
            So beyond the arguements of just who should, or should not be granted immunity from natural selection; death and taxes, assumes that human beings somehow can make themselves immune from the effects of 'Natural Selection'
             So once again, I'll ask what is the biggest threat to our human existance, or to put it another way:  Life as we know it, doesn't necessarily have go on. 
             As of now, All the people of Planet Earth, are all still subject to Natural Selection because, as of this moment,  we could not protect ourselves from a natural mutant strain of some rapidly moving disease, man-made or otherwise, or from other effects of nature.
           Within two months according to some projections, only a tiny fraction of our Human species might survive a bilogical calamity, by the sheer accident of genetic mutation.  So that is one route to extinction.  Disease.
            Another route to extiinction, of course, is assuming, as we always seem to do, that future generations will conquer the common cold, fix Social Security and do all of those other necessary things of the Preamble of our Constitution.
             Somehow, I think reality belies all of that.  Right now, IF we saw it coming, two or three years into the future, we could not defend ourselves from an intermideiate sized asteroid several times larger than the Aseroid Apophis.  We simply could not get out quick enough, and far enough to deflect it from a collision course with earth.
             All of Hollywood's psychology conditioning aside, at present, and for the foreseeable future, we realy don't have a Planetary Defence System built or deloyed as of yet.
            I would suggest that our species wojuld be better served if our conversation was about how we could protect ourselves from this type of  'natural selection' .   An 'natural selection event' where Nature shrugs, and starts out again trying to evolve a species that is truely smarter than the Dinosaurs, and Homo not so Sapiens.
             If one wishes to ask the important questions, one must understand the so called 'givens' in a situation.  One 'given' is that Astronomers have observed an Asteroid out there that does have a collision course with earth that will be an Extinction Level Event.  they have made the calculations over and over again with the same result.  Impact.  It's the kind of event that creates a 'remodeled' ill-shapened earth.
             Does it make sense putting off building and deploying a Planetary Defence System because we don't know who will pay for it?

    19. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1. Why should the wealthy be allowed to underpay workers and overcharge products?
      2. Why should the wealthy be allowed to get wealthy at all? Many of the stuides indicate that they're not cleverer, just less honest.  http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5- … -suck.html and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-2 … -find.html
      3. The Libertarian view is completely out of touch with reality. Human beings are a social species and have always relied on each other.  http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/ … -cold.html
      4. The rich do not work harder. They just cheat more and they tend to be luckier. That's about all there is to it. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/do- … ork-harder
      5. Besides the rich are NOT paying for the people that don't work. They are contributing to society, of which they are a part, and to which they have a social obligation because they're just as human as the next guy. The fact that they are rich does not mean that they are excluded from the social contract. When people are in trouble, people help each other .
      6. In my opinion, the only reason rich people don't want to pay taxes and the onlyr reason they won't pay a living wage is because they're sociopaths - not because they work harder, but because they take advantage of people who aren't sociopaths.
      7. Only the uninformed buy into the myth that the rich are rich because they did something remarkable or work harder, etc. Every bit of research indicates that this is NOT so.

      http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-ri … op-saying/
      http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_b … nyway.html
      http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02 … finds?lite

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let's just talk about that point. You said that the rich already over-charge for products. How much should a company with 10,000 workers pay them? Let's say the average worker is being paid $13/hr, how much should that worker get paid? 2000 hours a year times 10,000 workers = $20 million to increase the wage of every employee by $1/hr.

        So, should a company with 10,000 workers who earn $13/hr and has $2 million a year in profit raise its 'overcharged' prices?

    20. seanorjohn profile image80
      seanorjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The wealthy have always exploited the poor.They should be taxed at the highest rate.Ordinary people should not have to rely on charity.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exploited them, by creating products and services they want, giving them money in exchange for work, etc?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        These last two posts are quite debatable.
        Lets force the poor to work and for others to give them jobs. That would solve everything.
        What... you don't believe in
                                                       Mandatory
                                    work and employment expectations??
        Well, I don't believe in Mandatory funding of the poor by taxing the wealthy.... just because they are wealthy...
        -as though they are ALL guilty of something or they for some reason OWE it to the poor. They do not.

        Instead, we need to change the conditions which allow the illegal acquisition of wealth and implement policies within the system which would check greed. And voters need to identify and vote out career politicians.

        Repeating: Forcing is Taboo. The business of the wealthy are needed for jobs, products, and investments that lead to more jobs, and products. It is the unchecked greed which must be stopped.
        Also, You people are being fooled. 78 cents of every dollar goes to bureaucracies, the rest goes to those in temporary or permanent need.

    21. Trevor1783 profile image62
      Trevor1783posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I personally do not receive any benefits but I know several people that cant find work no matter how hard they try. I dont mind paying tax as I am just happy to have a job. There is nothing wrong with getting help from the government. That is why we pay taxes! How else do we get free healthcare in the UK? Anyone that believes everyone on benefits is somehow a scrounger had better look in the mirror. It could be any of us one day so stop complaining about paying your dues. You might rely on it one day.
      Trevor

      1. Laura Schneider profile image91
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well said!! Thank you, Trevor, Voice of Reason!

    22. Solaras profile image91
      Solarasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) The Rich currently pay a lower tax rate - It is an undisputed fact that the rich currently pay a lower, not higher tax rate than the middle class.  Warren Buffet acknowledges that he pays a lower tax rate than his personal secretary. In fact, we currently have the lowest tax rates for the rich in 30-60 years depending on the organization and the measurements  used to define tax rates.  And because the super wealthy make so much money that they can never spend, they hoard it in off-shore bank accounts - to the tune of 14 Trillion US  Dollars sent off-shore accounts to evade taxes, a figure that is more than our national deficit.  There is no "Trickle down" effect from these funds stashed in Switzerland, the Caymens etc.

      B) Our paychecks fund many so-called entitlement programs for good reason - Food stamp recipients receive debit cars that only pay for items deemed to be foods stamp eligible; these products are limited to foods that have nutritional value as deemed by the FDA.

      Regarding Social Security and Medicare payments, which the Republicans are eager to cut, these are currently funded by US workers paychecks.  Money from your paycheck is earmarked specifically for each program.  And each program is fully funded via the specific payroll tax.  It is an insurance fund that all working Americans pay into, and expect to receive benefits from when that need arises for them.  This is not an entitlement, anymore than receiving health insurance benefits from the health insurance company you pay premiums to or a pension plan that you contribute to.  The real entitlements recipients are the military industrial complex and politicians.

      Every industrial national provides healthcare and a safety net to their population.  We become a third world nation when we allow children to starve in regional famines, victims of hurricanes to remain without heat and power in the winter, because congress can not agree to provide national disaster relief... I see the Republicans dragging this nation down with a lowered credit rating etc.. by refusing to do the hard work of compromise.  That is what they get paid well to do - and they receive life long pensions and healthcare that the rest of the nation is denied.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If I might be so bold - which home insurance companies refused to pay for a new heating system to replace one damaged by a hurricane?

        1. Solaras profile image91
          Solarasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          According to the New York Times, as of January 21st, 2013, 300 homes in Staten Island alone were still without power or heat 3 months after the hurricane.  Of the 2400 homes on the city's Rapid Repair program, 600 homes had not even been touched yet.  In Long Beach, 40% of the residents are unable to return to their homes as they are water damaged and molding and no repairs have been made to those homes.Many of those that have returned to Long Beach still rely on community food banks for their meals as their kitchens are still out of order...

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No. No no no. No. Absolutely not. The rich pay the highest tax rates, bar none.

        In any income bracket, there are variances. Just as poor people are allowed to deduct certain expenses, so are wealthy people.

        The top 1% of earners pay 24% federal income tax. The middle class pays around 15%. It's a fact, cannot be disputed(unless you want to claim that the IRS lies in its reporting, and unless you want to claim that math is invalid in dealing with the rich).

        1. Jewel01 profile image60
          Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson, I worked for an attorney, within an investment co.  You really don't have any idea how the rich can afford to hire an accountant who can work out a tax code that brings a rich persons taxes down.  Open a co. and then open another co.  Before your tax month ends you pay your other co. a large fee for services, or supplies.  You are simply transferring your money from one of your companies to another.  When it's time to do your taxes for  the other company, you transfer the money back.  You can have a failed business that shows no income for 5 years, before you close the doors and open a new business under a new name.  I had an accounting class, two to be exact... if you'd like to talk about criminal intent... let's talk about what the CPA''s job really entails. Many incorporated business' come from a Maine because the states requirements are less than any other state.

        2. Jewel01 profile image60
          Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson, did you see Facebook filed their taxes, earned 1 billion, and received  over 4 million, in their refund.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You're correct. As I recall, Romney's federal tax rate was 13.9 percent on $1.9 million income. Hedge fund operators have the most unjustifiable loophole--carried interest which gets them the capital gains rate on what would be ordinary income for anybody else.

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Tax laws are not loopholes.

              1. Jewel01 profile image60
                Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You don't believe some of the loopholes are set up by design?

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You mena the laws Democrats voted for? Agreed to?

                  1. Jewel01 profile image60
                    Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Democrats as well as Republicans are guilty, you cannot possibly believe that Republicans are a different bread of politician, can you?

        3. Laura Schneider profile image91
          Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Show us the links to your sources of 'those facts that are not to be disputed', Jaxson, and then we'll stop disputing them. (I owe you guys some links, too. Sorry about that, I've been really busy lately.)

    23. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your question assumes the issue is with individuals. IMHO a better question is why is there a poor? What is it about the current financial system that results in some having lots, others having nothing, even though there are enough resources to meet the needs of everyone? What is it about the current system that forces most people to sell their labour to the highest bidder? What is it about the current system that makes debt inevitable?

      By focussing on individuals you are playing into the hands of a privileged few who are more than happy for us to be divided. That division distracts us from asking the real questions: Does the current system work? Is there another way to live which is more beneficial to human beings?

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +++++++++

      2. Rod Rainey profile image82
        Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank You Don W! If we really want to solve these problems, shouldn’t we be questioning the system which facilitated their fruition in the first place? The system is not a force of nature; it’s only an idea. Just because it works for some does not mean it can work for everyone.  I understand why people defend it, they think their lives depend on it, but it’s really only their lifestyle that might be at stake.  Is all the comfort and convenience worth all the suffering it perpetuates? Is it ethical? Is it wise?

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A few answers, on the simplistic side.  The system sees us selling our labor to the highest bidder because that's how we've set it up.  The alternative is a commune based society, with the fruits of labor being put into a pile for everyone to grab from, but that doesn't work at all.  We're all selfish and want the highest price for whatever it is we're selling - we're not willing to give it away to Bob for $1 when Bill is eager to gives us $2 for it. 

        Debt is only inevitable when we want more than we can afford, or want it right [/i]now[/i] instead of a few years.  Tone down the greed, lose the debt.

        While small communities have successfully used other systems (primarily communes) they don't work for larger groups.  So no, no one has ever figured out to convince Bob that although he is willing to work harder and produce twice as much as Bill he should only receive the compensation that Bill does.  Nothing is free, everything requires effort and work, and people are not equal somehow in their ability or willingness to put out that effort or even have the same levels of effort produce the same amount.  Bill wants "equality" in what he has with Bob, but Bob certainly doesn't agree and that will never change.  Nor should it; communism does not work.

        1. Mitch Alan profile image84
          Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well said...bravo!

    24. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well crap, the poorer folks have been busting their asses to make the rich richer!

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well crap, I thought they were just trying to make their own way in life!

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ha!

          1. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ha!?
            What sort of Ha! Would that be?

            Never mind I think I know it's a socialist Ha! Isn't it.........

            1. Paul Wingert profile image80
              Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Never mind I think I know it's a socialist Ha! Isn't it........."
              Which translates into "I don't know exactly what the word "socialist" actually means.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know exactly what it means Paul, it means unworkable, that's why its never been taken up by any country as its politics via the electorate.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Because a civilized country should not let people die of starvation, exposure or preventable disease.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't feed the bears.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I still don't know what you mean by that.

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Really? It took me a second but I did get it. Think about it and you will too.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I even explained it earlier.

          http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XTLdcC3ILZ4/UKWJc_a5lBI/AAAAAAAAUPU/cAmdbN7eg-c/s1600/Bear-Feed.jpg

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I must have stopped watching that thread.

            I still don't get it.   People can't just sit by the side of the road and eat berries if they lose all their money and have no place to live.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why not? It won't be a problem for long, they'll soon die! <sarcasm>

              1. 59
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                They will if they just sit around and do nothing.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What would you propose they do?

                  1. 59
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Get a job! I have never known any person who was unable to get a job doing something to support themselves, ever.

      2. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are plenty of respectable people right now looking for jobs and would be willing to work for peanuts even though they have degrees from major universities and a acommplished work history. Many come from great backgrounds in finance and other fields but end up at Mcdonalds flipping burgers and trying to stay positive. Shame on the idiots who have been fortunate enough to keep their jobs but talk smack in a forum.

        Good thing you currently have a job, karma is a killer!

        1. Laura Schneider profile image91
          Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hear hear! <applause> Only I would still feel bad if karma was "a killer".

    2. 69
      logic,commonsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is, you can't save everyone!  I would like to, but it cannot be done.  Then you have to decide if you want to let the drowning person go down by themselves or take you with them?  Which would you do?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Then you have to decide if you want to let the drowning person go down by themselves or take you with them?  Which would you do?"

        The 2 percenters aren't in danger of being "taken down with them." They are getting richer and richer. [You must live in a different world from me.]

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        exactly... a good lifeguard knows how to swim really really well. He/She must be able to keep him/herself from drowning in order to save the victim.  In the end, One drowning is better than Two.

      3. Ewent profile image82
        Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the drowning person was a wife or a child? You'd save yourself first? I get it...It's not women and children first anymore...It's every man for himself and ONLY himself.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Got it!  It would be better to attempt to save that drowning child and have both rescuer AND victim drown together than to not make the attempt and have at least one live person.  It looks better.

          That's exactly what the US is doing now; destroying the country economically in order to save some.  That we all go down eventually into the same poverty we're dragging a few out of is immaterial; it looks good for now.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But you aren't dragging a few out of poverty, you are dragging millions into poverty!

            Every wage cut, every job lost, every tax rise is pushing people into poverty.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Aren't we though?  In the guise of "helping" the poor we are cementing them in solidly right where they are by ever expanding entitlement programs.  It looks good, though, and sounds good.  It stops the cries of "We can't let them starve", so we'll keep right on giving out free cellphones and support the unemployed that have decided not to work unless they can have their old job back.

              The largest single reason, by far, for our current recession was trying to make houses available to those that can't afford them.  Pushed by seemingly intelligent politicians onto those evil banksters that knew it wouldn't work (heck, anyone not a far left liberal knew it wouldn't work) but went along anyway because they were told to and are now vilified for doing so.

              How many has that "help" drug into poverty again?  How many that couldn't afford a house but got one anyway has actually kept it (rich) vs how many have lost their homes that could afford them before the recession (poor)?

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy … ass-994834
                Wilderness, this is a sobering article on the situations you describe.

                1. tammybarnette profile image59
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will pay a total of $557 million in cash and other assistance to troubled borrowers to end a case-by-case review of past foreclosures required by U.S. regulators. "


                  "The U.S. Federal Reserve said on Wednesday that the two banks will pay $232 million to eligible borrowers and $325 million in loan modifications and forgiveness."

                  Linked on the same page, scroll down, lots of good reading on the economy..glad the banksters have to pay for their part.

                  1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again a drop in the bucket compared to the carnage they have caused.They made billions, yeah with a B and they make good with peanuts. That's why these things keep happening. It's just the cost of doing business.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The banksters have paid billions in fines to settle charges without admitting nor denying guilt. Hardly anybody ever goes to jail.

                2. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Great article. America is a shell of what it used to be. Manufacturing made this country what is was.  We are now a service economy. Reports, fraud, usery and peddle wares made somewhere else. God bless the corporation. Ross Perot said,"Do you hear that sucking sound? That will be all of your jobs" People said he was a kook. Well, how do you like me now? Manufacturing things is what produces wealth and that's why China owns us now. It's ok, we are winning the "Race to the Bottom"

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Amen, We are in the unchartered territory of what is beyond the industrial age and not fairing too well...We need a modern Renassaince(sp) if we are to move forward...We must build SOMETHING that others do not...

                3. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is sobering, but as I look around there may be some good come from it and I do have hope for the future of the country. 

                  One of the biggest problems I think (hindsight is wonderful), is that Americans live paycheck to paycheck.  We went decades with no real trouble outside of a little inflation.  Well, the hammer dropped and those millions living at the edge of their ability to pay (or beyond it) felt the blow the worst.  My parents generation knew better, but ours didn't.  If we learn (IF) it need not happen like this again.

                  You have a two earner family?  Fine - save one of them.  Buy a smaller house, one car, and do away with satellite TV and fancy phones.  Pay cash, not credit.  When the economy stumbles again, and it will one day, you'll make it through without losing everything.  Learn from this, don't ignore it.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Good points Wilderness, I grew up very poor, I am very good with money because of that...We live frugal and have been able to weather the storm on my husbands salary as I have stayed home to raise my youngest. I will be going to work, or starting my own business soon enough and we have discussed exactly that...saving most of my new income, doubling up on house payment, etc...We have not been a frugal society to be sure...

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "The largest single reason, by far, for our current recession was trying to make houses available to those that can't afford them.  Pushed by seemingly intelligent politicians onto those evil banksters that knew it wouldn't work (heck, anyone not a far left liberal knew it wouldn't work) but went along anyway because they were told to and are now vilified for doing so."

                I have a different take. Although our government did encourage Fannie and Freddie to allow subprime loans, the biggest factor was our government's failure to regulate the Wall Street banks and the risky, dishonest subprime mortgage derivatives that they sold to unsuspecting customers all over the world. Here's an item from yesterday's paper about how Morgan Stanley sold what their own employees privately termed "bags of shit" mortgages to a Chinese and a Taiwanese bank and then promptly shorted the mortgages. In addition to the bankers, others responsible were brokers who wrote "no doc" loans, appraisers who provided accommodating appraisals. There's no shortage of people to blame, but the bankers were at the center of the bubble.

                "On March 16, 2007, Morgan Stanley employees working on one of the toxic assets that helped blow up the world economy discussed what to name it. Among the team members’ suggestions: “Subprime Meltdown,” “Hitman,” “Nuclear Holocaust” and “Mike Tyson’s Punchout,” as well a simple yet direct reference to a bag of excrement...

                "The results are explosive. Hundreds of pages of internal Morgan Stanley documents, released publicly last week, shed much new light on what bankers knew at the height of the housing bubble and what they did with that secret knowledge...

                "In the end, of the $500 million of assets backing the deal, $415 million ended up worthless.


                http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/ … d=tw-share

                Watch this YouTube video on "The Subprime Banking Mess."  It's the best explanation of what happened that I've seen!!!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, this becomes a matter of opinion more than anything, but I don't blame the bankers nearly as much as Fannie, Freddie, politicians and greedy idiots in the public.

                  When bankers are virtually ordered to sell mortgages that absolutely will fail, when those mortgages are guaranteed no loss loans to the banks, when greedy idiots buy them, you can't put all the blame on the banks.

                  And at the very bottom is the public.  The public itself played a major part.  I'm no financial genius, but I am smart enough to educate myself on a loan offering before I sign it and I'm smart enough not to sell my future on the forlorn hopes that I can make mortgage payments that I know I can't.  I've had at least a dozen mortgages in my life and if push came to shove I could always make the payments if my income was cut in half.  Very few people will go a lifetime without ever seeing drastic cuts in income, but when they look at a beautiful new home it doesn't seem to matter.  Only desire. 

                  People - foolish, ignorant, greedy, and yes stupid people - played as big a part in the bubble as anyone else.  Add in stupid and self serving politicians buying votes with loan guarantees and most of the blame goes to those two sources.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is plenty of blame to go around. Countrywide Bank was one of the worst offenders--making thousands of no doc mortgage loans followed by the investment banks that packaged the shaky loans and sold them all over the world. Fannie and Freddy also deserve their share of the blame.

                2. Mitch Alan profile image84
                  Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Banks were not only "allowed" to make those types of loans, but were actually mandated to. The Bubble was not by default, but by design. Cloward & Piven, just like the Obamacare...overwhelm the system so that the federal government can "reluctantly" take over more and more of the private sector.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The government encouraged banks to loan money to people that would have never been able to get that kind of credit years ago.  Politicians, both republican and democrat, talked about how we had record levels of homeownership.  Why wouldn't we when the government was doing everything it could to ensure that banks would loan money to just about anybody?  People often didn't have to have good credit, money for a down payment, or even a salary that could support the loan for which they were applying.  The government signed off on these loans, securing and guaranteeing them.  When people starting defaulting on loans, the government had to pay, or should I say, the taxpayer had to pay.

              3. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, the largest single reason for the current recession is the exporting of work and the side-lining of workers. Every job that is lost reduces the countries tax income but increases its spending.
                Housing was pushed onto those who couldn't afford it by the very bankers that you would exonerate. Turn everybody into little "capitalists" and discourage them from voting for any party that was not run by and for capitalists. Tell me, how do the banks lose by lending people money they can't afford?
                The banks couldn't give a toss about people in poverty, if the worst comes to the worst and the bank loses profit then they can always rely on the tax payer to bail them out again.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You live in England. Why is our predicament of interest to you?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Because when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold.

                    You don't live in a bubble, you claim to be a global power and as such you affect every country that you deal with.
                    American companies feel the pinch and retract, but not in America, in other countries like the UK.

                2. Mitch Alan profile image84
                  Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly why we need to end corporatism. The banks were not only allowed to make those loans, they were mandated to make them. A purposeful collapse.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But what is the difference between corporatism and capitalism?

          2. Ewent profile image82
            Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your post assumes total helplessness of the rescuer and the victim. Do tell? How does someone proficient in rescue end up drowning with a victim? The problem today in the US is a generation of Middle Aged people who choose victimhood instead of life battles they can actually win. So they sit back, accept whatever comes their way and then whine till the cows come home about their sorry plight in life. Sorry. Doom and gloom is not for me. I'm the ultimate optimist. Anyone who doesn't know that what goes up must come down is a total drain on the ability for the US to cope with day to day ups and downs. The problem with some Middle Agers is they want only and ALL up...never down. That's nice for an ideal but it isn't realistic in the business world or in life.

    3. Laura Schneider profile image91
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I quite agree, psycheskinner. The "Haves" are only defined by the "Have nots". We should all work together to help each other. At a work function, we set up a gathering to collect donations for a local charity. Do you know? The people who made the lowest salaries gave TWICE as much as those with the highest of salaries. Explain why, all things being otherwise equal, that happened? Greed and ignorance of what it's really like at the bottom of the ladder, I think.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A mind-set with being careful with their money!  which is why they are high dollar earners. It is not necessarily greed. You are merely surmising. (Now, I am reminding myself of an atheist. LOL)

    4. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perfect.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Only in a perfect world.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How far would one have to look to see we don't live in a perfect world?
          The intent and subsequent effort is what matters.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not really. Remember when them Christian "ministers" went out amongst the heathen to spread the word and infected them with small pox and killed them by mistake? sad

            Your lazy approach and inability to care about consequences is actually what matters.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I see. This is practically the same thing. I stand corrected. Have a nice day.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not the same thing at all. Sorry you choose to pretend not to understand what I said. Intent is worthless. Try re-reading what I said. wink

          2. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Governments have intent and show considerable effort in their desire to obtain a perfect world. One mans idea of a perfect world could be seen by another as his worst nightmare about hell.

  3. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    A: Two way street. Worker needs the job and the wealthy needs the worker to get wealthier. Therefore, why shouldn't they be willing to help those who need help?
    B: Yes, the government should assist the poor. For that matter, I feel everyone should help their fellow American if they can. Individuals, private organization, churches, charities and the like.
    C: Personal responsibility begins and ends with an even playing field. Not everyone, no fault of their own have the same advantages. Whether that be education or financial. Why should only the elite have access to say Harvard or Yale caliber educators? Why should only the wealthier Americans have health insurance and the poor none?

    This forum is a baited question. It shouldn't be about the wealthy. It should be what can we as Americans do to help everyone reach the American Dream!

    1. 0
      HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I've been enjoying playing moderator today, but I have to jump in on this one for just a moment...

      Not to get too in depth on my life story, I was raised by a very hard working, blue collar family. My father was an auto mechanic and my mom worked in retail. We weren't poor, but we certainly weren't well off, not by any stretch of the imagination. The point to this, and the reason I wanted to respond, is that I went to Yale. I busted my butt in High School while my friends were partying. I took extra classes, studied hard, and got in.

      Once I got there, I had to work twice as hard as a lot of my friends there, because I had to work to help cover my tuition. So the notion that only the "elite" have access to a Yale caliber education is just simply not true, anyone willing to actually do the work required to get into a school like Yale (or even that glorified community college in MA) can attend.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Imagine that, hard work paid off.

        1. Ewent profile image82
          Ewentposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes...We have two presidents from single parent Moms who prove that hard work paid off...William Jefferson Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar and Barack Obama, a Nobel Prize winner.  However, one size doesn't fit all. Some have advantages while others have none. Does that mean they should be demonized for their lack of opportunities? What's with the people in this country who turn poverty into an evil? Have they become so money hungry they've lost all sense of humanity? Does everything in these peoples' live begin with a dollar sign?

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Amen!

            1. Laura Schneider profile image91
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'll second that!

          2. Laura Schneider profile image91
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps it's that the people who don't follow, like sheep, the herd of ignorants that can't see that a path of hard work could very well pay off and the herd of wealthy whose grip on their money is so tight they donate NOTHING to those less fortunate, regardless of whether the less fortunate worked just as hard but had a horrible incident in their lives, like tragedy or illness, that made them poor, through no lack of hard work on their part. Get out of the herd, everyone, and think for yourselves for once! This is important!

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Whether someone worked hard and is still poor or not, whether someone will die if they don't get help is immaterial.

              You nor anyone else has the moral right to play Robin Hood.  Other people's money does not belong to you and you cannot arbitrarily take it no matter how good you think the cause is.

              I, for instance, agree that we have an obligation to help the poor and I do so.  I do not have the right to put that obligation on someone that doesn't agree with me, though.

              (you might research how much Bill Gates has donated in the past few years as well - it just might shock you).

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Could you please come out of the wilderness and run for President?  Unfortunately, you haven't built up the necessary capital. Maybe we could all pitch in and send you a couple dollars.
                Wishful thinking?...
                At some point in time this might have to work...

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You know that wouldn't work, right?

                  You have to promise people lots of free stuff to be president. Like Romney said 'If you want free education, vote for the other guy. If you want lots of free stuff, vote for the other guy'... and America did vote for the other guy.

                  We'll keep kicking the can down the road as long as we can...

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, but no thanks.  I have been involved in politics just once, at the very bottom of the barrel.  Board of Directors of a Home Owners Association. 

                  The amount of total fabrication and lies, back stabbing and outright refusal to carry out the fiduciary duties of the job was incredible.  Never again.

              2. Rod Rainey profile image82
                Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm glad someone brought up morality. How moral is capitalism or the monetary system for that matter?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Quite moral.

                  Monetary systems allow people to barter efficiently, which is one requirement for a civilization to move past the 'everyone works all day to hopefully have enough flour to eat' stage.

                  Capitalism is mostly just an extension of that.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Roaring my head off with laughter at that one!
                    Monetary systems do not allow people to barter effectively, that is my whole point.
                    Civilisation hasn't moved past the "everybody works all day to hopefully have enough flour to eat' stage"!

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What the heck is the alternative, Rod?
                  Please explain without poetry please.

                  1. Rod Rainey profile image82
                    Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly! There is no alternative, but there could be if we came together instead of fighting amongst ourselves while slapping band-aids on this cumbersome severed head of an ancient idea. A system that has created global scarcity, turned us all against our interdependent nature, turned the relationship into the service and the cooperative into the competitive. How does it make any sense that we have to pay to eat in a world we did not ask to be born into? Maybe the monetary system isn't immoral, but forcing people to participate in it is.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That is pretty much a poem.  A nice poem...  but a poem.
                    In my estimation.
                    just mine.
                    peace

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Have you ever considered that not everybody is cut out for academia?

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then they better play on their strengths, we need burger flippers too.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well that might solve the work problem but it will only exacerbate the poverty problem.

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Doubt it, I guess not working would be a much better option?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Quite frankly, if it was a case of having, say, a $100 a week to live off or $75 a week to live off then yes not working would be the better option.

                Are you not just a little ashamed that about 50% of your fellow Americans don't earn enough to pay tax?

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Only lazy people would rather not work and I really don't care if they eat or not. I'm not ashamed that people who fall into certain income brackets don't pay income tax. Why would I be?

                  Educate yourself.
                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … in-charts/

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You might not care if people eat or not but I bet you would if it were you who had to decide whether to eat or heat.
                    And you'd happily blame those who don't earn enough to pay tax without even the basic understanding of why they don't pay tax.

                    Educate yourself!

                2. galleryofgrace profile image81
                  galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John Holden: There is no such thing as not making enough to pay tax! Anyone who works , whether freelance or w-2 pays taxes! And I can prove that!

              2. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes it is, and there lies the problem, if you want people off welfare then let them earn a living flippping burgers, not just merely exist to struggle for what? The bottom jobs paying $7.25 an hour will not allow for a couple to pay bills and raise children. We used to be able to count on industry, where those ble collar workers COULD make a decent living, but now those jobs are being shipped to Chinese sweat shops in order for big businesses to pay a lower wage, lower taxes and ahhh yes, increase their profit margins...Do you see the circular dance and blame game, or is it just me.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I  see it, though most don't.

                2. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm done explaining to people that not working isn't going to solve the problem. If you are able to work and refuse to then I have no sympathy and I hope you have a very hard time in life.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't you ever listen? There are millions out there who want to work but aren't allowed to by the system that is more intent on keeping wages down for those in work.
                    It has nothing to do with refusing to work and everything to do with refusing to employ.

                    Stop passing the blame.

      3. mythbuster profile image84
        mythbusterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "So the notion that only the "elite" have access to a Yale caliber education is just simply not true [....]"

        The notion that only the elite have access to Yale caliber education is just simply not true FOR YOU and from your point of view and experience...

        Not everyone has your same skills, connections with other people, access to Yale (even if you paved some of your own way to such elite facilities)... you are one among hundreds of thousands of people who found a way "despite," however, if you say that it's simply NOT TRUE that people have limited or no access to YALE, you imply others need to what you did to get where you are - you may impose your pathway onto others (just one more form of oppression on someone else). You can turn around and find fault with others for not doing what YOU did in order to get to an elite facility or education...

        Perhaps you should NOT have had to suffer/toil in gaining access to what the elite access without much of a thought or care. Perhaps, if you toiled to get there and stay there, you should have instead had the opportunity to spend more of your time studying vs working for tuition, etc...

        You managed - others may not and there will be others who DO NOT have your same essential make up, skills for working, etc., so they shouldn't, in my opinion, be told, "these things are available to you like they are available to everyone else."

        I'm not saying that working to gain and appreciate access to education or even material gain isn't worthwhile or that nobody should ever have an obstacle in the way of trying to attain anything - just that we have to be careful that we don't blame others for limitations and for legitimately limited access they might face when they try to gain access to knowledge and materials. It might not be enough to say, "I did it - therefore it's available to all/anyone can get it like I did."

        1. 0
          HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Mythbuster (love the username by the way),

          I just wanted to touch on a couple things from your comment because I think it deserves a response.

          First, I reject the notion that what I did to get into Yale was, in any way, special, As with most anything in life, going to Yale had a cost, and it was much more than just the financial aspects. I understood that getting into one of the best schools, not only in the country, but in the world, was going to require hard work and sacrifice on my part. I knew this going in and, to paraphrase Churchill "I did what was necessary to achieve that which was great".

          I could have had a much easier experience in High School (and certainly a much more "fun" one), had I chosen a school with "less stringent" requirements, but that's not what I wanted. Now I'm I saying that everyone can, or should go to an Ivy League school? No, of course not. I will say, emphatically however, that anyone who is willing to put forth the effort required, most definitely has the ability to get such an education.

          As to your second point...



          To this, first let me say that schools like Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, have some of the most stringent academic requirements in the world. While it is without question that some families are given special consideration in the application process, these schools simply do not accept mediocre students- no matter who they happen to be. To imply otherwise is to diminish everyone who has ever worked hard to, not only get there, but stay there.

          Yes, as I said above, I could have had a much easier time in college had my goals not been as high. As a byproduct of my efforts to get into my first choice school, I was offered scholarships at both the University of Central Florida, and the University of Florida. Now both of these are great schools, and I'm sure I would have received a great education at either one of them, but they were simply not what I wanted.

          To borrow from another of my heroes, the great Vince Lombardi: "The dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. work is the key to success, and hard work can help you accomplish anything."

          1. galleryofgrace profile image81
            galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Blue Collar" is not poor!

            1. Jewel01 profile image60
              Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is now.

      4. AnnaCia profile image85
        AnnaCiaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can you define poor?

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The American Dream is there for everyone... but not every one attempts to achieve it in the same way... with the same energy, intention, desire, luck intensity or with the same deck of cards.

      1. Jewel01 profile image60
        Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        are you serious!  The cards are stacked against most individuals.  You have got to know someone, who knows someone....The federal reserve used to be based on the gold we had in reserve, now we just print our money.  Devaluing the dollar falls on the Republicans completely, when they failed to vote, showing their determination and all.  Now we are facing the sequestering of the American middle class.  The only ones that it will hurt are the poor and middle class.  Look it up....I am so tired of those who worry about the rich.  Give me a break, when I worked as a waitress in a small coney, my boss lived on the lake, had 3 cars (a single man), he never worried about where his next  meal would come from, and had the gull to ask me to tip the cook, because he deserved a raise.  He seriously, believed I should pay him to have my job.  I made good tips, never as much as he made, but I was happy with my income each day.  How much should I give up to satisfy the greed of another.  You speak as if I should feel fortunate to be treated badly, poor wages, suffer the ills of a third world nation.  You and Wilderness lived in another life.  After WWII we could do nothing wrong and we did control the economy....we don't anymore... sorry about your luck. or wait is my luck... you lucky dog.  Those who reaped the benefits of  WWII should be quiet because they have no idea what the world is like today.   If you are over 62, you don't know how it feels to have to figure out what job you might be able to do, to support yourself until you reach the age of 72.  I am tired of those who had the benefit of a union to create a pension, and then look at me as though I am lazy.  You really don't want to know how I feel at this point.  I worked my butt off, so you and everyone older than me could retire and not have to feel as though you were thrown to the curb.  What do the seniors expect from me..... more, and more, and more..... not just me, but my bothers who work to keep you roads and lights on, each and every night.  How are they to do their jobs at age 71?  Wait, you could pay them minimum wage and they could die before they become a burden to you.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Some people start the race 10 yards behind others, or even more.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A different world, eh?

          I started my working life at 14, as a paper boy.  As soon as I could drive out of town I graduated to farm labor - 12+ hours a day, 6 days a week in the summer and switching to a gas station 7 days a week in the winter.  At 16 years old.

          Entering college it became 3 jobs in the summer, as much as 100 hours a week to save for college; 40 hours per week plus school during the winter.  "Home" was a single small bedroom and sharing a bathroom with 6 other people.  No kitchen; cooking was a hotplate on the dresser.  No phone, no TV and certainly no movies with a girl friend.

          Decent job, nothing great, after graduation.  Completely fed up with corporate policies, picked up the wife and 2 kids and moved across the country at the age of 46 to start over.  No job, no home, just enough money to get by for a couple of months.  Worked as much as 18 hour days 7 days a week at times while going back to trade school.  Watched my younger son work full time while going to school and taking care of 3 kids when he came home at night. 

          So yes, a different life than what people are willing to do today.  But don't try to tell me that it was easier - I've worked far longer and far harder than most people ever will.  It wasn't a wonderful "opportunity" but a willingness to work that made it happen.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            (I just read that in south Korea the suicide rate for the elderly... well, past 65 has tripled. Why? Because the youth no longer want to foot the bill for them.( It was/ is the custom in S. Korea for parents to do everything for their children so they would take care of  them in old age. The government pays the elderly aid if the children cannot help. The children are becoming less willing, though!  So what can they do???
            An 65 year old women committed suicide in front of a government building in protest to their policy of not helping the elderly! (She had just been denied aid since her child could afford to help her!)  This is a very interesting topic, as well.)

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As extended family relationships deteriorate and families grow apart both emotionally and geographically we will see more of that type of thing in the US as well.  Not, hopefully, to anywhere that degree, but definitely in that society will need to provide more care for the elderly.

              The days of taking Mom into the child's home when she can no long care for herself are about over, and society is going to have to step up to care for her.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Right, and our children have to realize that it is up to them to take care of themselves and be proactive as far as the (distant) future. THE GOVERNMENT needs to have a philosophy that facilitates its CITIZENS to be able to make as much money as THEY can.  Ya KNOW????  (Not shouting... emphasizing.) The The Youth really need to get on board with this... write to your congressmen, twitter them, march in front of the government buildings, vote out career politicians.  it is about OUR percolating economy.
                Make the Govt. Get Out of the Way! And stop with the PPACABS already!

          2. Jewel01 profile image60
            Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, my statement regarding, "eaisier" maybe I miss spoke and should have said, "a simpler life."  It was pretty basic, work hard, save as much as you could and everything would be fine.  Honesty, well it don't count for much. 

            I don't believe the rich should support the poor.  I don't believe the rich should take advantage of the poor or the middle class.  I have worked my whole life, struggled to get by, worked 2 jobs, even when I went to college.  I don't expect a hand out, but I don't think I should work for peanuts, either. 

            People are angry, because it's the powers that be, that got us in this mess.  We bailed out the banks, the stock market, and the auto industry.  I realize why the government did it, but no one was made to answer for how  we got in this mess.  Many people lost their jobs and their homes.  The rich got richer, handing out bonuses to those who created the mess, was a slap in the face of the American worker. 

            Crisis after crisis we face because our politicians don't care.  I don't really care if they are republican or democrat.  To quote Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."  Facebook made a profit of over 1 billion dollars.  They filed their taxes and received a refund of over 4 million dollars.  Tell me this makes sense.  Gas prices in Michigan have gone up 50 cents this week, can you tell me why.  It is said that profits have increased for business' but wages have been stagnate.  Does this seem fair?   

            We as Americans have more power than we give ourselves credit for, but the chink in the armor is we would have to stand together.  The politician like it when we are afraid of our neighbor.  If they can keep us in a state of fear, we will never rise up (peacefully) and fight for ourselves.  Consumers could cripple any business if they refused to buy.  It really is that simple.  Politicians well that a whole issue in itself. 

            We can argue over whether you worked hard, whether I worked hard, this will get us no where.  Life is not what it used to be, I think you would agree.

      2. Laura Schneider profile image91
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        To misquote you slightly while agreeing with parts of what you're saying, "The American DREAM is there for everyone who is able-bodied throughout the greater chunk of life, born into a family that is moderately wealthy, and the way(s) they attempt to achieve it succeed, and they have enough, intention, desire, luck intensity, and are playing with the same deck of cards." In other words, really the American Dream is just a dream for all of the people who don't fit all of the criteria in your statement: all of the stars and planets need to align perfectly to make this dream come true for an individual.

        1. rhamson profile image78
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I was raised with the philosphy that if you worked hard, saved your money and treated everybody fairly you would eventually reap the benefits of this plan. Unfortunatley I have found that as I get older my skills are compromised by my age in the workplace as having a negative healthcare strike against me. The skills I have attained for over fourty years are outweighed by the mechanized and illegal immigrant labor surplus to make the employer offer less than adequate services rather than continue in the high end production they once competed in. I can't save my money as the costs are rising far above the percentages of the wages I can use for living. My house is paid for but I can't afford to maintain it and the property taxes are going up on top of that. All of the utilities are rising so quickly that there is nothing I can do but to turn down the thermostat, pile on another blanket and watch network television on basic cable in the dark. The American Dream is out there but don't tell me it is for those that have worked hard to attain it. My retirement ceremony will be when they cart me off in a wooden box.

          1. Laura Schneider profile image91
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My apologies for offending you: I am  actually in complete agreement with you: as I said at the end, everything needs to come together at once with everyone (the stars and planets all need to align) --including "luck" as Kathryn said--in order to get the American Dream. Meaning, even if you do everything right and work your butt off, as you have done, you STILL may not be able to achieve and maintain the American Dream (which is hard for me to imagine, but I've experienced it first-hand, too). Unfortunately, healthy wealthy people rarely understand these things from our perspective: having already achieved the American Dream, they can't understand why their method for doing it just doesn't work for everyone. And luck/fate/etc. definitely has something to do with it all, unfortunately. Good fortune doesn't smile on everyone, no matter what they do.

            1. rhamson profile image78
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Actually Laura Schneider I was not offering critisism to your post as I was making an observation that seems to get lost in the mix of things here. Maybe my story is atypical for some and beyond reason for others but I believe you are correct in saying that luck has something to do with it. I have seen it for others who I have met along the way and scratched my head wondering how they got to where they are.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Keep the boundaries as put forth in the Constitution in place. They guarantee power for the people by limiting the power of government. Too many commerce and business regulations, overprinting and devaluing the dollar by a for-profit private central bank, (Federal Reserve) vote-buying politicians,  the "fining"  of those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance, etc.
      All this must stop.
      Let us have the freedom to pursue our interests and dreams.
      Let the economy percolate through the love of work and independence that is inherent in human nature!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        By keeping interest rates low the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing program has singlehandedly prevented a second recession.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          temporarily and falsely. Let the market work naturally.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In other news, the US economy contracted during the last quarter of 2012...

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              - exactly.

  4. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    I think we're asking the wrong question. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask why the poor should support the wealthy?

    1. 0
      HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can you expand on that one? In what ways do the poor support the wealthy?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can you expand on the bit where I said "always" ?

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The poor support "some" of the wealthy by paying taxes which are not proportionate to their earnings. "Some" of the wealthiest in society choose to dodge and evade paying their fare share of taxes, yet still obtain the services which, for the most part, are actually paid by the poor and middle classes. A talented accountant can work wonders.

    2. galleryofgrace profile image81
      galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Congrats Hollie- well said!

  5. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Lol, this is funny to watch.

    Cheap labor and parts means more wealth for a country. The problem is, we have government making some things too expensive for most, and we have people who aren't content unless they can 'keep up', no matter how much they have.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, cheap labour means more people unable to afford the goods you make.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's pointless John.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not what Henry Ford thought.
          http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/p … llar-a-day

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I meant trying to debate economic principles with John. He spends half his time making up stuff that I supposedly said, and the other half ignoring what I do say.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              plus, he is sitting across the ocean somewhere in Britain.

  6. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    A/ The rich shouldn't pay more, but as much as the other social categories. No more loopholes. When we know that the oil companies are exempt of taxes, why?
    B/ A government is by, for, with the people therefore it is exclusively its responsibility. In every action, production, the government takes its share. The economy without the people (as a producer, as a buyer) doesn't function. The government exists through the people.
    C/ When an economy reaches a high level of inflation, when unemployment rate increases, in what way A, B or C are responsible?

  7. 60
    hubclairepageposted 3 years ago

    I think Yes. For a simple reason that rich people have/gets higher salary/income versus poor people who have/gets less and can't even afford what rich people can - computation wise it's reasonable. Personal responsibility should not keep us from helping out others. Not because we have so much it would make us think of our own interest alone.

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do they need what rich people have, I work for a company and the owner has a jet, I can't afford a jet, do I need a jet?

  8. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    Interesting scenario, completely devoid of any rational argument, but extremely interesting! I dunno, maybe I've just got the whole thing upside down. So, perhaps you can explain to me A) What is the point of investment in enterprise if not the ability to create funds (our $500) B) Do banks really buy and sell bonds in the knowledge that the exchange of debts is not a profit maker? And C) Why would an organisation, for example Google, Amazon, Vodaphone- actually decide that funds paid by their customers should actually be diverted to other countries, whereby they bypass countries which have more, well, not more stringent but some tax laws at least, if not to inflate the profits that they have made?

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I was simply asking you to demonstrate how transferring money from one person to another creates new money. Can't do it? Showing an example of a money transfer is 'devoid of rational argument'?

      Right.

      I didn't say money isn't created, but that's not how it is created. Everything you are talking about is the pursuit of profit. Not creating money.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Come on Holly, be honest.

        Carl works for John. John pays Carl $200. Did that create money, or transfer the money from one person to another?

        No, Jaxson, you asked me a question. I'd actually answered prior to that, perhaps you did not read the post. Transferring money always creates new money- that's a given or societies and monetary systems would not function the way that they do. I GAVE examples of how the transference of money creates new money. Look to your beloved tax dodgers and those who exploit the most vulnerable people for the answers- It's all there on a plate if you are only prepared to open your eyes. Come on Jaxson, what's wrong, can't prove otherwise?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then show me an example of how transferring money creates new money. I showed you several examples of money transfer, and no new money was created.

          Your examples aren't about creating new money. You're talking about maximizing profits, not creating new money.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Then show me an example of how transferring money creates new money. I showed you several examples of money transfer, and no new money was created.

            Your examples aren't about creating new money. You're talking about maximizing profits, not creating new money.

            No you didn't. You gave me some ludicrous example of how you gave me money ( I did also notice that you didn't mention in exchange for labour) in a completely unrealistic scenario.

            Easy, maximising profits involves the work of others, recent graduates for example (particularly those that are offay with tax law) recent graduate buys new house, new furniture, spends his disposable income, in part at least, on new clothes, iphone, holidays- and then has some to invest in new business. If he decides to invest in ethical business, he wont make too much too quickly- but he's contributing to wealth creation. If he decides that he wants to get rich quick, he wont create new wealth. He'll probably just get mugged.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I gave an example of a transfer of money. There was X amount of dollars before the transfer, and X amount of dollars after the transfer.

              None of the examples you listed show how new money is created by transferring hands.

              If I have $500, and you have $500, and I give you my $500, did we create new money? No, there was $1000 before, and $1000 after. Hard to understand, I know...

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Methinks you've moved the goal posts. The argument was about giving more money to poorer people to stimulate the economy and get more money circulating in it.
                You seemed to be arguing that this was a bad idea.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I never said it was a bad idea. Not even close.

                  I said that giving more money to employees doesn't create new money, and it doesn't. I've very clearly demonstrated that, and I believe you agreed with me.

        2. 0
          HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, like John, you're confusing "money" with "value".

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Again, like Jaxson, you always decline to give a proper and reasoned response.

            1. 0
              HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Allow me to explain then. Your point is that transferring money creates money...



              That's just simply not the case. The only thing that "creates new money" is a fluctuation in value- period. It's the most basic economic principle, you've heard about it all your life, it's called "supply and demand".

              When supply = demand, no "new money" can be created, no matter how much you transfer, it will always have the same value.

              When supply < demand, then "new money" can be created because there is and imbalance in the equation, in this case, the value of the supply raises because the demand for it has increased.

              When supply > demand, new money can be created because the low demand creates a surplus, forcing prices down.

              Again, fluctuations in value are the only thing that creates new money.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is a circular argument. New money is created when employment is created. Higher levels of employment equates to higher incomes (the value of the worker peaks when there is a shortage of labour or it is not as abundant as it has previously been)

                Innovation and scientific/technological advances are a prime example when it comes to the creation of new money. There was no demand for an iphone before it's invention,  or the internet, or a microwave for that matter. There was of course a potential market, but not demand. Demand was created by offering choice over an above what the consumer already had. New products/services require new/additional skills leads to the development of new business. New business leads to the creation of new money.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  New money is not created when new employment is created.

                  If I hire someone, and pay him to do nothing, is money being created, or is it transferring from me to him?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why, or who on earth would create jobs and then pay the new employee to do nothing?

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You wouldn't hire someone and pay them to do nothing unless you were daft- you'd pay them to do something because you need their skills/labour, your business needs their skills in order to survive. The disposable income that the worker ploughs into his local economy generates new money/jobs/wealth.

                    This is an extract from studies undertaken by the New Economics Foundation. It relates to agriculture but should give you some indication of how the transference of money creates new money.

                    "A study of the job dividend through localized food was conducted by the New Economics Foundation. This found that £10 spent on a local organic box scheme in Cornwall generates £25 for the local economy (a radius of 24 km from the farm), compared with £14 if spent in a supermarket. The research suggested that if every person, tourist and business switched only 1% of their current spending to local goods and services, an additional £52 million would be put into the local economy annually.[46]"

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I did give a proper response. Your examples were all about maximizing profit. They had nothing to do with creating new money.

              Please, show us an example. I want to see an example that has more money after money transfers hands than before it transfers hands.

  9. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    It  may be off topic, it may not be.
    http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/284926.html

  10. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Should the rich have more tax loopholes and ways to hide their money versus the poor? Don't get me wrong, I am not poor and do not rely on government supplements to live. It's easy to dismiss the poor as a needy group of people that do not deserve a free lunch... I get it! But, think about this, why do some of the biggest companies use over-seas laborers to make products that they in turn sell to American citizens? CHEAP LABOR!!!!!

    Who will make these products that the RICH sell if not those who provide in-expensive labor? Would the company still be profitable without? How should those people survive? Maybe big business should pay workers more money so they would not have to depend on public services. If they paid more money for work, they could not profit as high and thus would not be as wealthy, right? Maybe the business model would not work at all. The problem is much deeper then the wealthy supporting the poor. The wealthy make money on the backs of poor people. The least they could do is help out a little!

    1. tammybarnette profile image59
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a beneficiary of Social Security, and I resent the idea of having my benefits reduced (via Chain CPI) in order to pay for Bush tax cuts for billionaires, two unnecessary wars and an un-financed Medicare drug program. Not to mention oil subsidies, carried interest loopholes for crooked hedge fund operators, etc.

    3. 60
      hubclairepageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I totally agree with what you said LucidDreams. smile
      especially with your last statement "The wealthy make money on the backs of poor people. The least they could do is help out a little!"

      1. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        For the sake of the conversation though, how would you answer people who say that, if the "poor people" feel they are being mistreated, or exploited by an employer, they can choose to quit?

        To put it another way, consider the following hypothetical:

        Bob goes to work for Bigmart. When he applied for the job, he knew that it was for minimum wage, and he still chose to take it. Bob is a hard worker, and a model employee, but Bigmart never offers him more than his minimum wage job. At minimum wage, Bob can barely keep a roof over his head, and keep his family fed. He can't afford healthcare and is even looking into going on public assistance just to help make it through.

        My question is:

        A) Does Bigmart have any additional responsibility to Bob, other than his agreed upon wages?
        B) If so, what is the source and extent of that obligation?

        1. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If you use this scenario in todays economy, I would say this....Bob probably took this job because he wanted the decency of providing for his family versus asking for money from the government to survive. If the money is not enough to survive, this just shows how the minimum wage structure fails and business is more then happy to use this to their advantage.

          If Bob has to supplement his income with food stamps or welfare checks, it's hardly his fault since Bigmart is not willing to adjust his income enough to meet basic survival.

          On the flip side, Bigmart can not complain about paying higher taxes which goes to the government to support the poor when Bigmart is the cause of this problem.
          Bigmart is free to prosper and pay people minimum wage if this is the model they choose.
          Bob is free to quit and go on public assistance if it provides a better life based on the fact that Bigmart and other hiring companies choose to profit using minimum wage as their platform.

          I personally pay my employess VERY WELL based on work they perform. Better pay does not always equal better workers but being paid based on productivity is the model that works for me!

          I'm not rich and I would rather do well and have people working with me do the same versus getting rich off their backs while crying about paying higher taxes to help poor people who need it.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I like this too.

  11. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Just a quick link even though outdated by a few years, worth looking at and understanding.

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ … _3G_growth

    Our economy is very diversified and depends on ALL sectors of the population to be sucessful. Shunning the poor will not help anyone. The wealthy understand this point very clearly when pushed!

    Of course the wealthy do not want to pay for the poor, they also would prefer to not pay taxes! The wealthy also understand if you take away the poor peoples meager ways of survival, they will not continue to work for poverty class wages thus sending the wealthy peoples business into chaos and bankruptcy.

    Can't have it both ways.................

  12. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    A. no
    B. no
    C. when they reach legal age - which in my house was 6 years old.
    my children learned to gather eggs, clean chickens, feed the animals, and place wood in the smoke house.  today, my grandchildren are still doing these same things.
    as a healthy farmer, I have never created unemployment.
    We still butcher our own animals and consume our own produce.

    the government created unemployment when they told me I could not grow crops because they did not want more people working on the farm.
    the politicians that created this were college graduates who then created further unemployment because inflation then created problems for manufacturers.
    the politicians got very wealthy while many citizens just got to be poor.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83