Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
0Yes or No John.
Better off is pretty easy to determine. If you had to go through it again, would you rather have the job available, or have no job? - JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
John, it sounds like if you were starving, you would complain if someone gave you a bowl of plain rice. I mean, they could afford to give you a steak and salad! GEEZE!
No, if I was starving and somebody give me bowl of rice I would be inordinately grateful.
If I did a days work for that man and he gave me enough money to buy a bowl of rice then I would not be grateful.I don't think you would be grateful, your attitude in this thread has been the exact opposite.
If you were broke, no job, and someone said 'I'll give you $50 to clean out my garage, will probably take you 8 hours', you would take the job and complain that he's not giving you enough money.
Edit: clarification here. Job = rice. Get it?Wrong, if a neighbour offered me $25 to clean out his garage and it took me two days I'd probably do it I'd probably still do it. Although once when I was broke I offered my services to a friend for £X a day, he told me to pee off he wouldn't pay me any less than £X+ a day.
If however either of them had been making hundreds a day off my labour I might well have viewed it all differently.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Oh, sorry John. Apparently in the UK it's called an Aunt Sally. Does that make you understand what you're doing if I say Aunt Sally?
wow...learn something new every day here!
Lol. I love the dodging of questions. My favorite part is the willful ignorance/dishonesty.
This is a typical JaxsonRaine argument. Filled with over simplification and random misdirection to prove an unlikely outcome. I know, I try once in awhile to make sense of his arguments.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Who cares what they are making off of it?
Lol, so you're willing to take a crummy job to keep from starving, but only if the person who is offering you the job isn't making money off you?
You show them. Refuse that job and starve in protest! It makes no sense!
Either you are grateful for the chance to make money, or you're not. To get the conclusions you reach, you have to care about the world in relative terms, not absolutes. You have to care more about making as much money as that rich guy than how much you are actually making.
You should probably move to Malaysia... you can easily get by on $1000 a month, in a 2500 sq-ft home.Jaxon...Madoff was grateful for the chance to make $67 billion in 17 years off his customers. Kozlowski was too. The Enron bois, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling? Bernie Ebbers? All fine upstanding men of business who couldn't earn their wealth without ripping someone else off. Please spare us the gospel of the hard earned wealth. The US has more examples of hard earned wealth that came from those you demonize...the poor and the Middle Class. You should probably move to North Korea. You may not be wealthy but your gospels of hard work will be right up the alley of North Korean government.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Did I mention the $1000/month includes a maid to do all your housework and cooking?
How is it you omitted to mention that $7,000 shower curtain Kozlowski had to have in his ultra luxurious office? His new office is a prison cell and his new wardrobe is an orange suit. But how about that $2 million birthday party he gave his wife who is now his ex-wife.
Do some research. Every one of the Robber Barons of the 1900's either committed suicide after the Crash of '29 or they ended up penniless and in jail. Gee...things haven't changed much since the 1920's Robber Baron era.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
No John, I don't deny saying those things.
Neither of those statements is 'The poor should have to give away all their money'. "Neither of those statements is 'The poor should have to give away all their money'."
Their labour is their money, you would have them work for little reward for their labour, that is giving away money.No, a person working for $8/hr is giving away ALL OF THEIR MONEY!
They have, literally, NO MONEY!
Those little green slips of paper must be something other than money. Let's call it currency
Why bother? You can just buy stuff with your labor! lol
Yeah, I know, I just bought a Rolex the other day with 3 hours labor.
Did you work for 3 hours, or just somehow give him 3 hours of labor in exchange for it? I wonder how transferring labor from one person to another works... do you suck out the energy chemicals in your muscles and inject them in the other person?
Its like a check, I wrote "3 hours labor" and he gave me a Rolex.
WTF! Where did you get a labor-checkbook? That's awesome, I want one, and I'm going to buy a jet with it.
Thats like 10 hours labor, are you willing to give 10 hours labor.
Let me check my labor balance.
Approximately 45 years maximum, 8 hours a day maximum(yeah, I'm lazy).
I've got over 110,000 hours of labor left, so sure.
It's easy actually, just exchange one hours labour for $8.
A $24 Rolex! They saw you coming.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
1 - Labor is not money. Can you pay for things on Amazon by giving Amazon your labor?
2 - Exchanging labor for $8/hr is absolutely not giving away all your money, because YOU HAVE MONEY. So if I work for 10 hours, I have $80. How can I have $80 if I gave away all my money????
You're really getting into the ridiculous now.No, but you sell your labour to somebody, remember, money replaces barter. Nobody would ever barter their cow for one egg.
Fine, you are happy to be exploited, but don't wish it on others.
As ridiculous as you?
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
John, why do you ignore so much of what I say? Simple little questions, is typing 'yes' or 'no' or '3' too difficult?
I want to know which job you would take among the three I listed.Which ever of the three I took I would still be exploited.
(Sorry, I just saw this post today)
Because they earn very little in a day's work, in comparison to the wealthy who earn more in interest on their investments in that same day plus a plush salary in a corner office. If lower-paid workers did not exist, the wealthy would not exist, for this is not a situation like a gold-rush where the wealthy and the poor are equally likely to dig up a large nugget of wealth. Read my apartment-renters description (somewhere in this thread) for an easy example of the poor being forced to support the wealthy. One addendum: there was some sort of NEED for the two people to share an apartment, hence the lower-paid person was forced into supporting the higher-paid person, thereby lowering their relative wealth and increasing the wealth (in this case, in the form of a posh lifestyle) of the other. It's a good hypothetical example that almost everyone can understand.The wealthy person is not forcing a poorer person to rent a more expensive apartment, I don't see how that is supposed to apply to real life. You can't say they both need the same apartment, cause that's not how life works.
In real life, the top 1% of Americans make 16% of all the income. Fair would be if they paid 16% of all the taxes, right? Well, they pay 37% of all the taxes. How can someone who pays a smaller share be said to be supporting the person who pays a larger share?
That would be like sharing an apartment, the wealthy person pays $800/month, and the poor person pays $200/month, and you claim that the poor person is supporting the wealthy person. By definition, it is the exact opposite.Jaxson, don't you get it when someone defines the rules of a scenario you've got to live by them? And did you ever try to think outside the box to find scenarios in real life to which this could apply?
Okay, fine, sorry, maybe I'll be more specific than I wanted to be about this not-so-hypothetical example: my fiance (at the time) and I "needed" to share the same apartment, and I made a lot less than $50k and he made a lot more than $100k. The apartment was a lot more expensive, too. So I ended up spending 50% of my income on housing whereas he spent about 20% (when we each paid the same dollar amount, that is). So, he still had 80% of his money to buy stuff with, like his MR2 Turbo, which we had to buy garage space for (I paid half--grr) and I only had 50% of my income to spend. We also shared utilities, food, etc. If we had been married, it wouldn't have mattered so much, but we weren't. A few months after we moved into the apartment I explained thee inequality in expenses and we quicklly switched to equal percents.
(skipping the part on taxes, which vary state to state and you don't seem to understand federal taxes either)
By definition, Jaxson, I was funding his wealthy lifestyle because we'd have to eat out most every night, shop at the expensive grocery store (with carpeting), etc. By definition, I was funding his lifestyle. If we'd shopped at the regular supermarkets and such, then in those areas we might come out more equal. But still not equal. Again, after I pointed out the inequality, he did fix it. In your last paragraph, if the 800/200 were percents (80/20) of their incomes (net, not gross), then by definition they would be more equal: each person contribulting an equal amount of their income to the common good.
You're still confused about the different between equal percents and equal dollar amounts, Jaxson. In a normal economy, an equal percent of income might be fair (I'd have to do some heavy math to make sure and I don't have time at the moment). But, to get back to the "normal economy" point, we need an algorithmic curve that puts more of the tax burden on the rich and super-rich to bring up the middle and lower classes and provide healthcare for everyone.
(Yeah, he let me drive the MR2 turbo upon occasion--it was a total blast! Could compete off the line (0-60) with the low-end Ferrarris, plus it was fun driving an exotic car--only about 2,000(? somewhere in there) of that body style--Mark II-- were ever imported into the US.).I'm confused. You weren't forced into that arrangement, when you spoke up about how you didn't feel it was fair, the arrangement was changed, and that is supposed to show that the wealthy force the poor to do things? I honestly don't understand, you weren't forced to do anything.
Don't skip the part on taxes... I understand them. Those figures are from the IRS. How are the people paying twice as much per dollar as the rest of the nation being supported?
You weren't being forced to fund his lifestyle. Did he hold a gun to your head? A choice is not the same as being forced, your scenario doesn't apply, at all.
So, you WANT the rich to pay more, because they have more. Fine. But, that doesn't mean the poor are subsidizing the rich, because the poor aren't paying federal taxes, and the rich are.Jaxson, if you send me your email address I will reply to this post offline--some stuff I don't want on the Internet. I trust you'll keep the information private.
The same goes for wilderness and John, of course. I'll send you all the same message at once. Maybe some dawning of reality will set in...
Laura, thanks but no thanks. No need for you to air your laundry in public for some of us to understand your point.
Ignoring the fact that is was your fiancee (and that certainly changes things), he subsidized you, not the other way around. He picked up the cost for a lifestyle that you couldn't (or didn't want to) afford, you never paid any of the cost for his expensive lifestyle. This is called "sharing the wealth" or "redistributing the wealth"; it's not called "fair" by anyone on the paying end.
If you were my fiancee, I would more than happy to agree to your second scenario, but as a stranger I would not be pleased at all for you to declare that I must decrease my lifestyle so as to provide you with something you want but can't or won't afford.So Laura was paying 50% of the rent and fiancée was paying 20% and yet he was subsidising her!
It'll take me a week or two to get my head round that one!No, they were each paying $2000/month or whatever. Since they were both paying the same dollar amount, and since she voluntarily decided to do so, somehow she was being forced into subsidizing him. That was the argument.
I didn't read anything about being forced. The fact that somebody enters into an agreement knowingly does not mean they are not being taken advantage of.
Well that's what the argument is... she was being forced to subsidize her fiancee's lifestyle, by agreeing to live with him and share costs...
If someone enters an agreement to share costs with someone else, they are absolutely not being taken advantage of.But sharing costs is different when there is such a great discrepancy between two people's incomes. Another simpler scenario: If you're meeting someone for coffee and the one of you who suggested the meeting and meeting place has a high-paying job and the other has been out of work for some time, don't you think it would be by far the most fair and reasonable for the employed person to pick up the check, which is inconsequential to that person? Wouldn't you at least consider it rude if the person with the high-paying job didn't volunteer to pick up the unemployed person's tab just because they know that person is down on their luck?
It would be nice for the wealthy person to pick up the check, but someone shouldn't be ordering coffee if they can't afford it. No forcing involved.
I very often do just that - invite a friend or family to coffee or dinner and then pick up the tab as they can't afford to.
But, Laura, that is a very poor metaphor for the rich supporting the poor. A better one might be someone going into the coffee shop alone, ordering coffee and then, spotting a Mercedes driving, up demands that the rich stranger pick up the tab.
That was the original argument. wilderness was commenting on the second part of the scenario, after the people are each paying the same percent of their income to equal the rent and such.
Although Laura doesn't specify actual numbers, she does say that she paid less than her fiancee (after "renegotiating" their agreement). She paid less than half the rent, he paid more than half of the rent.
Where your numbers are coming from I have no idea - can you elucidate?From Laura's post!
"So I ended up spending 50% of my income on housing whereas he spent about 20% "Which is not, as you said earlier, that she paid 50% of rent and he paid 20% of rent.
Funny how you are so smart and perceptive but could not work out that that was what I meant!
How am I ever supposed to know what you mean? You will say 'X' and then 5 pages later say 'I never said X', and when I quote you, you will say 'Well I know I said X, what I meant to say was Y' and then when we talk about Y you'll move onto Z...
Just read the posts carefully and literally, Jaxson. John (and I) aren't trying to confuse or mislead you about anything.
I honestly thought the apartment-sharing example was drop-dead obvious: the person who insisted on living in the apartment above one of the Chicago Bears, rather than staying in the affordable apartment they were already in, should have to pay more (in relation to what he makes) than the other person (who is still paying more than before, just not a higher percentage of her income than the higher-paid person.
It's also like a see-saw: sometimes you need more kids on one side to balance out the other, even if it's not fair that 3 kids get to ride on one side and only 2 on the other: in the sense that it makes the ride work better and as-intended by its maker, they are [relatively] equal. (Where I mean "relatively" as a mathematical term, not just as plain speech).
If, company-wide, you give everyone a raise of 5% of their salaries, that's equal and fair for the lower-paid employees but grossly inadequate to a highly paid exec. (here's where I need to insert the math again). So, in this case, the wealthy person would be receiving PROPORTIONATELY more than they were before and so would every other employee: they would pretty much all receive a different amount in their future paychecks.
(Oh I hope I said all that right, I am totally falling asleep. Goodnight!)Lol, John was saying that I shouldn't read his post literally, but I should know what he meant.
I swear, these forums get so messed up when people start answering for other people.
I don't know what's so confusing. If he insisted on living in an expensive apartment, that didn't force you to live there. Honestly, if I couldn't agree with my fiancee about financial matters, that would be the end of it, because finances are one of the biggest causes of divorce. You need that foundation to agree upon for a successful marriage. There was no forcing, so it doesn't apply to a discussion about forcing.
it is the responsibility of all of mankind to try to take care of the less fortunate. Here in America we have many hungry people. Many more than one would imagine. And its really sad that we have this problem in one of the richest countries in the world. Yes the rich should help to support the poor. I really believe that the more wealthy you are the more you should pay in taxes. But first we need to look after the people here at home. The people here in America.
Lets figure out why they are poor first.
Why are they poor?
feed a man a fish... he is not hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will survive on his own.
how can we help the poor by feeding them fish?
we need to help them on their feet. We need to start with their mothers. We need to start right there.
I mean right
there.
!"Why are they poor? "
Many reasons, some within, some beyond their control. The destiny of many depends on the circumstances of their birth. Others, bad luck. Others poor health and inadequate care. Others discrimination of various kinds. There is no single cause, certainly not the laziness of "takers," nor a single simple Horatio Alger answer.
rhamson, in Jaxsons world everybody is privileged, nobody is short of money and nobody is short of opportunity. They almost certainly have rich parents and all are married to wealthy professionals.
One day he'll wake up.- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
John, in my world, there are plenty of disadvantage, poor people who make a great future for themselves. I was not privileged, received nothing in the way of work, connections, or finances for schooling from my parents, was struggling with my family week to week, and even with severe health issues we managed to scrape together enough money to start a business.
There is no waking up from reality.The preposterous conclusion of this story apparently being "since I did this (accepting it's a true story) everyone can" where as statistically such a story is relatively rare, most Americans never leave the socio economic strata they were born into but of course in your mind you succeeded by working harder and being smarter, the truth of a whole lot of luck being involved an uncomfortable thing to be swept under the carpet.
By the way were your parents in sufficient need that they received government aid?My parents qualified for aid but never took it.
It's not as rare as you think. The problem is you will point to a study comparing different countries, which ignores wealth inequality of those countries. If the difference between the bottom 1% and top 1% in one country is $20,000 and $30,000, it's easier to go from bottom to top than in a country where the difference is $20,000 and $250,000.
But, on a fixed-dollar basis, people move around all the time. I think only about 33% of people remain in the same quintile from decade to decade.If you weren't receiving aid then you were not poor, the first rule of actual poverty is people will do anything they can to relieve it.
Yes because those countries also have better wealth distribution which causes both those things which is precisely what this conversation is about.
Fixed dollar is a preposterous measure it is affected by inflation just for starters.You've never heard of pride?
My neighbors started out living in a chicken coop. Were they poor because they didn't take aid?
If someone makes $15k, and takes aid, they are poor, but if they refuse it, they aren't? Sorry, that's not how I define poor.
I'm perfectly fine with people saying it's harder for people to move, percentage-wise, in income in America. I don't care about what percentile I'm in. I'd rather be in the bottom 20% earning $100,000 than in the top 1% earning $20,000. That's why I don't care about percentiles.
I think only about 33% of people remain in the same quintile from decade to decade.
You think or you know?
But plenty of opportunity to wake up from your never world.
I don't believe for one moment that you were born to impoverished parents living in a ghetto and shunned by prospective employers because of your address.
I think you have little life experience and are incapable of seeing life through another's eyes.I wasn't in a ghetto, but I definitely wasn't privileged. I wore hand-me-downs until I got my own job(yeah, I got beat up in school for wearing 10-year old clothes with holes).
I went to a junior college where I could drive my monthly expenses down to about $400/month, worked part time, and went to school full-time.
The one time I had any money it all was lost to medical bills, but I still worked hard. Now we are making much more money than we need to pay our bills, and getting ready to make a move that will allow us to live the lifestyle we want at the price we are willing to pay.Bully for you, but don't assume that everybody else can do the same.
If they could your life would be so much harder.You too Josak, I sort of lost interest for a while but remembered that there are dragons to be slain
Why would my life be harder? The more people who are successful and working, the more wealth is being created, the more demand there is, the more job opportunities there would be.
It would be better for everyone if everyone was producing.It's this very reason why aid is so essential, aid allows people to become educated, to acquire skills, to not starve, it is essential for our economic advancement, an educated populace is useful to everyone and particularly to entrepreneurs who need those technical skills.
As an example in Australia university is publicly funded, one third of the cost is returned once a person is making more than $40 000 AUD a year since that law was introduced university completion has gone from about 2% of the total population to 47% of the population and Australia has been one of the most economically successful nations in the world.I suppose that your vanity extends to believing that you would be the best, most efficient and cheapest producer and that there wasn't somebody willing to work for $8/hr and blow you out of the market!
?
Seriously, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
You said my life would be harder if more people were successful, I disagreed. I didn't say I'm the best or most efficient or cheapest. Newsflash: I'm already not the cheapest for what I do.
It's sad the way you think of me, where you read so much into what I say that simply isn't there.Sadly, I read nothing into what you say that isn't amply demonstrated.
I read you as a person without empathy for his fellow man.What you call 'amply demonstrated' is exactly what I'm referring to, reading into what isn't there.
I have plenty of empathy for people who are in hard times, and doing everything they can to make it better. Sadly, the old work ethic has been dying out for a long time, so there just aren't as many of those as there used to be.Empathy includes not condemning your fellow man to live off wages that make him worse off than a slave and understanding that not everybody is the same, or has the same ability.
You have no understanding of other peoples motives or situation.Good thing I haven't condemned anybody to live off wages that make them worse off than a slave.
Good thing I understand that not everybody is the same.
If you actually read what I post, you would find that viewpoint clearly expressed. But, you ignore much of what I say anyway.Jaxson, you have said countless times that some are only worth $8 an hour, you have said countless times that if you can get together $2000 and start a business then so can anybody else.
Just to avoid giving you the opportunity of splitting hairs lets change said to implied!Splitting hairs? Lol.
Said and implied are entirely different. If someone agrees to work for $8/hr, then that is all they are entitled to through that agreement. Doesn't mean they can't do better, and I never said they can't do better. I actually said they can do better.
But you want to play both sides, claiming that I'm implying that people are simultaneously ONLY worth $8/hr, but have the potential to do more! How could that be?
When speaking in generalities, exceptions are put to the side. This is because it's impossible to have a discussion while addressing every eventuality. I have acknowledged plenty of times that there are people who can't fend for themselves, and I'm fine with society taking care of them.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Josak, I'm perfectly willing to accept certain government programs.
The problem is, our programs are designed, more and more, just to give stuff to people. The requirements are loosened, the expectations are lowered. I'll never, ever, ever, support hand-out programs. I do not have many “educated” things to say because I am very young and have not experienced these things that are being discussed. However, I have done some reading on things and while I am not fully informed on the current economic situation--nor would I be able to understand half of it--I feel I must express how I see things turning out for the United States in the years to come.
I have little knowledge of economics myself; I am just now in my introductory economics class. However, what I have grasped so far is the basics of certain economic systems. As far as I know, the United States is a modified free-enterprise economy, which includes offering products and services to the population with little government interference. We are based on capitalism, and much of our economy seems to show proof of this, yes. Also, I believe we incorporate certain aspects of other systems into our own including socialist, market, and communist ideas (yes, I said communist!). From what I have learned so far, there are three basic economic systems:
The market economy, which is what I believe we are somewhat based on.
The command economy, which is what communist nations have (e.g. Cuba, North Korea).
and
The traditional economy, which is fairly rare in the modern era.
From what I have gathered from reading these comments, I am seeing this country delving into a larger mix of the command economy, much of which focuses on the higher governmental power making large profits, while providing as many wealth, health, and housing services to the general population. Along with fixed wages--which we do not have, aside from the federal minimum wage--the population lives on their basic needs, yet are allowed singularly no “wants.”
In a basic market economy, neither the government nor the producers can provide enough money (e.g. job salaries) or goods (e.g. food, shelter) to fulfill the basic needs of the masses.
What I'm trying to say is, with the mass amount of welfare systems (e.g. food stamps), we as a nation seem to be wavering towards the brink of a command economy. Attempting to provide every member of this nation's society with all the care and welfare services through government programs is impossible and impractical. In due time, I think our society will become utterly dependent on the government for their needs, either because of the lack of incentive or the ease with which they can accept this “help” to provide for them. All jobs will be selected for the citizens to “benefit” the economy, every person will receive their food, shelter and clothing, and the high power will remain just that: the high power. Now, I know that a family cannot live happily, necessarily, on government services . . . but that is currently. I also know that not every impoverished person “takes advantage” of the system, and that many people--if not most--truly need the help. However, if we as a nation continue to be dependent on our government to aid us with every thing, we will lose that freedom with which this nation is based upon. It is a slow, gradual process, but I think it is possible that it could happen.
This is a very loose interpretation I have made; as I have said, I do not have much knowledge on these matters, but it is my current opinion.
Please, feel free to enlighten me on the subject or correct any statements I have made. I love reading the debating between the forums on these things, whether or not I can fully understand what is being said.
I hate to say this, but at this rate you will never make a very good liberal. You already have a grasp of this subject far beyond what they can manage.
About the only thing I would disagree with is the notion we can't provide for everyone; we easily have the capability to provide basic needs for everyone in the country, as long as all of those that can, work. We can even go quite a bit beyond those basic necessities, if able bodied people will work. It is only when we see such a huge percentage that won't work, or that demand we provide luxuries they can't afford themselves, that we run into trouble.
That giving people the ability to vote themselves bread and circuses (necessities and luxuries) at government expense has been known to be a pitfall of democracy for many decades. We just don't want to hear it; better to hide our head in the sand and pretend otherwise while we do the "right" thing in providing luxuries for the poor while driving the country to bankruptcy.I really do not believe we are providing luxuries for the poor. For one thing, poor people have very little, that is because they are poor. Having something must feel pretty good once in awhile.
Our country is not going to the poorhouse because we help those in need. Stop the politicians from accepting lobbyist donations and stand up for what they truly believe in!
If we could get the, Whitehouse, congress and senate to stop adding pork to every little thing and possibly agree on something once in awhile versus being politically divided, we may actually get our country back!
The other point I would like to make is, stop believing everything one political newcast says in regards to how things and politics should work. Open your mind and realize that nothing is cut and dried as far left or far right make it. Form your own opinions not based on party. You will be surpised how clear things get when you take the bias out of the formula!Sorry, I don't view cellphones as a necessity of life. Nor cable TV (or any TV at all for that matter). Necessities are food, shelter and clothing; anything more is a luxury. Your own statement that having something must feel pretty good once in a while is indication that more than basic necessities are being given.
Yes, we are going to the poorhouse. Our infrastructure is falling down around us every day, and it is partly due to excessive welfare. That it is also due to massive pork projects is irrefutable as well, but it doesn't change the fact that a part of the reason we are spending our future is for charity."Yes, we are going to the poorhouse. Our infrastructure is falling down around us every day, and it is partly due to excessive welfare."
It's mostly due to Bush tax cuts for the rich, two unnecessary, costly wars, an unfunded Medicare drug program written by Big Pharma and the deepest recession since the 1930s. Not to mention a defense budget bloated by unnecessary weapons and overseas military bases in 130 countries.No, Ralph it's not. Tax cuts for the rich are a tiny portion of our borrowing, they don't amount to a hill of beans in the total budget OR the deficit every year.
You may think the the wars were unnecessary (I don't as we needed to shut down the Taliban), but others disagree. You may also find modern weapons unnecessary, or foreign bases, but you are again mistaken. This reminds me a bit of Obama's claim to get out of the near east 4 years ago; he got into office, took a hard look at just what was going on and decided it couldn't happen. If you were privy to all the national defense information you would no doubt feel differently as well.
Medicare, yes, but Big Pharma didn't pass those laws - our beloved congress did, so don't blame pharmaceutical companies yet again for our bloated welfare programs. That's like blaming phone companies for free cell phones because they lobbied for them; lobby or not, congress passed the program. Ditto for the recession; the single biggest cause was charity in the form of "everyone can have a house".
We've crossed the line, long ago, in what we can as a country afford to give out as charity and if we continue to be the nanny for everyone we will absolutely find ourselves in a financial melt down that will make the recession look like the hay days of prosperity.Don't kid yourself, wilderness. "Big Pharma" has very deep pockets for buying off members of "our beloved congress", and likely big sticks for those congress members who don't vote their way. While true that our elected officials are supposed to represent us, the lure of money, a career after their term is up, re-election, college for their kids, a new car/house, and all manner of things makes it nearly impossible for the low-paid officials to resist. They should, but would you if you were offerred your paradise versus (whatever their "sticks" might be corresponding to their carrots)? The single biggest cause for the recession is and was short-sighted or unintelligent, maleable elected officials at all levels who gave in to the lobbiests rather than learn and then take action based on their peoples' needs and wants.
No argument there at all. Big Pharma is no different than hundreds of other lobbying groups such as the NRA and the farm lobby.
I agree as well on the cause of the recession in that declaring everyone should have a house was extremely short sighted and was actually intended to buy votes more than do anything for the people.Indeed, regretablly I must agree with you again. The qualified homeowners who lost their houses due to the recession (massive job cuts, business failures, interest rates out of control, etc.); unfortunately, they were punished along with the unqualified "winners" of homes they couldn't really afford in the beginning. And, as you say, "our beloved congress" suffered naught: a real tragedy. 'A government created of the people, by the people, and for the people'--perhaps no more? Perhaps the people can't think for themselves any more, but rather parrot what they hear from the other parrots around them.
That's the way I see it, all right. Honest, qualified homeowners are the ones that got hurt; those that bought a home they couldn't afford lost nothing. The rest of the nation has paid a huge price for them to "own" a house for a couple of years.
And yes, few people actually think anymore. Let the politician provide an emotion laden argument and they buy right into it without thinking, particularly if it's supposed to give them something they want but don't want to pay for. That we all pay in the long run is immaterial.Ha! I couldn't have said it better myself. (Unfortunately, I agree with you again. Sad topics, these.)
Gee 3 tax cuts for the rich in 10 years is a hill of beans? I think you need to get your facts straight. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2005 reported that a single tax cut made the 1% highest earners 11% wealthier. Not exactly a hill of beans if you are a billionaire or millionaire....must be why they fought so hard to get 2 more tax cuts right?
That's correct. What percentage of our 1.3 trillion dollar deficit is attributable to those tax cuts? 1%? 1/10%? While they undoubtedly made a difference to the individuals paying it those cuts have had almost zero effect on our deficit spending.
Nor did they make anyone 11% wealthier; while it might result in one year's income being 11% higher, they certainly didn't increase the total wealth of anyone by 11%. While I fully understand that you find it moral to steal from someone because they have more than you do, you need to at least not exaggerate the results of not stealing.
Dear Jm Bowen2012
You are doing very well thinking for yourself. I like that you are open to learn from others. Just be careful. Some philosophies do not take into consideration a bottom line concern...the individual. I would say do not be fooled into strategies that try to solve everyone's problem for them. Life is to be lived by individuals and should be left up to individuals. To not understand this is to not embrace life itself.
To put it another way, If we let the Government take away all our fun, then what will happen to us?
We'll either fall asleep...or become depressed. What is fun for mankind? Independence. Socialist and communist governments take that away. Yes they take away Independence. To buy into socialism or communism is to work against human nature. We thrive in a state of Independence...self reliance, which equals self guided free will. Take away the capability to be independent and you take away the true joy of life. We must help each other in many ways toward this end.
My personal rant:
One of the basic ways is starting before each child is allowed to enter the world... hint...with mothers and fathers... hint with mothers... hint... they should be careful and proactive...as in maybe they should be married to the right man before they have children. As in, maybe the "Love the one your with..." culture Must Die... as in, let's determine that our children acquire the
c a p a b i l i t y to be self-reliant...(educationally, spiritually and practically) for the child to survive before he is born. We might as well stop having children if we cannot be the kind of parents who love them enough to provide this sort of training and consciousness. This may seem radical to you growing up in this day and age.
It is not.
Someday it will be the norm.
Obviously, It starts with individuals
today.I am not advocating socialism or communism, but the idea that independence is human nature is a myth. We are not codependent either. We are naturally interdependent.
I agree. Same with natural evolution and social progression.
This man knows just how the world works. One cannot live on pure independence, nor on pure dependence. Why do you think democratic and republic nations have fallen? I do appreciate rights, but what nation has lived on for thousands of years? China. They have not had communism for very long, and it has shown signs of not working as with other communist countries. However, if one simply reads about the history of China, they may know just how to keep a nation standing on its two feet.
Greece and Rome were democratic and republic, respectively, and they did not last nearly as long as China. What does that say about this type of government?Democratic republics usually break down due to a loss of morals and many other reasons. The founders researched this.They implemented all the innovations of the Constitution to avoid the follies of the past. They knew history. They also knew that our Democratic Republic was an experiment.
Their intent was to preserve the God-given rights of self-guided free will and self-reliance in the pursuit of happiness within the boundaries of the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments or other religious precepts which help provide boundaries, morals and values toward some good.
We can't just do as we like without considering the effect of what we do on others."Democratic republics usually break down due to a loss of morals and many other reasons."
My impression is just the opposite. Democracies usually succeed, and the more democratic the greater their success. Civilization is gradually advancing the cause of human rights--slaves, women, minorities, gays and lesbians. And per capita income is increasing due to improvements in productivity stemming from developments in science and technology. And, bottom line people are living longer than ever before. We're far from perfection. I don't recall the figure, but an incredible number of children in the U.S. are living below the poverty line and lack health care.Democracies throughout history have not lasted beyond 200 years.
If my arithmetic is correct our U.S. democracy has lasted more than 200 years, as has England. Many countries around the world are becoming more democratic and more civilized. I suppose the answer depends on your definition of democracy. Many of the European countries strike me as having durable democratic governments.
Our democratic republic is sorta slipping before our eyes and has been. We should be able to keep it, though. I do have faith in that. It depends on how much we value the foundations of our democratic republic. How many other countries do you know that are representative republics?
you speak as if no one is an island.
however, history has proven that an individual can survive alone.
humans are hunter-gatherers by nature.
just like any other animal on the planet, humans possess a self-preservation motive.
it is through a positive attitude that individual humans succeed in self-preservation.
it is through a respect for others that the individual provides this same preservation capability to support others.
many current society members have become complacent through the advancement of technology.
however, technology alone cannot always adorn the individual with the food and water they need to sustain themselves.
history has shown that regardless of technology advancement for the society, the individual requires the capability to sustain themselves without all the conveniences.
those who possess such capability always persist in advancement, those who do not usually depart the earth quickly unless assisted by someone who knows the fundamentals.
anyone who believes the government will provide everything they need forever is living in a fantasy world - or a short life one.Crickets? No, I hear the thunderous sound 100 dead horses being kicked in rapid succession! I also hear the can being kicked down the road for our children to deal with. We must do away with the idea that we are not all connected. Google Kayapó, Guarani, Kichwa, Xingu. These are a few of the dwindling cultures in the world who are still in tune with their tribal nature.
If Jesus is interdependence, independence is God.
That's a great line, but the logic breaks down, sorry. Christianity also teaches that father, son, and holy Ghost are one and the same. If Jesus is God, then interdependence IS independence, which obviously isn't the case since they are two separate but related concepts.
Yes, it is the case! They are interrelated! How could you think otherwise?
I don't think otherwise--you originally said, "If Jesus is interdependence, independence is God." In that statement you are saying that there is a relationship between the words. I'm saying that Christianity teaches that Jesus = God, which would mean in your sentance that interdependence = independence, which obviously can't be true because they are two separate but related concepts. Interdependence≠independence, even if Jesus=God. (I think we're actually agreeing on this.)
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Taxes are included in the pricing of all goods and services. Federal income taxes aren't included because poor people don't pay them.
In an earlier post you mentioned being “ignorant about taxes,” so why are you debating about taxes? That's just my two cents.
My bad. I did not catch the sarcasm when you said it.
"Taxes are included in the pricing of all goods and services." That isn't true in every state. In Minnesota, for example, (unless this changed very recently) we have no tax on food, clothing, or services. In Alaska, the government pays the citizens to live and work there (not sure if it's the state or Federal government that pays that anti-tax). Probably other states have different tax laws as well. Indeed, perhaps tax-related matters are not your specialty.
JaxsonRaine-you are so wrong! All poor people pay federal income taxes if they even work a half a day a week.
Get your facts straight!What happens when they file their tax return? Ever heard of a refund? Personal exemptions, standard deductions, child tax credit, earned income credit, etc.
The average effective tax rate of the bottom 50% is actually negative, meaning they earn money off of taxes, rather than pay them. A family of 4 that makes $25,000 per year can easily get a $5,000 return, plus any amounts that were actually withheld.
I promise you I'm right about this, anyone who wants to challenge me I'll be happy to point you to a tax calculator or walk through a return with you(I've done it before).I don't challenge you. I've been doing taxes for over 40 years.
I challenge your statement that "Poor people don't pay federal income taxes." I am living proof.
After all my expenses from my self employment income- 3 k, I still had to deduct 200 from the refund for FEDERAL INCOME taxes.
Shame I don't have a spouse and 2 kids. Oh, excuse me that amount went to social security, and medicare so I can get my "Entitlement'.If you want to get nit-picky, you claimed that ALL poor people pay federal income tax, and that's demonstrably false.
I was speaking about the poor as a group. Yes, there are exceptions, but on average, the poor 'pay' a negative tax rate, and my point stands.SS and Medicare taxes are federal taxes in which the amounts can not be reduced or refunded. If you want to argue for a tax code with fewer deductions, that's a valid debate, but it isn't accurate at all to say that the poor don't put money into the system.
Reading really is fundamental. Go back and read what I said. If you still don't get it, I'll be happy to point out the part you aren't getting.
No, I understand your point completely. i'm just pointing out that you are lashing out against the wrong people.
FICA taxes are paid by anyone who has a job. Those are taxes that are paid no matter what your tax situation may otherwise be.
I don't really care about rebates, credits and deductions in this scenario because it doesn't change the fact that the poor do put money into the system. It's dishonest to say that the poor wrote these deductions into the tax code because as a general rule, the poor don't get politically active nor do they typically have much of a voice in Congress.Apparently, you don't understand my point. At all.
1 - Payroll taxes and income taxes are separate. I was speaking about federal income taxes, so FICA is irrelevant.
2 - It doesn't matter who wrote the deductions in. I stated that the poor(to clarify, as a group) don't pay federal income taxes, because they get so many refundable credits. They average a negative tax rate.
3 - I didn't say the poor wrote those deductions into the tax code, so how can it be dishonest to say something I didn't say?
4 - I'm not lashing out against the poor, although you seem to think so. Statements of fact are not attacks.Jaxson...You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I'd like to know which states allow anyone poor or not to get away with paying sales and use taxes on items they buy in their states that are taxed. My state (NJ) has a 7% tax and you pay it no matter what your income is. And where on earth did you get the idea that the poor get more refundable credits than the big bois of big business? Mitt Romney admitted his federal income taxes were 16% when the average Middle Class American pays 28 to 32% The only poor who pay NO taxes are those who have no known address. Even those on welfare have to refund welfare they received. The same is true of unemployment and disability. If you return to work that must all be paid back. Compare that to the 3 tax cuts the GAO reported increased wealth of 1% by 11% in 2004. How much more wealth was increased with 2 more tax cuts from the fed?
When the rich don't pay their fair share of federal income taxes and corporate taxes, the Middle Class has to fill in the gaps. There is currently over $33 Trillion...that's Trillion with a "T" in offshore tax free accounts. Tax free? as in the wealthy not paying taxes on that $33 trillion.RIF - Reading Is Fundamental.
1 - Do you know the difference between income tax and sales tax? Which was I talking about? I'll give you a hint: "I was speaking about federal income taxes
2 - Refundable credits are credits that can be used not only to offset tax owed, but actually be refunded to the taxpayer. Most credits are only used to offset taxes or liability. The most-used refundable credits are the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit. Both of those are paid to lower-income earners. The wealthy don't generally enjoy any kind of net-refund(negative tax rate), where the average poor person does.
3 - The average middle-class American does not pay 28-32% federal income taxes. Not even close. The top 1% of earners average 24%. People that make 0-32,000 average 1.85%(before refundable credits, it's actually negative). People that make 32,000-66,000 average 5.5%. That's straight from the IRS.
4 - As I pointed out, the rich pay more than their fair share. The top 1% earn 17% of the income, but rather than paying 17% of the taxes, they pay 37% of the taxes. more than double what an equal-share would be. The bottom 50% of Americans earn 13.5% of the income, and pay 2.5% of the taxes, less than one-fifth what an equal-share would be.
5 - Can you provide a source for the $33 Trillion you are talking about?Do you have any idea what you are talking about? People on unemployment don't repay what they got when they go to work, and neither do those in disability or welfare. The only exception is they got it illegally.
Sure, everyone pays state sales tax. Just not with money given to them by the federal government. There are an awful lot of people that pay no tax whatsoever out of their own pocket; it all comes from the govt and right back TO the govt. If you have $500 in food stamps, buy $400 worth of food and pay an additional $32 worth of tax on that food you still haven't paid any tax. Even if you spent all the food stamps of food and had to front the tax from your wallet you STILL received far more in goods than you paid for; the net cost to you is far less than the value of what you got because Uncle Sam paid for most of it.
When someone gets a $5,000 "refund" after paying no income tax all year, it pretty much takes care of the FICA. 7.5% of 25,000 is only $1875; far less than the "refund" of $5,000.
Net federal taxes is a negative number, unless you want to start adding up gas tax and such. Add in state taxes and yes, very nearly everyone will pay taxes of some sort, although after deductions for food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC and so forth are made it could well be negative again.
For people with 0 earned income it is not possible to put more into the system than they take out.I worked for one employer who consistently claimed he had zero income and zero company profit. He reported this to get out of paying his fair share of taxes. It worked until the IRS caught on to his little scam. This was also the employer who didn't believe in annual salary increase for cost of living or healthcare insurance or 401Ks unless his employees paid for it all. Sorry, no sympathy here for these devils.
Jaxon, I think that Ewent's story illustrates just one of many ways that the super-rich can illegally become super-rich, or even above average-wealthy. In this story, there is no respect for the underlings, or for the fallout they'll be forced to deal with when the employer gets caught. Unfortunately, the bigger they are, the bigger the friends they have, and the more intimidating, so people rarely call their bluffs for fear of their jobs or their careers disappearing (black-listing), and hoping there's still a soup line until they can find/learn a new career from the ground up. Perhaps a simpler example: who is more likely to get a speeding ticket, the guy in the Hummer or the guy in the Camry, baby in the back seat? (Hint: Camry.) [Note: "guy", to me, is a non-gender-specific term.]
Because the poor need a helping hand so that they can live on handouts for the rest of their lives and just become couch potatoes.....Did I win the debate...did I huh? Huh? did I?
Wayne...I've got one for you. I live in NJ. Hurricane Sandy? 3 months ago? Homes inland and at the shore totally devastated by high winds and flooding? So...let's see how you'd measure up. You and your family are forced to evacuate your $450,000 NJ home. While you are in a shelter (aid provided by your local town taxes) your home has 5 feet of water and two trees from your neighbor's yard on your roof. There are electric lines hanging over the house and front yard. Your car was also submerged.
And you are not going to expect FEMA aid? You are just going to go to your bank and buy another home? What's with the swaggering blowhards these days who don't need anyone until a major disaster hits. Answer please how you would rebuild with ZERO aid from anyone.You can get aid, but it's totally wrong to expect the aid from the government. It sets a reliance on them. If all the programs were charities from other citizens instead of actual programs, it might be better. In the most extreme cases, yeah maybe the government should step in. However, that's not what the government does with its programs. What it all boils down to is that there are aid programs for everything. And it's completely pointless. Hurricane victims should be aided, I agree, but not with the programs we have. They are destroying the infrastructure of this nation.
You get aid when you need it. I do not recall the government arbitrarily doling out money without proof of eligibility no matter which type of aid you request. People who want charities to fill the needs of 1 million Americans make no sense. And where, pray tell, will these charities get their funding from? Charities all are tax exempt. There are aid programs for Americans who need them and qualify most. Stop trying to distort the truth through the prism of righteous conservatism that's more miserly and causes more misery than it does equality among all Americans.
And where will the govt. get it's money from? Ever more borrowing?
"Stop trying to distort the truth through the prism of righteous liberalism that's more miserly and causes more misery than it does equality among all Americans." (bolding changed to provide truth rather than evangelism)
No. You get the insurance you purchased to pay for it.
And if you didn't bother to get that insurance, don't ask someone else to pay for your stupidity.Oh really? So that's why half of the red states have millions who have zero healthcare insurance compared to those in the blue states who get far less back for the $1 they pay in federal income taxes?
That griping from conservatives over having to pay for their healthcare fools no one. They refuse to collect higher state taxes to cover these healthcare costs for their indigent. Yet, they have no problem running to the fed to cover these costs before they touch a dime of their state taxes. Why should people in my state have to pay uninsured in Big Rich Texas, That Whole Other Country, when that state refuses to use their state taxes before they bet help from federal taxes my state pays for?If blue wants to pay for insurance for everyone, let them. If, however, they want ME to pay for someone else's insurance then stuff it - they don't have that moral right. Legal, yes, but not moral.
But that's kind of the root of the whole question here - do you have the right to play Robin Hood? Legally you do, simply because the large numbers provide that right, but morally you are far in the wrong and having large numbers won't change that.
You asked why your state should pay for insurance in Texas? Because you, in your moral (and fake) "superiority" made it a law. That Texans refuse to accept the fallacious argument that stealing is OK leaves you with the choice to either follow your own fallacious argument and cough up the money or admit you were wrong in the first place.wilderness--I think this stems from our originally puritanical culture: help thy neighbor or else you'll be hanged as a witch or something stupid. I think that culture still permeates our society today: help thy neighbor, and that it is so strong it has carried down to today and we vote to play Robin Hood. Do I think that's why our country is here? No. I think so many people cheated so many systems and other people, creating so many McMillionaires who didn't earn it honestly and, simultaneously, making so many plebeians into paupers, that we need to take heroic measures to re-balance our democracy so that it functions correctly again. The numerous disasters and wars did nothing to help matters, either (obviously these were problems beyond the control of President Obama when he was first elected to office, and he has made great strides toward ending the wars since he was elected). If our economy collapses; that is the worst case we are trying to avoid by taking drastic measures. If that means all rich people get punished in taxation severely just because many of them cheated to get there, then they'll all probably still be able to weather that storm quite well. If people who are starving in this country with no healthcare get food and medicine and jobs, then we have elevated someone from a taker to a producer of wealth for this nation's economy, and eventually the middleclass will be rebuilt in sufficient numbers to weather many more political and financial storms and to refill the pockets of the "honest" millionaires and the McMillionaires will either join the real millionaires if they've got the guts for it or return to the plebeian class. Do I think playing Robin Hood is morally right or wrong? No, it's just sometimes necessary.
There are several of your points I cannot agree with. The puritan society doesn't seem to have been any more for the neighbor than ours, and perhaps less. The majority of the proclamation of witchcraft seems to have nothing more than a land grab - take from the neighbor rather than help them. Nor do I believe that more than a minute percentage in the US are actually starving or that the majority (let alone all) of the rich people got there by cheating.
Mostly, though, it is the idea that providing food, and medicine will somehow turn someone into a giver rather than a taker. Only by providing a high paying job does that happen, and we don't do that. We just give money.
Our democracy does need re-balancing, but the way to do that isn't to create a sub-culture of dependency, which is exactly what we are doing. When a single mother is told that she can't get help with utility bills because she earns a few dollars too much, but that if she will quit her job she will be given food, housing, education, utilities and all other support necessary, well, that isn't help. That is creation of dependency but it's what we do.
Robin Hood may be wrong (and it is) but you're right - it is sometimes necessary to maintain society. It just isn't necessary to anywhere near the degree that we do it - that is primarily the result of wanting (and buying) more than we can afford.Actually, your example is no longer correct and the percentage of poverty-stricken individuals and families is a whole lot higher than "a minute percentage". Check the actual U.S. Census Bureau Statistics for any city you like, big or small, and you'll start to get the horrifying, disgusting, disgraceful (for the rest of us) picture: http://www.census.gov/#panel-6
No, no. Not poverty artificially defined by the government. Starving, as in will die soon without additional food. Ribs showing (and not from bulemia), belly extended, etc.
Wilderness, I hope you don't really believe that last--that a person is stupid if they didn't choose to purchase any health insurance. There are a million reasons why someone wouldn't have health insurance and none of them have to do with stupidity on the part of the victim/sick person. First of all, if you're unemployed your options are very limited. You can't just go to the store and buy insurance off the shelf. They do medical tests on most people whose insurance has lapsed, there are people who DO have insurance but that insurance doesn't cover an expensive pre-existing condition like cancer or M.S. Most insurance companies charge a fortune for individual insurance--Hm, should we get insurance so little Johnny can get her insulin and other diebetes care, or should we keep the lease on the car that we need to get to work to pay for that insurance? See the dilemma that many real people face daily? Half the time when I need a prescription refilled I have to go to the doctor, pay a hefty co-pay for that, wait a week for the message to get to the pharmacy that the prescription can be refilled and then get it refilled. If this were medicine I needed to breathe or go to work or level out the sugar in my blood, I could've died even with insurance. Without insurance, it's anybody's guess what will happen from day to day. It's risky not having insurance, everybody gets that--few people are so literally stupid (low I.Q.) that they think that the concept of insurance in general is bad, but that also doesn't mean they can get it or keep it. A friend of mine was diagnosed with M.S. after many years of troubles. About a week later he or she was dumped from her insurance company's plan for no reason they could cite. Get it now? It's not because people are literally stupid that they don't have insurance, it's because they're poor, sick, or unlucky in the case of my friend and his/her slimy insurance company (playing anti-Robin Hood).
You missed the point; we were discussing rebuilding a house, not your body.
Anyone that doesn't have insurance on their house doesn't deserve to have that house. I don't have medical insurance, either - can't even begin to afford it. Not even 10% of the cost.Could say that anybody who doesn't have insurance on their body doesn't deserve to have that body!
Sure you could. To what purpose, though? To simply make a point that has nothing to do with reality? I didn't buy my body, after all, and have no choice about having it.
Oops, sorry for ranting off topic! I got lost in the threads of this post. Also sorry to hear you don't have health insurance. :-(
Why should the wealthy be forced to support the poor?
I put myself in the shoes of the less-fortunate. While I am by no means 'wealthy' I do live a comfortable life. But one day, it could all be taken away from me. And I'd need to rely on the kindnesses of others. If I were one of those who would complain about having to support the poor and lost everything, I know I would be one miserable man, because no-one would help me, and I would regret it all. All the refusal to assist someone less-fortunate. Who knows? It could be karma's way of kicking me in.Help can come from the private sector (and always has,) as long as the government is not expecting the people to give up their hard earned dollars to contribute to the welfare state (through taxation.)
Right?Those charitable trusts? Every single one of them totals up to huge tax deductions for those who do the donating to them. Welfare is paid for by sharing of taxes among all classes. If you hate welfare so much, what will you do when you have a medical bankruptcy and you cannot work and can't pay your bills? Beg help from relatives who can barely make it on their own salaries? Look for a charity for help? You are taxes because taxes fill the gaps for what's needed. Those who so despise taxation are also the ones who benefit most from tax cuts, tax breaks, tax loopholes and huge tax subsidies the rest of us pay for. As a reminder, one 2004 tax cut increased the wealth of the 1% highest earners by 11%. How much more wealth did the 1% earn after the tax cuts of 2008 and 2009? Sorry but if you earn a higher salary, you know going in you'll pay higher taxes. It's pretty redundant to expect those who earn billions less to pay more than those who earn billions more.
So if you were a pilgrim and landed at Plymouth Rock, you wouldve waited for government aid?
Stop wimping out and fight for life.
What is the result?
survival through independence and interdependence.
per usual.First of all, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock with enough supplies and initiative. How do you dare assume I'd wait for government aid? Stop the commandeering and inane assumptions. I was a single Mom of two kids. Never collected unemployment or welfare. Paid off my mortgage on a single salary and then went on to own my own freelance business. Some women with their MRS degrees love to snob down at others who have worked hard all their lives while these overindulged McWifies enjoy two incomes...theirs and McHubbo's. That's not survival or independence. It's living off a man and living through a man's identity. When you can make it on your own with 2 kids and survive without a second income, a gas guzzling SUV or the McMansion and all its accoutrements, then snob all you want.
Then you don't mind being taxed to help others when you yourself need every cent you get to keep?
and you mention
initiative.
that is the key...
we still have that...
right?
*Too much government intervention in the private sector takes away motivation and initiative.
You do not agree with that statement?I live in a society...a democratic society. What would it profit me to pay zero taxes if I live in a society of sick, illiterate Americans? Don't tell me what I know. My father came to the US with nothing in 1907. He taught me that being an American means obligation to continue the upkeep of your society in which you live and that means paying taxes. I loathe the idea that a single dollar of my taxes help Big Oil who rolls in profits no matter what the situation with the economy may be. Individual Americans do not owe a dime of tax dollars to ANY business. We aid these businesses to help them grow, not to help them continue obscene profits that pay obscene CEO salaries. Sorry...that's not what I pay taxes for.
Loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies and such?
You mean like the home mortgage interest deduction? A deduction for each child you voluntarily brought into the world? Earned Income Credit, resulting in "refunds" when there is nothing to give back? A deduction removing the first $11,000 or earned income from being taxed at all? Tax credits (credits!) for giving junk you don't want to charities? Deductions for building your own future with an IRA? A deduction for health insurance costs, but ONLY if paid for by an employer - those buying their own need not apply?
Or do you mean tax "loopholes" given only to companies? Like the one designed to promote hiring from inner city or deprived areas? The deduction for R&D costs that provide for better cars, homes and such? Localities often forego property taxes from corporations to encourage them to build facilities and hire local workers - is that the loophole you would eliminate?
Just what loopholes and breaks do you refer to?TARP? ARRA? The $5,000 to encourage corporations to hire? The $200 million Bush spent in 2001 to Hire and Create Jobs that ended his presidency with a Financial Meltdown?
Farm tax subsidies to wealthy agri-states who export 99% of their farm goods to other countries all while they get their taxes cut to zero?
Sorry..you are wrong. In 2012 alone, over $150 billion went to profitable businesses to shore up their wealth. Is that what my tax dollars are for? Meanwhile these corporate piggies are slopping and swilling at the federal tax subsidy trough as if there's no end to how much grift they can amass from indivdidual taxpayers.Your examples are all those of using the tax code to promote particular actions or results from corporations. Like you, I find it disgusting and deplorable, but the problem isn't with the corporations that agree to follow the terms of the "loophole" in order to save a few bucks on taxes.
Instead of using the tax code to, say, encourage a company to hire a particular group of people we could simply pay them to do so. Take away their tax loophole, but then give a nice fat check for doing what the politicians have decided is best (or will buy the most votes, more likely).
That would make those costs to the country very transparent, however, and might be harder to do; harder to get by the rest of congress than a simple little tax change. No politician wants the reasons behind their laws to be transparent (it gets a little too obvious they are buying votes), however, and so it isn't going to happen. Instead, loopholes will continue to be given by congress to accomplish the goals. You want to blame someone, blame your congressman for it, not the company that is complying with the wishes of congress.
Kathryn, the wealth and middle classes ARE "the private sector". Unfortunately, due to changes in population and culture, our richest segment of earners, the truly wealthy, are NOT giving to charities in the same amounts as the wealthy of previous generations. That is the problem. We (you and me) are part of "the private sector" (I say that because we're sitting in front of computers to communicate, which poor people don't have). Do you donate 20-40% of your gross income to the poor? Do you think that most of the wealthiest citizens today do? (I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt very many of them do--this is IN ADDITION to any taxes they pay.) Hence, the need for higher taxes on the wealthier classes: by paying their workers ever-decreasing amounts, they are creating a great divide between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Repeating:
Forcing is Taboo.
Maybe we should have a national voluntary program to contribute to those who are temporarily in need or handicapped or aged who do not have loved ones or family to assist them..
As long as it is free choice, people will be happy to help.
Also, maybe once people get back on their feet they could pay back what the government has given them...(And If people knew they were getting a no interest loan, maybe they would look harder for work.)There already are voluntary programs...but the catch is that a tax exemption is attached to it. When you give, you expect to get something in return? What do they call that kind of charitable giving?
It is called altruism. Giving freely without expectation of return.
That you will not be required to pay the government for the privilege of that giving is not something in return. Now, if Uncle Sam rebated that gift to you, or gave you a new car for it that would be a return.
We already have that nation, and the problem is the super-wealthy are not contributing voluntarily enough to charities to help such people, so the divide between the richest and the poorest grows to embarrassing proportions for a 1st world nation.
PS You are a bit condescending with your put down of women who are kind and sweet enough to keep a husband.
I am condescending to any woman who attempts to look down a snobby nose at women who work hard as individuals. I am not fooled by that kind and sweet enough to keep a husband routine. Many women are all too dependent on their husbands for their existence. You come into this world on your own and you go out the same way. If women have to "keep" a husband, they do themselves no favor in terms of "self-respect." Marriage is a partnership. Not a one-sided ordeal of lifelong dependency.
Have it your way! Some women are lucky enough to have husbands that are kind and sweet, as well!
The government needs to create a business for itself and generate capital for all its entitlement programs.
Oh, Obama Care...
No, I mean one that doesn't fine the people out of their money...
(that citizens make, as though the government is e n t i t l e d to it.
Q. Entitled to what, you ask?
A. The citizens money! Why will I owe money if I do have insurance?
I , for one, do not want to be fined! Did I VOTE to be fined? NO! Did I say "No!"? Yes.
...did any body hear me?)
So the government needs to create a special branch for the purpose of running its own money generating business...a legitimate business.
Call it
Government $ Tree, Inc.
(I suppose there are many reasons this might not work... but it is a better idea than Obama Care.
Maybe this would work:
- enable the citizens to maintain/create businesses and services by making sure the conditions to do so are in place.
Do the ones in power want us to be able to keep or create businesses and services????
Look at the signs.
So, keep your power. Make the Government fear you.
Grow a brain and a spine and vote wisely.
(Somebody's gotta say it.)I agree that everyone needs to grow a brain and spine and vote wisely (especially our already-elected officials). However, taxes are necessary in order for a society to remain a society. (Exactly what/who is taxed is the subject of this debate.) Taxes build schools, pay teachers, defend our borders and our friends', build highways and railroads, ensure safe food, water, medicines, and working conditions... Taxation itself is not optional in any society. It is what and how taxation is employed and enforced that should be considered and evaluated continuously.
The government should never be run like a corporation. We are not employees of the government. In fact, quite the opposite...we are "employers" of the government we pay for through our taxes. We are also the main voice of the government we pay for. Those who are not, choose whining and complaining about government while they take no active part in the government they pay for.
Taxation can't be "optional." It has to be mandatory if the entire country is to be safe and protected. If the entire country expects to afford programs that help their children and their children's futures. It isn't all about you. It's all about US...as in we, the people. If you don't communicate with your state reps, it's your loss. They actually do listen.
The problem with private charities is that you back back to the Dickensian idea of the deserving and the undeserving poor!
In that regard, Dickinson was a Dick. there is no such thing as the 'undeserving poor'. Poor is poor, and both should be treated with equality.
Well no, he was speaking out against private charity and how some god fearing folk saw the poor in terms of deserving and undeserving. That actually carried through, officially, into the 20th century, and unofficially into the 21st! There are still private individuals who think in terms of the deserving and undeserving.
See, John? he would not discriminate and he would be happy to help out any one! I hope there are others like him.
Time would tell. It would be a great experiment, here in the land of the (still pretty much) free.We have voted and approved of the taxes by majority agreement. That is what we agree to in this country. But we did not vote directly for Obama care.
I have just been informed that It passed when both houses were democratic. O.K.
So, never mind about that issue. I am stuck paying the fine whether I like it or not. (or keep paying my very expensive insurance since I am just a substitute teacher with no state benefits.)
@ John, we are talking about corporations Elsewhere, did you notice?But I thought one of his major campaign promises was to bring in health care so many American's did in fact vote for it.
you are right.
- but, no one knew exactly what the PPACA would require from us.
Nevertheless, it is law now.
love it or leave it.It's a stake in the ground. It's not necessarily forever, but it's a first major step for our country, and many more will need to follow. We're making too big of a deal about it, and whining too much, especially when most other 1st world countries already have plentiful healthcare for all. It's not a radical idea, and it's not an idea we can't support. It would help if we kept open minds about things and thought about others in bad situations. Because, let's face it, we're all just one car/taxi/bus/train accident away from being one of "those" people.
Did you vote for a $200 million embassy in Baghdad that now has to be closed after less than a decade in operation due to cost overruns since 2007? Did you vote for those hurricane domes that cost $2 million each for Dallas and Austin? Did you also directly vote for the war in Iraq that cost taxpayers $3.6 trillion in 2008? No? Why not?
The question posed by HuntersWhitt for this thread is misleading because only a small portion of taxes paid by the rich go to federal budget safety net programs such as food stamps, and welfare (13% or $230 billion in 2011). The question might better have been "Why should the wealthy be forced to support the military budget ($718 billion or $20% in 2011) or the interest payments on past debt ($230 billion or 6%) or other miscellaneous programs such as infrastructure, scientific research, etc.? Medicare consumes $486 bn or 13.5%.
The way the question was posed creates the impression that the only reason high income people are asked to pay higher taxes is for welfare, food stamps, etc. which is not the case. They are required to pay higher taxes, not just for aid to the poor but for all the items in the federal budget appropriated by our elected representatives in Congress. Even if welfare, food stamps, etc. were completely eliminated, the taxes required of the rich would still be higher than those paid by the middle class and the poor. The choice of the initial misleading question fomented class warfare and a divisive, not very productive discussion.A) wealthy people should be taxed more because they are earning more money and enjoying their luxorious lives , whereas on the other side poor people dont even have money even to fullfil their basic necessities. This is a sad state and it should be changed.
B) Yes,The govt. Should provide assistance because poor people wont stand a chance against the rich. In fact, the problem is that govts. all around the world are supporting the rich and famous as these rich classes provide them with money in times of election etc. The govt. Should do more for poor like universal health schemes, provinding employment is very imp. among other things
C)Govt. assistance cannot be replaced .
In my view, the govt. Should come out with sechemes in which enterpreneurs can contribute to economic development of the poor.Well, the rich, who own corporations and large businesses, provide jobs. You got somthin' against people taking the jobs they provide?
huh?
Maybe, we just need to repeal the laws which make it hard for businesses to thrive! And soon! The exodus of small business owners from California,
where I live, must be stopped.
Maybe also, we need to keep taxes low in general to invite business.
The government does not have a way to generate income except through taxes and now through ObamaCare, fines. Why do you expect the government to provide for you? President O is not your father. He is not responsible for you. Once you are 18, You are responsible for YOU!
Advice to the youth, apply yourself so that you will be a productive member of society. Parents, will you please remember that You are your children's parents... not the government and all us taxpayers.
Just something to keep in mind.Kathryn L Hill, you're talking about two different things as though they were one: big businesses and big McMillionaires. But they are different and will need, of course, different tax laws applicable to them. Indeed, small businesses might not be able to compete with big ones; most small businesses fail within a few years, we've known that for decades, if not millennia, and it occurs in every type of economy under every type of taxation plan. Some of them just don't make it, that's all there is to it. Now, apply that same discussion to human beings. Some of them just don't make it because there's something wrong with them--juvenile diabetes, birth defects, blind- or deafness, mental illness, cancer, PTSD due to abuse or something else. For whatever reason, they have a failure to thrive: they are not "normal" people and cannot "just take care of themselves" and it is not their parents' fault (unless a parent was an abuser, of course)--usually quite the opposite. I could apply the same argument to the elderly and soldiers back from war and adults who have suffered some abuse, accident, or other injury.
Do we have a right, as a society, to push non-perfect individuals off into the gutters and slums and attics to live or die (we care not which)? With a little support and the right tools (mental, physical, healthcare, or something as simple as a special computer or wheelchair), these people can be good workers and add to society rather than takers who simply profit from handouts.
For example, where I live there is a program called "Vocational Rehabilitation Services" for the disabled. They help such marginalized individuals troubleshoot the problems that are preventing them from working, help them find a job, and help them KEEP that job. Furthermore, every 1 taxpayer dollar spent on that program returns 11 dollars to society! The program typically lasts 3 months per worker, but is there to support the worker if something comes up after that point. These disabled people aren't "taking handouts" they're getting a LITTLE help to contribute a LOT in return. And note: they've just become tax-paying citizens, too, rather than welfare or unemployment compensation recipients.
On the other hand, we have the McMillionaires, who have a contract that, if they ever get fired, they are given millions of dollars in compensation, regardless of how long they did/didn't work at a company (depending on their contracts, of course). This is a well-known and wide-spread practice in corporate America over the last 10-15 years. Here is someone in a corner office with a great picture window who has every incentive in the world to perform BADLY so that he/she will get fired and can get that money, then move on to the next company and repeat the process over and over. A badly performing senior executive is bad for the whole company's well-being, and the newspaper is showing again and again really major companies at all levels failing due to executive failure, corruption, or both. I don't need to mention the names of the big banks that have needed bailing out, Enron ('nough said), and the airline industry...
It's not just the poor people who benefit from the government's helping hand to remain a productive member of society. Yes, there will always be "normal" people who just want handouts--they are cheaters/scammers just like the big business executive McMillionaires are: no more or less.
So, this story plays out at all levels of society, you see. It's not all just parental failure causing non-performing children to grow up into non-contributing adults. It's a lot more complicated than that--and a lot more complicated than what I've glossed over here, too. There are so many factors to consider, one cannot blame a single issue or point for all the troubles of our current economy.
However, reading this thread with views across the map on the subjects, I believe we *mostly* all agree on one thing: something must be done to fix our economy, and that "something" needs to come from the highest level of our government down to the lowest person. We simply need to get our act together and learn to think for ourselves about the big picture, rather than limit ourselves to party-line rhetoric in every instance or selfish wants.
Our political parties have apparently forgotten that they only exist because of the individuals who support them. But who will support any party if no party will do their jobs to fix our economy? Write to your elected officials, tell them what your little corner of the universe is like, but tell them also to think for the greater good--to think for themselves what is the best course of action to take based on ALL of the corners of the universe, not just those in their own constituency.
We don't want to return to a society that hides the "crippled" in the attic and feeds them minimally and cares little for them. We were granted inalienable rights under this country's constitution and declaration of independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is it honest, given that, that a McMillionaire executive should pay $100 in taxes per year, the same as their lowest-paid employee? That $100 is a LOT of money to the lower class employee, who may work hard daily scrubbing toilets for the McMillionaire executive, who wouldn't think twice about that $100 and takes a clean toilet for granted.
Take a simple scenario. Two people want to share an apartment. One makes $100,000 a year, the other makes $50,000 a year. Both are equally hard workers in different jobs at different companies. The 6-figure person wants to rent a big apartment that costs $1500/month. The $50k person likes that apartment, but it's very expensive and would much rather rent a smaller $1000/month apartment. They decide to go with the bigger apartment at the pressure of the 6-figure person. Now tell me, is it more fair to divide the rent exactly in half, so that each person pays the same dollar amount, or is it more fair to contribute rent in proportion to each person's salary, meaning that the 6-figure person who pushed for the expensive apartment pays more rent than the $50k person, who pays proportionally less? Remember, both people are very hard-working, contributing members of society who pay taxes and volunteer and recycle, had good parents who encouraged them to succeed, and are generally considered very successful in their respective careers by their peers, despite the disparity in their incomes. If you divide the rent exactly in half, then the $50k person is simply subsidizing the 6-figure person's lifestyle at the cost of their own: that doesn't sound fair or very American to me.
The same is true of a company pay cut: should everyone take a 5% pay cut, so that it is more equal (though obviously still favoring the higher-paid employees, who can afford a 5% cut without any trouble), or should they all take a $5/hour pay cut? You can see by now that even a flat percentage pay cut is unequal; the dollar amount pay cut is absurd. Yet, things like this go on all the time in businesses small and large. A carefully calculated sliding pay cut scale is the only "fair" way to handle the situation, if the company can't afford to pay its bills without cutting salaries or laying off workers.
Which brings up another point: if the McMillionaire executives were really working hard at doing their jobs, why didn't the company succeed in meeting all of its financial obligations without having to cut money from its most important resource: its employees who produce the product/service that brings in the money? Perhaps that McMillionaire has been working for that company for long enough, a year or three, and it's now time to do bad work and get fired and collect the contracted millions so he/she can move into a bigger McMansion and on to a different job with a different separation agreement for additional $McMillions? $McMillions that could have been shared with the frontline workers and would have made a big difference in their lives, for they work as hard as do the executives. I'm not saying we should become communist, of course, I'm simply saying that the disproportionate amounts paid to executives vs. workers is new in recent years, hence the dwindling middle-class and burgeoning upper-class of McMillionaires, who earned their millions by being fired from company after company for a living, leaving chaos and unhealthy company conditions in their wake each time. Of course, a company could simply lay off individuals altogether, affecting fewer people but to a disproportionate amount.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They're not just a dream, they're a mandate. Furthermore, all men (and women) are created equal--even those "cripples" in the attic that we talked about earlier. We still need to strive for equality in our country. Go back to our founding fathers' sage words and really take them to heart. If a McExecutive comes to a company but requires a contract with a McMillionaire-sized paycheck and separation agreement, just say "no". We, the people, need to think for ourselves and to learn to say "no" to things that are wrong and to report them to appropriate enforcement bodies to curtail the wrong-doing. Don't be the ostrich who hides its head in the sand, ignoring and tolerating injustices. Be brave and a responsible adult: stand up for what's right. Kicking poor people with problems to the curb or hiding them in the attic is NOT right. Offering them a helping hand up so they can be productive again--or for the first time--is the right thing to do. I'm not advocating giving handouts to the undeserving, I'm advocating to help those who just need a little help getting mainstreamed and becoming a productive member of society again, "in order to form a more perfect union".
Are you a sheep or an eagle? A very smart woman once said in a small speech to a private group, "Eagles ...don't ...flock". That woman was Ann Winblad, the founder of a major computer corporation and co-founder of Hummer-Winblad and Associates venture capitalists. Eagles also have excellent vision and can see small details about the world far away from themselves. We need more eagles and fewer sheep in our society. More brave adults willing to step forward for what's right and condemn or report to authorities what's wrong.Here Here...I so agree. The advantages of keeping the US from being a third world country extend far across the board...of directors...of managers, supervisors and CEOs.
To many Americans today have had their incomes used like a game of Pac Man. Many have no debt other than medical thanks to unaffordable healthcare insurance. Who profits most from that? Not the government and not the citizenry...Big Insurance who has now gone "specialization" so that one policy becomes 10 specialized policies under one policy umbrella. This is also true of the price gouging of groceries, clothing, utilities...All of these continue to spiral out of control thanks to mentalities that believe there is no limit to their profits. Sorry...but sooner or later, that ruse proves their stupidity.Your understanding of equality is where you are going wrong. Equality of opportunity. Not results. What I said is not party speak. It is the truth as far as common sense. I would say my bird is the turkey. He does't fly, he is pretty well grounded.
"Equality of opportunity. Not results."
Are you suggesting that we have achieved equality of opportunity in this country? The facts don't bear this out.What???
It is up to every individual...(and his family and loved ones, community, teachers, schools) to achieve the results!
What is not understandable about this?He thinks that equal opportunity would mean equal results.
Every one in this world is pretty much crazy, Jax. Except for me and you and a couple of others. I leave it at that!
Mr. Deeds, John. He thinks that equal opportunity would mean equal results. Shall we go?
Ok, so Joe Flatfloor is paid $1,000 to put in a floor and puts it in flat. He gets more work and expands his business, hires more workers and become quite comfortable in life.
But, Paul Creakfloor puts in an inferior creaky mess yet charges the same price for the same square footage. However, he never stops using his garage to store his plywood, never hires a crew and remains drunk on the weekends.
For some reason Joe gets more work.
Well, that is indeed not fair is it?
just havin' fun.
(Damn alcohol...but I digress,
Just kidding,
Not really)Nope, I read nothing into his message to suggest that equal opportunity = equal results.
How about Paul Creakfloor has plenty of contacts and so gets to lay plenty of creaky floors whereas Joe Flatfloor doesn't have those old school contacts and therefore doesn't get any work at all?The opportunity to have as many contacts as one wants is provided in this American system. Actually, Paul Creakfloor has plenty of contacts and his customers are perfectly happy with Paul's inferior installation since his customers are just as myopic as he is. However, there are MORE people who see perfectly well and want flat gleaming floors... and this is why Joe is financially better off. (But, Paul does have more fun in life, the damn hippy.)
"It is up to every individual...(and his family and loved ones, community, teachers, schools) to achieve the results!"
Are you saying that a malnourished inner city black or Mexican American, with a single parent mother who's in an inferior school has an opportunity equal to that of a white child with two parents employed as professionals who send him or her to a private school or an outstanding suburban public school and on to Harvard, Yale or M.I.T.? (Or Stanford?)There will always people who are poor.
Some homeless people like the freedom the life-style affords them. Not everyone wants to work hard and that is O.K.
Some do enjoy working, no matter what deck of cards life has dealt them. My gardener loves his work. I am sure he gets enough work to support his family. And he is mentoring his sons. They are a happy and industrious family and do not feel sorry for themselves. I am very thankful for my gardener because he is personable and has good will for the people he works for. I happily give him more than what he asks for. And I can't really afford to even have a gardener. it was my neighbor's idea...(I do it for her.)"Some homeless people like the freedom the life-style affords them." Seriously? Are you bloody kidding, Kathryn? Exactly how many do you think is "some"? 3 people? 10 people? How many do you personally know that feel that way, by name and well enough to share a meal with? I would be astonished if a measurable number of the homeless that are healthy (no mental illness/addictions), and not criminals escaping the law, have deliberately CHOSEN to live that way.
I find myself (writing at my computer in my home: warm, cozy, and well-fed and -clothed) offended by your comment on behalf of that group of severely marginalized individuals. Have you ever been homeless? Have you ever even personally actually *known* a homeless person (by name and heard their true story)? I’ve personally only known six people, whom I’m aware of, as having been homeless at one time or another in their lives, but they certainly were not homeless by choice and it certainly wasn’t a lifestyle they wanted to live, but one that was forced upon them.
According to Policy Research Associates, “Based on recent statistics(1), on a given night in the U.S. 407,966 individuals are homeless in shelters, transitional housing programs, or on the streets; 109,812 of these individuals are chronically homeless(2)” http://www.prainc.com/projects-services … lessness/.
(1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2011). The 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Washington, DC. [2010 AHAR];
(2)http://homeless.samhsa.gov/Default.aspx
Sadly, many homeless people (I think I just read 1.3 million) are children and many have mental illnesses (substance abuse has officially been a mental illness in this country since July 2000, per the DSM-IV-TR http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm-iv-tr).
To learn *facts* about homelessness, which afflicts about 1 in 200 people in the US, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessne … Definition and follow some of their source references, too.
Kathryn,
how do you know that your gardener loves his work, and that his family is happy and that they don't feel sorry for themselves? You say that he has "good will" for the people he works for, based on what? I doubt you've ever had a *real* honest conversation with the man, or invited him into your air-conditioned house on a warm day to cool down with some lemonade. You aren't even giving "charity"--you say you hire him only because your neighbor wants you to. Do you give ANY charity (money or goods or services given freely with nothing expected in return)? If not, that attitude is probably why there are so many homeless people and gardeners in the world: the attitude that you "can't really afford" it.
Kathryn, I beg your pardon, and these are purely rhetorical questions not "aimed" at you specifically and not intended to harm or offend. However, your comment lends itself perfectly to the illustration of some important ugly concepts that we (as a “group” of sorts) have been skirting around. Nobody answer these questions, but everyone please just think about them and how they may apply (albeit slightly differently) in your own lives....
Do you have a job outside the house? an advanced degree (AS or BA or greater) in a practical subject? Are your work skills current and in demand? Would you be homeless if not for your husband's income, he whom you are 'sweet and kind enough to keep'? Would your husband agree that you are keeping him, or would he see it another way? Are you one marital squabble or affair away from divorce and homelessness?
That's how fast it can happen, folks: that glass ceiling/floor that “we” live above can shatter and quickly leave us falling into the pit of despair known as homelessness if we have no job and/or no skills or education with which to get a job (and most jobs still usually require a permanent residence and bank account, unless you're doing manual labor for cash, such as yard work for those who can afford it and for which you appear extremely industrious, grateful, and humbled at your employer’s kindness to encourage tips in the future).
Again, please don't answer these questions. They are simply things we all should be thinking about. (In addition to not making assumptions about one’s gardener’s true feelings and thoughts--or anyone else's, as I have just done to illustrate some ugly truths. :-| )
Well, we are floating down the rabbit hole of personal opinion and individual experience. The facts of our country's economic woes are to be found here:
1) Federal Reserve press releases and reports.
2) AIG's counterparty report.
3) Citigroups's loss sharing program release.
4) CRS reports (Congressional Research Service.)
5) SIGTARP report, (Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.)
7) FDIC press releases and reports, (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.)
8) Reuters.
9. Dealogic Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program reports.
10) Corporate press releases.
The real problem is the career politicians, the overtaxation of people and the overregulation of business and the results of Bailout, Tarp and CEO compensation.For the well-off to play Poor Rich victims shows just how grossly insecure these individuals are. Glib responses to support their victimhood show their smug attitudes of overindulgence and excess. They will tell everyone else they must live within their means while they do just the opposite. They get a salary every year they cannot live on. So they demand more, more, more and that has the ripple effect of paying those doing the dirty work less. We buy their imported substandard goods and services only to find they are grossly overpriced.
Mention cost of living and you watch these uber wealthy greedheads turn pale. They know they are at fault for the current mess the US economy is in. After all, they made ALL those "Chief Decisions" as the chief decision makers, didn't they? These are the same loonies who deplete our natural resources in volumes ten times that of a single Middle Class individual. One hot tub isn't enough. They have to have one in every room of those McMansions, the epitome of their wealth status they love to show the world. Meanwhile, they hire illegals to do their housekeeping, their landscaping and to work in their businesses on the cheap. But, these victims believe they are part of a capitalistic society where supply and demand (only theirs) is the rule of the day. They believe no price is ever too high on substandard goods and services and they will continue to bleed taxpayers, consumers and yes, even their own employees because as we all know...these are the Poor Rich.My gardener is legal. We live on less than $2,000 a month. We make about $40,000 a year. (and always have...some years less.) My husband is a flooring contractor. Right now, work is trickling in. I have doubled my search for substitute teaching jobs.
I could have continued toward teaching credentials, after I got pregnant. Instead, I had another child and dedicated my life to a happy family. No amount of money would ever replace the time, effort and spiritual, psychological and physical care I was able to give. In fact, I worked as a swimming teacher, lifeguard and substitute teacher when my kids were in (public) school... we never were in need... we didn't actually need that much!
(However, I didn't even have health insurance, which was ridiculous during the roller blade days! -nothing to brag about.) I gave my all to my family. Today, my two children are happy and secure and married to wonderful people. Money is way overrated.
I am sure $40K a year, combined income, is (near) poverty level. (Actually $23,500. is considered poverty level for a family of four.)
However, many will vouch for the fact that that is plenty to live on. Free-time in my opinion, is better, than over-work/wealth. However, we have no retirement and will have to work till we drop! We eat macrobiotically, swim, and stay healthy. (That is the major focus of our retirement plan.)
PS Successful people are future oriented.Kathryn, Welcome to the real world. However, the bigger challenge is to do all you mentioned all by yourself as many educated adult single men and women with children do.
I count my blessings every day. I have never been on welfare, collected unemployment only once for 3 days before I found another job and have only had 5 jobs over the last 32 years after I sold my dance studios which I owned for 17 years. I moved on after my divorce to learn computers, office management and became a technical writer and of late, SEO copywriter of more than 2900 online articles. I paid off a mortgage on a single income after my divorce. I continued to teach dance part-time at Rutgers for 12 years for added income while I pursued a writing career. I've had 2 books published and several magazine articles published. I had two sons who are accomplished professional musicians. I never think about the future. It's far too precarious to even try. It's an unopened door that can portend opportunity or failure. I learned as a young professional dancer in training you only learn from failure. If you cannot be mature enough to fail, you are never going to be truly successful. By the way, one of the CEOs I worked for in the 1980's is now a Senator. I'm still employed full-time in environmental engineering and part-time in SEO copywriting and copyediting as well as writing suspense novels. To me, success is the ability to find your balance and make good use of it.Truly, I could not have done it alone, as you have.
I am not sure where our disagreements lie... looking back. My views are that over-taxing/misuse of funds, and over-regulating small business by the government have negative implications for the economy/people of the US. Also, our problems cannot be rectified by an overabundance of hand-outs to the poor. I advocate a percolating economy and good schools that enable the self-reliance that you demonstrate in your life.
Where do we actually disagree?
1.Someone is not underpaid if the agree to work for a wage. This wage is known before they start to work for a company and people only pay for products and services that they agree to purchase. So, this statement is erroneous.
2.Weath is accumulated when a person/business has a product or service that other are willing to pay for. Therefore, the person or business has the right to make as much as they can based on the FREE exchange of money for these products or services. If illegal activities are involved, then that is a different story. But, you are not discussing illegal, I assume and rather what you personally don't agree with, correct?
3.How do you define Libertarian? It isn't isolationist, but rather the idea that the government should be very limited in it's ability to micro-manage individuals, businesses etc.
4.What FACTUAL basis are you using to determine that rich people/companies that have gained weath are not smart or hard/smart working? What is luck in the business world? The saying goes, "the harder/smarter I work, the luckier I get" Are you saying the guy who invents a new product that people want and devises a business model to produce, promote, market and sell that product didn't work harder/smarter than the guy who didn't find a way to bring his product to market?
5. What is the origin of debt between 2 people? What legally makes one person obligated to pay for another persons food, housing etc? The exchange of money for labor. One can not simply tell another person that they have to pay for their "stuff". That is theft. We as individuals should, from a moral standpoint, help others in need when we can, but not be legally obligated to do so.
6. Define sociopath? Most people have a problem paying taxes for 3 reasons. 1. They are taxed a rate higher than someone else, which is unfair as it penalizes success. 2. The way most confiscatory taxes are miss spent and often, on a federal level, on things that the Constitution does not give the fedral government the authority to spend money on. 3. The higher taxes and other cost go up, the higher the prices of their goods and services to the end consumer. ALL costs including confiscatory taxes and wages to employees are part of the final price that we pay.
7.So, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, Henry Ford, Mark Zuckerberg etc etc etc didn't do anything Better, Smarter, Faster etc than their competitors? They were just lucky, right? Define that "luck" again from a market perspective...1. When the majority of Americans are force to work for minimum wage or not be employed, they don't agree. So your first statement was erroneous.
2. Muti-Corporation's monopolies control cost.
3.?
4.I have seen and heard many not so smart rich people, today you don't have to be smart all you have to be is selfish and ruthless .
5.??
6.?.
7. ???- how the heck were they forced? They took it willingly because
( $)
s o m e t h i n g
at that point, for whatever reason, was better than
(0)
n o t h i n g.
Right?" better than
(0)
n o t h i n g."
Or better than dumpster diving or begging on street corners.The system must be held accountable. We need to reconstruct a better and more stable financial system.
Right?The Troubled Asset Relief Program added tons more to the national debt.
And taxing the wealthy won't affect our total debt.
At all:
Tapping into their wealth through taxation won't contribute a drop in the ocean of US debt. The only reason to attempt to tax the wealthy is to keep us fragmented into haves and have nots. Many are buying into Marxist precepts.
Needlessly.
These marxist precepts are being spread by professors and the government and they are catching on like wildfire.
The only water that will put out this fire is accurate understanding of the Constitution. Also we need to embrace the greatness of our endeavors. Individual will and motivation is where the true HOPE of our country and even the world lies...
And freedom for the people... to ensure a percolating economy.
Well said, if I don't say so myself!Taxing the wealthy won't affect the debt TODAY, but the projection is 10 years of taxes adding up to over a trillion in debt reduction. Taxing the underclass won't affect this debt today or ten years from now. Taxing those who have no tax money will not unfragment the haves and have not.
@Junko
Why do you think the rich across the board should bail out the government which got us into our debt in the first place. Is it fair to tax the rich when it was the government and its the illegal policies of Tarp, CEO bailouts and Wall Street / Washington's backroom deals that got us into this mess?Kathryn, Check the terms of TARP again. It was at the behest of the rich that these banks got off without having to pay back "with interest" TARP bailouts. It was also at the behest of rich men like AIG's Robert Benmosche, Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein and Morgan Stanley's, Jamie Dimon that they could collect TARP funding from the rest of us as taxpayers and still be able to hand themselves each an average of $10.6 million in salary increases and bonuses.
Compare that to ARRA which had to be paid back "with interest" which netted the US taxpayers like you and I a tidy little sum of ROI in interest on ARRA loans with the stipulation that no corporation who took advantage of ARRA could increase their salaries until their loans to ARRA were paid.
Compare this to the misuse of our taxes in 2001 when Bush handed out billions to corporations to "hire and create jobs." According to the 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, less than 1% who took these billions hired or created jobs. According to this report, that money was used by corporations to pay off debt and to put more money into reckless high risk investing. You can check this at the GAO website for 2005 if you need proof.
The reality no one wants to admit is that CEOs of US corporations believe their wealth is limitless, endless and always and entitlement. NO it isn't. Not when it jeopardizes the economy and the ability of the Middle Class to be fully compensated for the jobs they are supposed to be paid to do."Why do you think the rich across the board should bail out the government which got us into our debt in the first place. "
You gotta be kidding! The taxpayers have been bailing out (making them richer) for years. A couple of the worst examples: the bailout of AIG which flowed through AIG into the coffers of Goldman Sachs, and the carried interest tax loophole for hedge fund operators.Punish all wealthy people to punish a few, right?
Not just a few. The ethics of bankers, hedge fund operators, drug companies, et al are deplorable.
They ask their lawyers three questions about a contemplated deal--
1. Is it legal?
2. What are the chances of getting caught?
3. If I'm caught can we get off with a fine and no jail time?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/ … re-bad/?hp
Jamie Dimon should be wearing a striped suit!
Only ~2% of workers work for minimum wage.
C'mon man, you should not speak until you have something to say. Only two percent of American workers work for mimimum wage. please
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2
Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2011 data.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
Moreover, a significant number of workers who are paid the minimum wage or less work part-time, i.e., less than a 40 hour week and, as a result, aren't eligible for health care insurance.
[I recently had an MRI for which the bill was $1500. As I recall Medicare paid only $300 or $400 which the hospital accepted. However, had I not been eligible for Medicare or had other insurance, I would have had to pay the full $1500 or have the bill collector sicced on me.]73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.
73.9/0.591 = 125 million workers.
3.8 million work at or below minimum wage. I generally only count adults, but we can even count teens.
3.8/125 = 3%, including teens.
So, you claimed the majority of Americans are forced to work minimum wage. I claimed around 2%, off the top of my head. The answer is 3%, counting teens.
That's what I have to say. Don't like it? Too bad. Facts are facts.The underclass and their children are not counted in your facts off the top of your head. Unemployment within the underclass is over 30% and thats not counted because they have been perminently underclassed for so long they ain't counted. Your fact are under reported and more than off by 1%. Most of your facts are unreliable because they don't include all Americans.
What?
Who isn't counted? That's ridiculous. Do you have any evidence that millions and millions of people aren't being counted? This data doesn't discriminate against people according to income, it's based on a random sample.
Or, are you just assuming that your hunch is more accurate than the government data?I hope you see the irony in that last statement
Jaxson, the irony is you yourself pick the government data to believe and ignore or dis that you can't use to support your claims of fact. Here is my fact, in New Orleans a city depended on tourism, for African American underclass members minimum wage service jobs is the norm. Over 50% of the jobs offered blacks are minimum wage and this is a right to work state. Most of the white underclass worker consider it an insult to work for minimum wage even if they don't have a high school education. In most cases they are allowed to supervise for a few dollars more their more educated underclass black members. There is no government data on that fact. There is no government data on the number of underclass school age children that have been killed by gun violence nationwide in the last 20 years. Those facts can be compiled but there is no bottom line.Walk bys and drive bys are seen different by government fact finders, one is always considered criminal and the other is always considered mental. I consider both mental. In the case of gun violence, I consider my hunch more accurate than government data also. Government data is what you make of it, no more no less.
Really? Why don't you show examples of me choosing to ignore data that doesn't support my claims?
How do you know all these facts, without having any data to support it? Did you do a survey of every business in New Orleans, documenting wage by education level and race?
Sorry, arguing based off of hunches is not a very good way to go about discovering what is true.The truth is in the pudding and your choice of data does support your claim, it would be foolish if you didn't choose data to support your claim. I was born raised and live in New Orlean all my life except for the time I spent in the military, I know New Orleans and you can call my facts Underclass data, not hunches.
No, it is foolish to choose data to support your claim.
It is wise to base your opinions off of data.
I'm sorry, but opinion is not useful data, doesn't matter how long you've lived in an area.Don't be sorry your opinion of underclass data and wisdom, what is and what isn't wise don't really matter to me. I think experience is the best teacher and I witness and lived what I write about. Your opinions are base on other people's survey and data. I won't feel sorry for you because you think you're smart to have smarter people gather your facts and you are wise to base your opinion on data rather than experience. False data and surveys lead to the two wars that has lead to this fake debt crissis.
Very true. Right now we are in an unemployment crisis. Our national debt has not yet reached a crisis stage, and if we attempt to deal with it prematurely we will find ourselves back in another recession. Timing is critical wrt economic stimuli and balancing the budget. Although it's true that it's not advisable to continue indefinitely running deficits in excess of the growth rate, our current policy priority should be restoring economic growth and reducing unemployment, not slashing federal spending and/or increasing taxes.
Jaxson andd Junko, having studied statistics in college extensively (blah), I'm compelled to point out that statistical data can be manipulated severely to show just about anything you want it to.
For example, let's say you heard that knee and leg injuries increased by 25% (any random number will do for my example) when they started putting airbags in cars. From this data, one is likely to conclude that airbags cause knee and leg injuries, obviously, and that's the day's evening news headliner.
However, another person looks at other data showing that those 25% who were injured would have not survived the crash at all if it weren't for the airbag.
So. Do airbags cause knee and leg injuries? Yes, to victims who lived to tell the tale--compared with those in vehicles without airbags, who died with (probably) knee and leg injuries in addition to their fatal injuries.
The same can be said, without knowing actual statistics, about seatbelts: what percentage of car accidents (even in Minnesota, Land of 10,000--more accurately around 14,000--lakes) are in accidents in which they are submerged in water and people have trouble getting out of their safety belt and therefore drown? A very small percentage of all accidents, I would bet. Except for the idiots who drive their vehicles out on thin ice in the winter, in which case if they were worried about falling through they (1) shouldn't have gone out on the lake in the first place, and in any case (2) they can take their safety belt off while they're driving on questionably-frozen lakes.
So, both anecdotal and "real" data are just as accurate/inaccurate: it depends on how you use the data and for what purpose and how it is portrayed. In general, we should all be a bit suspicious of any statistics we hear because they are slanted/selected to support the speaker's opinions. (And because most people, myself included, are bad at math and statistics and can't calculate the "reality" when they are quoted statistics by newsreaders who don't know or care what the "real" numbers are.)
I agree with the gist of your first statement, except that in some cases the people are NOT paid what they were told they were going to be paid at the time they did the work: the money that was supposed to be distributed to the underlings as bonuses or commissions or raises is kept in the pockets of the already-wealthy executives. Similarly with the customer: the customer is sold on one price, but (pre-known) price over-runs end up making them pay far more than they had ever intended. Similarly with the company's investors: they are sold a different story.
The free and HONEST exchange of monies is what has been missing from too many companies I'm aware of and that we hear about on the news. I take nothing for granted any more and yet I still get burned, despite being vigilant and having learned much from past experiences. I have nothing against people who have HONESTLY earned what they have received and were expecting to receive. It's the spoilers, which seem to be rampant throughout companies these days, if the evening news is even partly accurate, who are able to severely damage companies from micro mom-and-pop shops, to small businesses employing a few thousand people all the way up to the biggest financial and other institutions in our country. There seems to be a great lack of honor in those Americans in order for them to take the misguided/illegal actions that they have taken causing businesses of all sizes to topple. Perhaps there is a superfluity of trust in the other Americans, too, and/or a fear of acting against those who are doing wrong before the fatal blow is dealt. To those people I say, we're also supposed to be the land of the brave, remember? Stand up for what's right, even at cost to yourself: you can at least sleep soundly at night knowing you havn't, through inaction, allowed something terrible to happen. Perhaps put a criminal in jail, stop a company from failing due to a rotten apple somewhere in their organization, stop lies that would cause money to exchange or not exchange hands had the truth been told, or stopped any number of other wrongdoings that could hurt many others more than the one responsible for committing those wrongdoings.So by your post, this assume that the day you start a job, you agree to the wage and there's no hope for any advancement in salary? Your premise on wealth is skewed. You offer a product or service...but that isn't the end of your responsibility as a producer of these goods. You have a responsibility and and obligation to your customers to provide high quality goods and services at affordable rates. Or does your post suggest that there's no limit to the heights prices can go ...just to amass wealth?
Since I've worked as a technical recruiter early on in my work history, I can tell you the "bait and switch" games employers play on a regular basis with their hiring process. They omit to tell new hires that their salaries at time of hire are it. No future increases. They omit to tell new hires that yes...there are employer benefits...but they are paid in TOTAL by employees, not the employer. These omissions are not presented during the final interview stage. They are presented after the new hire starts their first day. How is that NOT bait and switch?
Then, there's those wonderful backroom executive board meetings (which by the way, I have been privy to in 2 Fortune 50 companies). Here is where the budgeting for CEO salaries and perks begin. Here is where cuts to employee benefits starts. Here is where the peons begin their servitude when their workflow is doubled and staff is cut to the bone so that higher profits can be earned. It is always more profitable to force one employee to do the job 3 employees used to do to ratchet up profits.
Your post skews the truth. Wealth doesn't come from having something to sell. It comes from having something to sell in deceit and through exploitation of employees. If you need proof, there's always the history of the wealth of the Robber Barons to substantiate facts for you.Here's an example of board room ethics at our biggest bank from today's paper:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/ … re-bad/?hp
Jamie Dimon should be wearing a striped suit!I so agree. I'm not by nature a mean spirited person. I am loathed to accept the greed mentalities we are seeing today. Dimon got his come uppance the Poor Rich little guy when Morgan Stanley cut his salary in half. Wow...now all he'll live on is $11 million and that doesn't count the ROI he still receives from his investments provided by MS. Again, Poor Rich...the new victimhood.
Remember the news articles about the CEO of Citibank involved in that fraudulent mortaging fiasco? His interview with Moyers was quite interesting. He stated that he asked one of his fellow CEO cohorts how they could sleep at night knowing the stunts they were pulling off. His cohort responded..."think about it. Our wealth will be limitless." Shows you what the real mentality of some too wealthy and too greedy people truly is.Hahaha "Poor Rich...the new victimhood." You have a great way of phrasing things. I also love your quote about how can they sleep at night--I'd always wondered if that's what they thought. Democracy and capitalism gone wrong. To people like that, I wish I could say, "With great power comes great responsibility"--Spiderman.
Laura ...Thank you. I don't hate all rich people. Warren Buffet is my favorite. Another is a former employer who knew the value of treating employees fairly. From him, I learned many things about personal income and how not to be exploited by others.
Sadly, some Americans today want to be "the First." The "First Trillionaire." The "First" Most Powerful and all this adds up to egomaniacal attitudes of grandeur without a thought of responsibility.
And half of his staff, probably, too.
Throw the book at 'em, I say. "White collar" crime is still a crime--it can be a very serious crime, as in cases like JPMorgan Chase, with many (thousands?) of victims, and it can be as hurtful as any other type of crime.
Ewent, sadly I am now cynical enough that I DO make the assumption you suggest, "this assumes that the day you start a job, you agree to the wage and there's no hope for any advancement in salary?" Ditto with "company" benefits. I even go so far as to assume I'll have to tolerate up to a 5% pay cut from what I started at, while providing more and more output because instead of hiring people they are laying off people. And so, my work output is obviously going to be lower quality--I can't wave a magic wand and do 10 assignments to the same degree of quality that I could when I had 3 assignments to do in the same (reasonable) amount of time. Sadder is that I have been this cynical most of my career, as have many people I've known.
Cynicism isn't always a bad thing. It has the potential to inspire the cynics to greater realms of creativity. When it comes to employment, today's employees assume the role of victim. There are wonderful labor laws from the federal and state levels. If employees don't take the time to study them, they don't know their rights. And, employers can and will take fullest advantage of employee ignorance.
I am what I like to call productively cynical. I don't tolerate any employer exploitation. I consider my agreement to hire a mutual agreement between myself and any employer I choose to work for. This indicates this mutuality doesn't disappear into the vast chasm of employer tyranny, overt or covert.
Employees cannot afford the luxury of a single centimeter of downgrading of education, work experience or skills. This plays exactly into the hands of exploitative employers who see this chink in employee armor as their opportunity.
The reality is these employers own businesses. If they intend these businesses to be successful and profitable, they require productive, creative, dedicated employees with good work ethics and integrity. This is what the employer pays for. He doesn't pay for the human body or mind of his employee like some freakish czar of old. All he is paying for is work. Period. Employees must see themselves on a strictly business basis, keep that basis hard as nails and never compromise with an employer who would dismantle or in any way unbalance the employer/employees' mutual agreement.
A career isn't a lifetime and can be a valuable learning tool for expansion of your skills, talents and advancement. Forward is the only way to go. With or without an employer. It's why I always tell those who are unhappy with their careers to consider entrepreneurship. Anything you learned in an employer's business can be transferred to a business of your own. Ask me how I know...lol.You have no idea how much I needed to hear you say that right now, Ewent. THANK YOU sincerely for reminding me that I'm not pond scum for being unemployed right now--things just got "unbalanced", as you say, and in this case I couldn't have prevented it. And with that, I'm off to polish up on one of my skills that is a bit weak rather than pontificating and debating here (as though I've got ANY answers, really!).
One thing I noticed this morning, though: most everyone still commenting on this thread seems to be mostly in agreement with each other, and others have dropped off. Did they, perhaps, run out of actual logic to defend their beliefs about 'why the rich shouldn't be obliged to pay for the poor'? Or were they afraid we might even change some of their opinions? Hmm. (I'll check back in a day or so to see how this discussion is coming along.)Nope. Said what I had to say, nothing presented here will change my mind. I'll probably never think that someone paying a percentage rate 12 times higher than another, and a dollar rate 1000 times higher than another, isn't paying his fair share. I'm going to think he's paying much more than a fair share.
Why though no interest in whether the lesser paid is being paid his fair share?
I'm sure most people would be grateful to earn enough to be taxed at a higher rate.Maybe because you mistakenly believe that YOU are the one to determine what is "fair" rather than the two parties involved.
Life doesn't work that way - John Holden is not the world's guide to "fair" - and most of us realize that.If it were the two parties involved who agreed what was fair then I would have no argument with that.
Unfortunately in the vast majority of cases the employer tells the prospective employee what the deal is "take it or leave it" (if you don't take it, there are thousands who will).Correct!
And then the employee says "OK" and the deal is consummated. No need for John Holden to interfere at all in the affairs of either - both parties have voluntarily agreed.That my friend, isn't my definition of a voluntary agreement. Not where one tells the other what he is going to agree to!
Yes, take it or leave it. That's as much choice as me asking if you would rather be hung or shot.
Thats right a choice, now you understand what a choice is.
For it to be voluntary, the job OFFER has to be given voluntarily, as does the job ACCEPTANCE. You would force the job offer, taking away the voluntary part.
What about a job offer where the employer has a line 'Desired wage'?
What about it?
It's still the employer calling the shots.The employer is offering a job. Voluntarily.
A worker takes the job. Voluntarily.
It's nice to know that you don't think the employer should have a choice.Where have I said that I don't think the employer should have the choice? I have said that the choice shouldn't be solely in the hands of the employer though.
Why not, nobody else has anything at stake but the employer.
So the employee has nothing at stake! No family, no housing costs, no food costs!
Amazing place the USA, I think I might move there after all!He can pay for those things or not, his choice. Until that person is employed he has nothing at stake in that company.
You didn't mention a stake in the company, you just said "at stake".
It's not. The worker has a choice too. Take what is offered, counter-offer, or refuse the job.
Since the job belongs to the owner, the prospective employee has no right to FORCE the owner to change the pay.
So, let's recap.
Employer offers job at $10/hr.
P.Employee can accept, reject, or counter at $12.50/hr.
Employer can accept or reject counter-offer.
See? Choices all around!
Well, see, that's kind of the point. While I understand that you think YOU should be involved in setting prices others don't agree. Agreements can be reached without your help; it's done every day in the store and it can be and is done in the HR office as well.
I don't for one moment think I should be involved in setting prices beyond prices that affect me.
You however seem to think that nobody should be involved in setting prices beyond the employer.Now you're getting it - an agreement between two people (employer and employee) doesn't need a third party deciding what that agreement shall be. Two competent adults can make that decision themselves without need of any help.
Now if one of them is retarded (or whatever the currently PC term is) or somehow unable to make decisions for themselves then sure - let govt. help, much as they help children.
John, You have to AGREE to take the position, so it is an agreement. If you choose not to take the job, then you still have agreed. If I offer to sell you a product at $5.00 and you argee, then we have come to an agreement on the price. If you agree to work for me at $10.00 an hour, then we have agreed. Just because you don't make the offer it does not change the fact that there is an agreement. And, you can make a counter offer of the wages you want and the business owner can accept of deny it. Those are the ONLY 2 people involved in the process.
So in the position where you are offered $8 an hour and you can either accept that or remain unemployed, that to your thinking is a choice!
What is the alternative?
You need a job, you get offered one for $8/hr. You don't like that, so what would the alternative be?Now you are beginning to get my point.
There is no alternative.No, I'm not beginning to get your point. I'm trying to explain that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a voluntary agreement between two parties if you take away the choice of one of the parties.
But you are arguing for taking away the choice of one of the parties! In the majority of cases there is no voluntary agreement, all there is is take it or leave it.
No, I'm not arguing for taking away choice!
Take it or leave it is a choice. No choice would be 'Here's your job, show up tomorrow, you have no choice'.
Since you don't like the situation where both parties have a choice, what do you want?
If I think I am worth more and that someone will pay me more than employer #1, then I CHOOSE to say no to that employer. If I don't think I'm worth more, then I will take the job. OR, If I think I have a valuable commodity in my services I can try to start my own business. Either is a choice that I make. Again, who should set the wage? The person PAYING it for a service that they have determined the value of to them OR the person being paid? Obviously it is a combonation when it is agreed upon, but the employer should not be forced to pay more than the value to them.
John, Do you believe that the prospective employee should dictate the wages to be paid without the owner having a say?
But also that they can't reach agreement without your help? Truthfully, most people neither need nor want Big Daddy Government making their agreements for them. At least in the US - I understand that most of Europe is much more "modern" and the people can't make decisions by themselves...
The agreement is reached when someone accepts a position at the wage offered. It is really that simple.
John, do you negotiate the price of a gallon of milk with the supermarket that you purchase it from? If not why?
Because if I were to try to I would be told were to get off, same as if I tried negotiating a wage with them.
John, If you were to start a business how would you determine what wages to pay your employees? Be detailed...
Then you must have no skills worth negotiating. I negotiated my pay for my last job. I got more than other's in my position because I brought more to the table. If they didn't think I had value, then they would have said no to my requested salary. At that point, I would have had the choice to accept their offer or not. All choices.
John, exactly...if the two agree on the rate of exchange for labor and money, then it is considered "fair". If they don't agree that it's fair, then they are not in an employee/emploter relationship and the "fair"ness does not apply.
Seems to me that if the prospective employee wants to much for his "product" (as evidenced by those thousands selling for less) then it must not be a "fair" price he is asking.
The marketplace sets what is "fair" and doesn't need help from you to do so.
It's a free country, go earn your fair share.
You say it's not possible, but millions of people who pull themselves up into the top brackets of income every year disagree with you.And how many tens of millions are kept securely at the bottom of the heap?
None of them. Nobody is being forced by anyone else to stay at the bottom of the pile.
Jaxson, I want to come and live in your perfect world.
It's not perfect, and it's getting worse all the time, but it's called America. Anyone is free to come here(legally).
Here, a single person can pay for food, housing, utilities, and college on a minimum wage job. Or, they can get any of the innumerable customer service jobs that pay more than minimum wage. They can save up money to start a business, or work their way up the management ladder
It truly is a great world to live in, I just hate to see it being ruined all the time.You can do all that on $5.15 an hour!
Why don't I believe you?Wyoming $5.15
Minnesota $5.25
Arkansas $6.25
Georgia $5.15http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
"Note: Where Federal and state law have different minimum wage rates, the higher standard applies."
Federal minimum wage trumps a lower state minimum wage.Then why and how do states set lower minimums?
They are usually left over, old laws from before the federal went up. They have to pay the federal wage if it's higher.
So, you see how someone can work minimum wage, go to school, and save?Nope, not on the minimum wage whether it be $5 or $7 an hour.
Uh, did you miss my post? I spelled it out for you, with the costs of housing, tuition, food, and utilities.
You didn't respond to it, so I figured you read it and realized 'oh, it is possible!'.No, I was so gob smacked by your lack of reality that I had to take a break.
Lack of reality?
Everything I posted is factual. I was right about minimum wage. I was right about tuition. I was right about housing. I was right about utilities. I was right about food.
What was I wrong about? Come on, details John.OK, what sort of accommodation would you get in a city for $100?
Either a dorm room or a small bedroom in an apartment with 3 or 5 other guys.
In other words, sufficient shelter.Not to mention I actually budgeted $200/month, not $100.
$200 a month! I thought you'd said $100 a week.
Try reading what I post.
Yes, $200/month for student housing.What you said was "Student housing... as cheap as $100/month,"
What he said was.
"Student housing... as cheap as $100/month, let's call it $200 though."I said this:
I said you can find it as cheap as $100/month, but I budgeted $200 so you wouldn't complain.
Why don't you just look at it! The math is there, minimum wage can pay for housing, utilities, food, tuition, and still have money left over every month.
Minimum wage is $7.25/hr.
$800 for a 6 credit-hour semester... ~$200/month.
Student housing... as cheap as $100/month, let's call it $200 though.
Food, call it $100/month.
Utilities, call it $100/month.
There's $600/month in expenses, and that's not even stretching it, you could bring down housing and food bills, or bring down the number of credit hours. Doesn't include student loans, pell grants, or any form of welfare. That still leaves the student with $600/month in extra money. Use $100 of that for fun/emergencies, save $500/month, 4 years of college you have a degree and $24,000 saved up.Plenty of people working for minimum wage are part time. And lots of employers don't pay for overtime in accordance with the wage and hour law.
So?
If an employer isn't following the law, document it and file a complaint.
More people are going to part-time, to avoid obamacare costs... that's true. But I can name several cities where I can guarantee you can get a full-time job at above minimum wage, if you can type 20 wpm and agree not to swear at people on the phone.
So, it's doable.
And that would be fine and dandy if central Pennsylvania actually had job openings that aren't trucking or nursing. If you lack the skills to truck and didn't get a Bachelor's degree in Nursing, you're fscked.
And Central Pennsylvania is the only place on earth!
They won't get it!
Just come back with "learn to drive a truck" or "get a nursing diploma".Exactly! Now you're starting to understand!
Find a skill that's in demand, learn that skill, and make money doing it!
Still waiting for you to admit that you can go to college on minimum wage John. Either that, or explain why my math $600<$1200 is wrong.
Then go get the skills you need for one of those jobs, or move. It's really quite simple.
Trucking is still easy to get into, and you can make a lot of money doing trucking related to the oil industry in places like N.D.You know what I think John?
I think you don't like the solution. I think that, to you, it's not 'fair' for someone to have to work full time while they go to college, live in a small apartment, and eat cheap foods like beans and rice while they get their education.
I think you just want an easier way. You realize that it's possible, but don't think it should be that hard.But what about the guy working on a minimum wage who hasn't got the mindset for going to college, who has a wife and family to support?
There are so many programs that help them it would boggle your mind.
What? Like the minimum wage?
You don't get it do you, not everybody is cut out to be a CEO, or even just self employed, they have no rare sought after skills in fact nothing to differentiate them from a million other people.
But you would condemn them all to a life of squalor!Still waiting John. Do you admit that someone can work their way through college on minimum wage?
Oh I do beg your pardon! How very selfish of me to go to bed to sleep whilst Jaxson waited for a pointless answer to a pointless question!
Of course someone can work their way through college on the minimum wage (I knew somebody who fed himself almost exclusively on road kill!). But someone isn't everyone is it?
I notice that in New York student accommodation is much nearer $200 a week than a month.But it's where the best course is for the subject they want to study!
A massive flaw in the system then!
Potentially the world greatest nuclear physicist doing media studies 'cos he couldn't afford the course on the minimum wage.Sorry John, can't get sucked into this again. The world isn't fair.
No problem. If he has no other way(remember, I'm not even counting Pell grants or student loans), he can go to a community college and do generals for 2 years. As the greatest nuclear physicist, he should have little problem getting good grades and high test scores. Then he can get a scholarship to any school.
See? You always look for obstacles and blame them. Successful people overcome obstacles when they come across them.No Jaxson, I do not look for obstacles, there are plenty enough without having to search them out.
Basically the argument between us is that I want to raise everybody up to the highest level whilst you want to drag the majority down to the lowest level.
There is nothing noble about poverty, it degrades and demeans all of us, both those suffering from poverty and those who think that is the state that people should live in.No, I don't want to drag the majority down. Not in the least.
What I want is for people to lift themselves up, instead of demanding that the government/the wealthy do it for them.
Responsibility, discipline, hard work, etc, all get replaced when we demand the government fix all our problems.I'm rendered speechless by your total lack of comprehension!
If everybody were to lift themselves up to their maximum potential there would still be menial jobs that needed doing and many of these people who had realised their maximum potential would still be doing these jobs because there isn't enough work for all as it is.
Those doing these menial jobs would not be earning enough for a full and satisfying life and would look to the government to help them alleviate their poverty.
If you really want to replace government help with responsibility, discipline and hard work then demand that responsibility, discipline and hard work are justly rewarded and stop blaming the victims for the crime.No, John. Not everyone is born at the same time, goes to school at the same time, puts in the same amount of effort, or works for the same amount of time.
Young workers and low-skill workers should take the lowest-paying jobs. If they increase their experience and education, they can work to get better jobs. When someone gets a better job, there are new young and low-skill people coming into the system to take their position.
Yes, there will always be low-paying jobs, but nobody is forced to be stuck in one. There will also always be a constant influx of new low-skill, low-education, low-experience workers to take those jobs.
The problem is, we can give a single mother, who isn't working at all, over $60,000 in welfare a year. If she takes a job that pays $20,000, then we will only give her $20,000 in welfare a year, so there is a huge incentive NOT to improve her situation. Our system is completely backwards in that regard. I believe a single mother of 1 has to earn $45k, before she will make more accepting more pay than she would by refusing and keeping what benefits she has.Face it Jaxson, you believe that the victim is to blame.
A victim of the system that requires that for some to have more than enough there must be plenty who don't have enough.
Nope, it's not a zero-sum game. More money for one person doesn't mean less money for another. Actually the reverse is true, more money tends to come from new wealth which enrichens the population as a whole. Many of our poor today have large houses, cars, TVs, iPhones, and really don't struggle for food.
No, none of today's poor have large houses cars TVs etc. They only think they're poor. The genuine poor have none of those things.
According to you, anyone not making $50k(not sure on number, but it's apparently high for you) or more is a poor victim.
So, to you, would a family that makes $20k per year, and $10k in taxes, and $5k in food stamps, and free healthcare, and housing vouchers, be a poor family? Or does $10/hr make them not-poor?If that family is not poor why do they need $10k in tax relief, $5k in food stamps and free healthcare and housing vouchers?
Or actually I should ask why do their employees have their payroll bill supported by the tax payers?That's not what I asked John.
Is that family, with $35k(+ housing) in income and food, plus free healthcare, poor or not?
Whose employees? You're clearly not talking about the same thing I'm talking about, because I wasn't talking about employers.
Let me guess: you're looking for more problems, more obstacles, more excuses.No, I'm talking about people who have to rely on the state (other taxpayers) for about half their income.
I was talking about employers (not employees, typo) receiving huge subsides to their pay roll from the tax payer.
The victim?
If someone is a victim, I don't generally blame them.
I think the responsibility for people to improve their situation lies on their shoulders. Just keep on ignoring what I say and building up straw man arguments(Aunt Sallys)Classic, first you deny blaming the victim and then you go right ahead and blame the victim!
I take it you write comedy scripts?Seems he doesn't need me to inspire him, he appears to be self inspiring!
I didn't blame any victims. Unlike you, I don't think being poor makes someone a victim.
For you to say that I'm blaming victims is an Aunt Sally, and you sure love those don't you?Exactly, you don't think being poor makes anybody a victim. As far as you can see anybody who is poor is so because they lack self discipline and are lazy.
Every day I work with people who have worked every day of their life since leaving school. No way can they be classified as undisciplined or lazy but they have never earned enough to be able to save for their retirement and for you to blame their situation on their own lack of discipline and laziness is just about as insulting as can be.
You remind me of Thatcher who having made about 4 million people unemployed rounded on them and accused them of being lazy scroungers.Exactly? Lol, you're hilarious. First you say that I'm calling poor people victims. Then you say 'Exactly, you're not!' I know you love to argue both sides of an issue, but make up your mind sometimes.
People can be poor for many reasons, but your attitude shows why many people are poor. The idea of working their way through college on a low-wage job? Appalling! No way! They should just be given it!
I haven't blamed a single person John. Aunt Sally again. Did I blame any of those people you work with? Of course not, but let's just pretend like I did, right?Novel idea, let people earn enough to pay their way through college without suffering deprivation!
Who says anything about just being given it?
We did once, in this country, have almost free university education. It was reckoned that the increased earning potential would pay back tuition fees in higher tax revenue or increased service to the community.
Tax cuts for the wealthy put paid to that idea.
If they are that good at their chosen field, then grants and scholarships should be pretty easy to come by. Or, like many others have done, he can take classes, work and save, take more classes, work and save....see a pattern here?
You don't have to go to school in New York. Of course, in your world, rather than doing best with what you have and improving your situation, it's better to complain about how things aren't fair, and other people have more advantages than you, etc etc etc.
Go to an affordable college. Get good grades and test scores, get a scholarship and/or grant and/or loan, then go where you want. Overcome, or complain?
I love how you say 'Of course someone can work their way through college', when earlier you were arguing that you didn't believe it was possible. Did you change your mind, or are you going to pretend(again) that you weren't saying what you said before?Jaxson, bless you, you're assuming that the rest of the world accepts the academic standards of the US. Which, clearly, is nothing to brag about. (surely someone as educated as yourself has seen the tables?) In the UK standards are slightly higher, any old degree wont get you any old job, that's the way it is.
We have different standards in this country, and they cost (clearly not as much as yours)I really don't know what you're going on about. I've been talking about the costs of college in the US, not education standards. Just because you say I'm assuming something doesn't make it true.
Any old degree won't get you a job in the US either, and I've never said otherwise.
Jaxson, you persuaded me that it was possible for some to work their way through college on the minimum wage in the US.
It would still not be possible in the UK.Here are some facts and a discussion of the realities of working one's way through college in the United States:
"Battling College Costs, a Paycheck at a Time"
"...The two are part of a rare species on college campuses these days, as the nation’s collective student loan balance hits $1 trillion and continues to rise. While many students are trying to defray some of the costs, few can actually work their way through college in a normal amount of time without debt and little or no need-based financial aid unless they have an unusual combination of bravery, luck and discipline..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/busin … me.html?hpI'm sorry about that, but that's just another reason why I love America.
What just because some people can work their way through college on a minimum wage? (not everybody, just some!)
Short of having a physical condition that keeps someone from working a 40 hour week, or even a 30 hour week, everybody can.
And yes, I love the fact that anyone can work one of the lowest paid jobs in the country while getting an education and improve their situation. I'm sad that so many people complain and find excuses to keep from doing it.I take it then you didn't feel the need to read the link posted by Ralph Deeds!!
Ralph doesn't respond to me anymore.
What link, tax on wealth?This one -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/busin … me.html?hpBad link, but I found it.
I never said someone can go to any college at minimum wage, and I don't expect anybody to pay for anybody else. If you want to go to an expensive school, get scholarships. If you can't, then work your way through a community college and get your grades up.
There's nothing that needs to be said about it. Only people who whine and complain that they should be able to go to whatever school they want without paying for it. It's a stupid entitlement mentality. If you want to go somewhere, either pay for it, or get grades and test scores that will get you in.This whole argument was predicated on your claim that anybody could go to college on no more than minimum wage.
No, like food stamps, subsidized housing, grants, if you are bound and determined to stay down then you will.
Where is the dignity in having to rely on food stamps and subsidised housing just so that your employer can under pay you?
So, do you admit that someone can go to college with a minimum wage job? Let's solidify that before we change the subject.
"So that's a reason for acceptance. It neatly absolves you from any effort to make it a little fairer and a little more just!"
Have you made it fairer and more just?I try.
I don't just sit back and accept the trash that is flung my way.How have you tried? Please be specific. Remember, railing away on hubpages is not considered an attempt at anything other than self glorification.
I don't do self glorification and I don't validate insults by responding to them.
Its not an insult at all, its what you do every day. I'm sure I will be banned again but its ok.
Where is the self glorification in any of my posts?
You rail about the injustice everyday John, then claim everyone else contributes to it. That is self glorification.
Is it! Another case of two nations divided by a common language then.
I don't claim everybody contributes to it, I know plenty of people who don't. There just aren't that many on this thread.
I have $240 in my bank account and no credit. Please direct me to the nearest apartment where I can travel to, get a job instantly, and pay a month's rent while paying for a month's worth of gas for $240.
I don't know the details of your situation, and I'm not going to ask you to air them. There's always a way though. There are people willing to help if you really need it. Spending your time on HubPages probably isn't going to get you anywhere though.
You know what you should do? Write articles. Write like crazy. Spend as many hours as you can.
Write for up-front pay sites, where you get $3/$5/$10+ per article. You can join a bunch of them today, and start making money immediately. When you make enough, if you want, you can continue to write, or move to a different area, or go to school.
You have the internet, go work.But I don't want to write!
I want to __________(fill in the blank), and when I do I want to paid three times what either the job or my work is worth! The government should make my choice of employers give that to me.
"...nothing presented here will change my mind."
No doubt. I don't recall you ever changing your mind about anything.Of course not, he is always right...
I meant, nothing that had been presented here.
I've changed my mind about a lot of things, but I'm not surprised you haven't seen that happen Ralph. You usually leave a conversation anytime real facts are used, along with a nice condescending message.
- JustCraftyposted 12 years ago0
I find as a working poor worker, I pay taxes and can't have the things that I am paying for other people to have.
I believe there should be a flat tax rate for everyone after the first $25,000 of income.
No loopholes to get around this tax as I don't seem to see any loopholes for people who earn under $25,000 but lots of taxes for making this much.Steve Forbes, a billionaire, is a chief proponent of the flat tax and has been for more than 3 decades. Here is an example of why a flat tax is an outrageous pilfering of the pockets of those at the bottom and in the middle.
Forbes, Trump, Adelson, Huntsman, billionaires all, et al...pay the same 16% tax as workers earning less than $40K a year. Sounds good so far, right?
What would make anyone think that 16% flat tax won't enrich wealth at the top by reducing the amount of taxes they pay while they spiral your cost of living out of control to help grow more profit and wealth?
So while they are jacking prices on housing, groceries and other necessities, you pay more for these and the same flat tax as Mr. McBillions? Who then hurts more? You who has to hope and pray McBillions will give you a cost of living increase? Or Mr. McBillions who can now sit back secure in the knowledge that he can raise prices on his goods and services and all that will do is amass more wealth for him. Just not you.
A) If the Government is unable to alleviate the inability of the people to merely subsist, with its funds, then YES.
B) Assisting the needy is irrevocably a task of momentous measure, which can be achieved only by the persistent coherence of the Government and the NGOs.
C) In my notion, a line of demarcation must be prescribed by a bona fide agency, affiliated to the Government, which can lucidly highlight the poor and the needy, by which my intimation goes towards those who are in need of Government assistance for mere subsistence. Also the implicit causal factors of this financial crisis of that particular group of people should be studied intently by the Government.Here's a bit of ancient philosophy from Mozi, China 430 B.C.
C. 430 B.C. China
JUST SAY NO
It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world, to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits men he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone. Moreover, when the benevolent many plans for the benefit of the world, he does not consider merely what will please the eye, delight the ear, gratify the mouth, and give ease to the body. If in order to gratify the senses he has to deprive the people of the wealth needed for their food and clothing, then the benevolent man will not do so. Therefore Mozi condemns music not because the sound of the great bells and rolling drums, the zithers and pipes, is not delightful, not because the sight of the carvings and ornaments is not beautiful; not because the taste of the fried and broiled meats is not delicious; and not because lofty towers, broad pavilions, and secluded halls are not comfortable to live in. But though the body finds comfort, the mouth gratification, the eye pleasure, and the ear delight, yet if we examine the matter, we will find that such things are not in accordance with the ways of the sage kings. And if we consider the welfare of the world, we will find that they bring no benefit to the common people. Therefore Mozi says: Making music is wrong!
Now if the rulers and ministers want musical instruments to use tin their government activities, they cannot extract them from the seawater, like salt, or dig them out of the ground, like ore. Inevitably, therefore, they must lay heavy taxes upon the common people before they can enjoy the sound of great bells, rolling drums, zithers, and pipes. In ancient times the sage kings likewise laid heavy taxes on the people, but this was for the purpose of making boats and carts, and when they were completed and people asked, “What are these for?” the sage kings replied, “The boats are for use on water, and the carts for use on land so that gentlemen may rest their feet and laborers spare their shoulders.”
["Art is a jealous mistress, and if a man have a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture, or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider." Ralph Waldo Emerson]
People paid their taxes and levies and did not dare to grumble. Why? Because they knew that the taxes would be used for the benefit of the people. Now if musical instruments were also used for the benefit of the people, I would not venture to condemn them. Indeed, if they were as useful as the boats and carts of the sage kings, I would certainly not venture to condemn them.
There are three things the people worry about: that when they are hungry they will have no food, when they are cold they will have no clothing, and when they are weary they will have no rest. These are the three great worries of the people. Now let us try sounding the great bells, striking the rolling drums, strumming the zithers, blowing the pipes, waving the shields and axes in the
war dance. Does this do anything to provide food and clothing for the people? I hardly think so. But let us leave that point for the moment.
Now there are great states that attack small ones and great families that molest small ones. The strong oppress the weak, the many tyrannize the few, the cunning deceive the stupid, the eminent lord it over the humble, and bandits and thieves rise up on all sides and cannot be suppressed. Now let us try sounding the great bells, striking the rolling drums, strumming the zithers, blowing the pipes, and waving the shields and axes in the war dance. Does this do anything to rescue the world from chaos and restore it to order? I hardly think so. Therefore Mozi says if you try to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful by laying heavy taxes on the people for the purpose of making bells, drums, zithers, and pipes, you will get nowhere. So Mozi says: making music is wrong!
Now the rulers and ministers, seated in their lofty towers and broad pavilions, look about them, and there are the bells, hanging like huge cauldrons. But unless the bells are struck, how can the rulers get any delight out of them? Therefore it is obvious that the rulers must have someone to strike the bells. But they cannot employ old men or young boys, since their eyes and ears are not keen enough and their arms are not strong, and they cannot make the sounds harmonious or see to strike the bells front and back. If they employ young men, then they will be taking them away from their plowing and planting, and if they employ young woment, they will be taking them away from their weaving and spinning. Yet the rulers and ministers will have their music, though their music making interferes to such an extent with the people’s efforts to produce food and clothing! Therefore Mozi says: making music is wrong!
[Mozi, from “Against Music.” Born a few years after Confucius’ death, Mozi professed the doctrine of undifferentiated love: “When everyone regards the states and cities of others as he regards his won, no one will attack the others’ state or seize the otherrs’ cities.” His disdain for music was part of a larger critique of the aristocracy’s lavish banquets and theatrical performances.]
From: “LAPHAM’S QUARTERLY, Volume III, NUMBER 2 Spring 2010
[“Questions that worry UAW members:
“What happens to my family if I’m injured and unable to work?
“What happens if I’m laid off and can’t find another job?
“What happens if I’m fired unfairly by my boss?
“What happens when I’m too old to work but too young to die?”
Walter P. Reuther]- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Seriously John... you argue so vehemently against a system you don't understand.
You argue about our minimum wage laws incorrectly.
You think the only person who should have a choice as to what a job pays is the worker...
You would grumble about being given low-quality food while you are starving...
It's amazing, really. - JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
There are two kinds of people. Those who complain about problems, and those who conquer problems.
More specifically, those who seek out, complain about, and blame obstacles for their lack of success, and expect someone to fix things for them...
And those who, overcome obstacles, and find success and happiness in spite of them.Successful people look ahead and plan for the future. Some people who find themselves in poverty are too present-oriented. They don't plan to get up in the morning and look for work, so they don't go to bed on time. They stay up till 4:00 AM doing who knows what. They end up sleeping till noon. They wander over to the the mall and window-shop and look for people to talk to. Then they go home, open a can of soup and watch TV till Letterman is over. Then they decide to do something 'cause they have wasted their entire day. They do some house work. They play some video games. They text their girlfriends/boyfriends till they drop their phones on the ground. And then finally they hit the sac... and sleep until noon."Oh, why is everyone so unfair to me ?" these present-oriented people wonder. " Why won't anyone hire me at $20.00 an hour? I am a great person! Life is so unfair. Why do they hold me down?"
Some find themselves stuck in low wage jobs. They come home and collapse in self-pity. Yet, they don't bother to research what other opportunities there are out there. They don't get online and find companies they would rather work for, even if part time. They don't get phone numbers for other places of employment, which they could contribute to or enjoy working at. And they whine and complain... and space out on their futures.... as though they have no control over them. Without foresight and planning, there can be no future. If one fails to plan, one plans to fail. And everyone know the value of being future-oriented because their mothers/fathers have told them a million times.
Well, how about those who have been looking for work every single day, and are future-oriented and always have been? These people have been laid-off through no fault of their own. They have skills, experience, and good work records, but can find no work. Too many businesses have been discouraged or shut down due to government regulations, Obama care, insurance demands, licenses, stipulations and legal hoops. (and of course, the "economy" in general...)
The encouragement of small businesses and business in general is what is needed, instead of taxing the rich, who Do provide jobs. We still have a very percolating economy. But, in this land of the free, we could have a totally percolating economy. If the rich are getting away with murder. Stop it at that level.
Boundaries.
We could all be present-oriented... 100% .
But, we aren't.Not everyone has the same opportunities in life. Many needing that assistance are doing the best they can. Some a disabled,should we deny them also?
Not everyone has skills for the better jobs or the ability to learn. They need and should get assistance. Should you ever lose your job I hope you never ask for help.
"Not everyone has skills for the better jobs or the ability to learn. They need and should get assistance. Should you ever lose your job I hope you never ask for help."
Many of them are in the ranks of the Tea Party.
"Sorry John, can't get sucked into this again. The world isn't fair."
So that's a reason for acceptance. It neatly absolves you from any effort to make it a little fairer and a little more just!Closing a big tax loophole: a tax on wealth
"... Taxing wealth in addition to income is one way to make sure that the rich contribute more to government coffers. That would essentially be a tax on household assets like property, stocks, bonds, unincorporated businesses, trusts, art and yachts.
"The idea is to aim at the wealthiest part of the population, perhaps the top 1 percent, a group that has seen the most significant and consistent accumulation of wealth over the last few decades.
"' wealth tax is an attempt to fill the holes in income tax,' said Douglas A. Shackelford, a tax expert at the University of North Carolina. 'The primary hole is unrealized capital gains. That’s behind the big buildup of dynastic wealth.'
"COUNTRIES like Canada have a tax on asset appreciation, based on the value of the assets at the time of the owner’s death. The United States does not, and the tax code contains a huge loophole through which to pass wealth to one’s heirs...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/busin … =yourtaxesIt is sad but true that there will always be those that want someone else to make the payments on their lifestyle. This is nothing new and it was recognized long ago that a potential pitfall of democracy is that people will inevitably realize that they can vote themselves "free" money from someone else and will then promptly do so.
To consider the collection of untaxed (read "unshared") wealth each year as a "loophole" is a ridiculous bit of spin; it is only a loophole only if the ultimate goal is to somehow equalize the wealth of everyone without regard to who earned it. Too play Robin Hood, in other words, or to vote free money to the masses.
That this yahoo can propose taxing income, not just once, but again and again every year thereafter until it's gone is a pitiful indication of just how far we are willing to set aside our ethics and morals in the search for personal riches. An indication of just how greedy we have become.
Although a case might be made for taxing unrealized income (increase in worth of a stock portfolio for instance), taxing the value of property every year is outright theft in a way that a graduated income tax rate could never hope to realize. Do people have no shame at all any more? Is their self respect and morality so low that they are willing to do anything to get the bread and circuses that they want but don't want to pay for?Like the Bill Gates and Koch Brothers of this world?
Sorry - neither one has broken into my home and stolen from me. Don't know as I've ever had dealings with the Koch Bros directly, but my dealings with Bill Gates was done with eyes wide open and acceptance of the asking price. No theft involved.
Are you implying that everybody who finds themselves in the position where they have to look to others for help are crooks?
BTW, you never bought anything which did not have any Microsoft goodies installed but you still ended up giving Bill Gates a few bucks?When someone is in a position to ask for help they are not a crook. When they demand that help, at gunpoint or on threat of jail, then they are a crook as far as I am concerned.
There is an invisible line between forcing someone to contribute to the needs of the country and taking advantage of the power of the masses to force "contribution" far beyond anything fair and equitable. This scheme to tax wealth is so far across that line as to be indistinguishable from simple theft to anyone with any morality at all. One has only to look at the terms used; "loopholes" and "holes in the income tax" to see that and it goes downhill from there.
Anything installed on my computer is either with my permission and acceptance or a virus for which I haven't paid anything. That's what I meant - my dealings with Mr. Gates are with eyes open and accepting his price.
John, the people that chooses to get as much education he/she can (and I'm not just talking about a 4 year college degree, there are many forms of schooling to take to get a good paying job) are usually always going to do well financially. People that settle for minimum wage or low wage jobs due to not much in the way of an education and/or job training made that choice and will usually end up low-income. Life is full of choices, choose wisely.
But what of those who aren't cut out for a college education?
They too surely have a right to live.They can look for apprenticeship programs, go to trade school, or get a job and work their way up the ranks.
They have the right, same as anyone else. They have the right to go to college, same as everyone else.
Problems, problems, problems. That's all you see.Maybe John's parents didn't help him much as a lad, or teen. That's the time when parents must determine how they can contribute to their child's education, so that the child will be able to survive in the world. Now, here is the absolute key...
The parent must take note and determine the interests of the child.
And this careful observation should be started as soon as the child's personality starts to emerge.
We all have a natural tendency toward some interest. This interest is what must be cultivated.
John, what is your passion in life. Are you fulfilling it...? If you are, others will need your particular skill. They will pay you for your expertise, which you yourself developed out of interest and innate enthusiasm.
Look, there is hope.
In this light, there is!
Thats why I say.
Forcing is taboo.
Natural enthusiasm must carry us and our children forward.Unless of course it is forcing somebody to stay at a low wage job.
I certainly hope this is not happening to anyone. It is indeed a horrible situation to be or feel forced to do anything.
Finally we agree.
-but, those two words must be carefully analyzed... feeling forced vs actually being forced.
And this is where conservatives and liberals disagree. Liberals stop at feelings.
They usually ignore logic...
and common sense.And yet I still carry on using logic and common sense in the face of those who do neither!
On the contrary, it is both common sense and logical to argue that not everybody is the same.
It is common sense and logical to argue that not everybody lives, or can live, in identical circumstances.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
The majority of people earning in the bottom 20% of earners in America move up to a different quintile over the course of a decade. The majority. it's not rare, it's not uncommon. It's the norm.
Keep pretending that it doesn't happen John. Ultimately, people are responsible for themselves.So the majority manage it, what about those who don't?
For God's sake, feed them the damn fish! But what happens when the fish aren't being thrown over-board anymore?
They die anyway.Yes, that's about all I expected - blow you Jack, I'm all right.
For the most part, they have the same opportunity, they just aren't willing to do it. I'm sorry John, but there are lazy people in the world. Lots of them.
And there are lots of people in this world who are so insular that they can not see any point of view but their own. If it works for them then it must work for everybody else.
I know nothing about how it is in Britain.
Is it much different from here?You're right.
Someone else might take that $1200 a month, and $600 in bills, and then buy $200 worth of music every month, and a $400 purse, then charge $250 to a credit card for salon bills, then buy a $1700 Macbook Pro(because you have to have the best to get good grades!).
You're right, I can see how it would be impossible for someone else to pay the same bills with the same income. I don't know how I missed that.JaxsonRaine
It's not hard to see where you are coming from....I get ticked off when I see people taking advantage of the system also. The thing is, in todays world, it's not a simple as saying "go get a job"!
Like I have said before, there are so many over -qualified people looking for jobs that they take jobs at Mcdonalds and such to to keep working and hopefully supplement the family income, or pay for it all together! The big company's love this.....greater ability for the low price.... only problem is.....the people who would normally take these positions, are out of luck with higher value people applying! Guess that could be good, but in the end it only exhausts the system in place to help those who work at lower paying jobs.
Somehow they still need help/. I am all about working for yourself and/or striving to be better and so on. Some people do not have these obsessions or qualities, whatever you would like to call them.
We all need a fair shake in this world, whatever your income level, education level or desire level, no people shopuld be left behind in a world this prosperous. Do I think free handouts are cool, yes I do in the right situation!
I thinbk people in need should try harder........ some of them do and some don't, who are we to judge which is right? We can all help a little and go on with our lives instead of making a huge deal about it. Until there are more laws (which I am tired of also) to keep the ultra rich from finding tax loopholes to stash away their millions, please don't defend them, certainly not feel sorry for them, in the end, they are not to worried!
Let's give a lending hand here and there to ther need and move on! No big deal! Have you ever needed something that could potentially change your life? ust let it go. We all need a break once in awhile!As I said, some people can see no point of view but their own, there's no need to reinforce that statement.
I can see your point of view, it's just illogical to say that two people can't get by with the same expenses and the same income.
Extremely illogical. $600 will always be less than $1200.Why are you throwing mud at the argument?
Assuming that two people have the same needs and the same income then fine.
But that has nothing to do with my argument.
As you say, $600 will always be less than $1200 and that is my whole point
John, you're right, but you're wasting your time.
Ralph, you missed it. I realized the folly of my ways. Now I can see how one person can have the same income and expenses as another, but not manage to pay their bills.
You linked to an article complaining about how people can't necessarily work their way through expensive schools. I say boo-hoo, work your way through a cheaper school or get better grades.I know a boy who in high school knew he would not go the college route. He knew he had to learn a skill, trade or something! He chose the Print world. He started designing and printing T shirts in High School. He made friends with the print teacher. He went to Jr. College and learned typography and graphic illustration. He took commercial art classes. Then he mentored with a small business owner and learned all there was to learn about how to run a T shirt business. Then, he learned all there was to learn about print sales. He mentored and worked for two other business owners in print sales. He taught himself accounting and programming. Now he owns his own company and has designed a website for his sales contacts to order print from. (Also, a site for political debate, and a site for art galleries to show their featured art.) That boy is my son. I am so proud of all his self-determined efforts and his self reliance. Of course, he found a great girl and was smart enough to marry her. And she is a physical therapist. Marrying well counts too!
I think the marrying well route can be bad ab good but finding someone you can share a life with that will listen to your point of view and vice versa is priceless.
I highly commend your son for doing what he wanted to do and going outside the box! Being a free thinker and going for your dreams takes a special person. People can go to college (tht's cool) but you cannot make a person (even with a ton of education) into a free thinker, a industrialist, an entrepeneur!Thanks lucid D.
I really think all people are all special people. We can all do it. Parents should help their children manifest it through encouragement, positivity and respect. What are
t h e i r interests ?
it takes
O b s e r v a t i o n.Blame it all on the parents is an old, well-disproven concept. Go read some psychology books. Nature vs. nurture. (No offense intended to people with disabilities--I'm on your side of this argument): You can nurture a child with deformities, who can't see, walk, or talk all you want and observe their interests all you want and they might still not make it. Your logic is paper thin, Kathryn. Why not think about ALL people instead of the fantasy perfect people in your current world. "Encouragement, positivity and respect". That's all it takes.Hahaha
I'm glad your Barbie-fantasy life hasn't broken down, because you'd probably never make it in the real world where people get their hands dirty gardening and kids wet their beds...I really feel sorry for anyone who can take my encouraging words and turn them completely INSIDE OUT!
What exactly does marrying well count for? You lost me.
Well it saves you from having to work for a living for a start.
*gasp*
TV ISN'T REAL LIFE!@?!?!??!?!!?
... thanks for that John, I thought there were real people living in my little TV.No, but I find it interesting. Here's an interesting interview with the author of the series.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … 12806.htmlSorry Ralph, that was aimed at Jaxson who appears to be rather out of touch with reality.
Go ahead, keep saying that. It doesn't hurt my feelings.
I'm very out of touch with reality. When I have no clue what a college costs, I go look at their tuition schedule. When I have no clue what apartments cost, I go look at listings. So out of touch...Shame you didn't do the same with the cost of living.
Really?
Haha, come on John. That is exactly what we were doing, looking at the cost of living.Oh yes, of course, you included misc. expenses to cover everything else didn't you?
And then rather spoilt it by concluding that that amount would be saved every month!Yes, but I also didn't include the money from any welfare, student loans, scholarships, or grants in the original equation either, so I thought that would be quite fair.
But, if it makes you happy, i'll amend it to 'misc. expenses and savings'. Misc. expenses will probably come down to around $100/month. Happy now? We have covered the cost of living, and you can do that on minimum wage in college.Correction - some people can do it, not everybody!
Tell me, does your misc expenses cover heating and medical insurance?Heating is covered in rent/utilities. Medical expenses are covered by welfare.
Anybody capable of working can do it too. If you make the same amount of money, you can pay the same bills. There is no such thing as two people who can't pay the same bills with the same money.So everybody pays the same rent, their food costs are equal. They use exactly the same amount of heating. Wear out their shoes at the same rate!
Bloomin; marvellous.Two people can get away with exceedingly similar expenses. If two people eat the same food, their food costs are going to pretty much be equal... especially if they shop at the same store.
Excuses excuses excuses. You'll say there isn't a victim mindset, but there very clearly is among many people. It's not their fault, blame the wealthy, blame their parents, blame the government, demand free stuff...But if they don't?
And what is that rant about? What has it to do with anything? Who's blaming anybody, apart from you that is, who seems to think everybody should be able to live their lives according to Jaxson's rules.If they don't what? Eat the same food? If someone eats food they can't afford, that's nobody's fault except their own.
I think our country is suffering largely because of a loss of responsibility and work ethic. How many people are on welfare, when they could be taking a job or extra job on the side? Around here, nearly anybody can get a job and start working in a call center tomorrow, so why aren't those call centers filled to the brim? It's because our safety net allows people to be complacent and dependent, rather than being a step-up program.Look Jaxson, when I was in my twenties I stood nearly six feet weighed about 160 and needed to eat 3000 - 3500 calories a day just to maintain body weight. My partner at the time was five feet three inches and weighed about 112 lbs and grew fat if she ate more than 1500 calories a day.
Now what do we see there?Two people living a very similar lifestyle with one consuming about double the amount of food that the other did, and not consuming out of greed but necessity.
Now would you like to have another attempt to convince me that everybody can live off exactly the same amount of food at exactly the same cost!The amount I budgeted was more than enough for someone who needs to eat 3000+ calories a day. If you really want to, buy a $30 tub of weight gainer powder every month and add that to your diet(that's what I had to do in college, I was able to afford it).
That wasn't my point, my point was that two dissimilar people would eat dissimilar amounts of food and have dissimilar costs. Not, as you claim, everybody being served by exactly the same amount.
That's why I budget generic amounts. Yes, people will differ some, but if I can eat 4000+ calories a day on $X, then it's fair to say that $X is a fair budget for most. In fact, it would be more than fair for most.
You just want to try and find problems, exclusions, exceptions, instead of having a productive conversation about general principles.
Tell you what, you need an extra $50/month for food? Fine, then I'll budget $100/month for your apartment. I was being generous already in the budget, but you just want to try and break it.
LOL Just kidding, but... I might argue that one, actually (different kind of work, that's for sure).
Rubbish, it's nothing to do with same income and expenses but all to do with insufficient income.
And why your obsession with college education as the only means of earning a decent income? That, my friend, is elitist and also offensive to all those in jobs that don't require a college education.I showed how minimum wage is sufficient, so how is it insufficient for someone else?
I use college as an example of one way. Trade school and apprenticeships are other ways. Working up the corporate ladder is another. College is just the most accessible.
It's not elitist of offensive, you're projecting. I never said it was the only way, I have in fact said the opposite.
But, carry on with that 'logic' and 'common sense'.No, you showed how minimum wage was sufficient for some people in some situations.
Sufficient to get through college to improve your situation. If someone isn't willing to do that, well, that's up to them.
No,sufficient for some people in some states, not all.
And to counter your next post, no. it costs money to move.Always looking for obstacles John. Always.
Beside, you can find a large corporation in practically any state to work for, thereby getting federal minimum wage.No, not looking for obstacles, I'm being pragmatic.
Not really. Your idea of pragmatism sucks. Even a family of 4 can work their way through college on minimum wage, but you just have to find problems that just have to be blamed on the evil rich people who are keeping the poor working class as slaves by forcing them to take jobs.
Family of four! I assume they aren't all adults so add in child care for two children please.
Jaxson, you did NOT "show" how minimum wage was sufficient, you simply declared that it was--for a family of 4, no less. I double-dog dare you to live on what is the minimum in my state, Minnesota, with one of the highest minimum wage laws in the country. (Some states have NONE!) For a "small employer (with receipts less than $625,000) minimum wage is $5.25 after working a 48 hour work-week. Let's assume you aren't married with two kids, which in our example would take 3/4 of that money (or more), so dividing that by 4 we get $1.31/hour or $63/week or about $252 (Gross) per 48 hour work-week.
I double-dog dare you, Jaxson, to try to live as plush as you described on $252 (Gross) per week. It would be a lot less than that due to taxes and FICA being taken out of your check, but since you don't understand the first thing about taxes I'll leave that out of the calculations altogether, giving you a "free ride" (no taxes) lifestyle on $252 per week. Try it for a few months, if you dare, and report back your results and an accounting of where every dollar was spent. Simply put anything above this amount in a no-touch bank account for this trial period. Let us know how it goes. And don't forget--you have to work 48 hours/week and you have to pay first and last month's rent plus a damage deposit to rent the apartment, so you'll be homeless until you can save up that much money....My example was for a single person, not a family of 4, because the math is much simpler and John didn't believe me.
If you insist on working for a small business in a low minimum-wage state, then that's your choice. I would suggest one moves to a state that pays better, and has cheap living expenses. For a family, both parents can work if needed. 60 hours makes a huge difference compared to 40.
$7.25/hr*40*52/12*0.94 = $1181/month average income.
That family would also get a $7000 tax refund every year.
Food stamps of $600-$700 per month.
Pell grant to pay for college.
$500 housing
$200 food
=$700 expenses
=$481/month savings for misc. expenditures
=$5,700/year savings, + $7000 tax refund = $12,700/year savings.
For not being married with kids, I already showed how someone can go through college for only $500-$600 per month as a single person.But earlier on you said $100, make that $200 for accommodation!
By the way, does your intrepid freegan walk every where?Yes, I did John. $100/month was for a single person. I said we could say $200 so you wouldn't complain about living in a slum.
$500 is for a family of 4.
Walk/cycle or use public transport if necessary. Believe it or not, you don't have to have a car.Depending on where you go to school, you can get free transport, or large discounts. Going to school, you're probably not going to pay more than $50/month, which is well-within the ~$600/month in extra money you have available.
So living say ten miles away from campus to take care of cheap accommodation, you're going to cover that for $50 a month?
That would be a monthly, unlimited-use pass. Often it's even lower than that for students.
Or you could ride a bike. Or live closer to campus.
The question is, do you have a 'can-do' attitude, or a 'can't-do-it-there-are-too-many-problems-that-I-can-create-and-I-have-to-have-this-and-I-can't-live-without-this' attitude?No, what I don't have is a blind attitude to what other people can do. Like my friend who fed his way through college on road kill, I couldn't do that and wouldn't expect anybody else to either.
Also I'm not blind to the real cost of living, I don't pull a figure out of the air and disregard amounts that others would consider essential, like child care and heating, even packets of aspirin and bandages.That's what the miscellaneous expenditures are for. Aspirin, bathroom tissue, laundry detergent, etc...
Child care is not an essential cost for a family of 4 with one income.
You're the one ignoring reality. I base my figures on what things actually cost. Don't complain just because you don't like the thought of someone succeeding off of minimum wage.Yup. I've laid out a fairly clear budget, where I haven't even insisted on lowering expenses as far as possible, but you still think it's not possible.
Math is hard, isn't it?
So tell me John, now what is your complaint? I answered you about transportation and child care. What's the next obstacle?Jaxson, all your answers did for me was to demonstrate your total lack of understanding and experience.
So, did you just run out of objections to the feasibility of the situation?
Or are you just going to cop out and say I don't understand or have experience? Again, last time I checked, $600 is less than $1200, so why is this situation so impossible to you?
This is why parents need to help their children when they are in middle school and high school. It is not up to the government. Take my dentist, for example. She made sure to tutor her son and expect him to get a 4.0, so that he would get scholarships to be able to go to Davis in chemical engineering, (which he knew he wanted to pursue.) Well, he just made it through high school with a 4.1 and has many other schools to choose from as well, free ride scholarship.
I agree with John on this one completely.
What, saying that people can go to college, get a degree, and earn more money is elitist and insulting?
Considering that I also said that people can go to trade school, get an apprenticeship, or work their way up the corporate ladder?Again, I agree with John: it's elitist and insulting to those who do incredibly complex, detailed, or dangerous jobs requiring TONS of education and/or apprenticeship and a natural "touch" for something. Also, how on earth would one work their way up the corporate ladder? That insulting in its vagueness. Put together, the three statements all point to one and only one conclusion: nothing but college will do, and it's no big deal for anyone to get into the right college, pay for it, and graduate from it. It's just not reasonable or appropriate for some people, who can be doing the same complexity of work with the same amount of knowledge in their heads and training under their belt, they just got there a different way and generally do a different job. No college does NOT equal lesser knowledge, skills, and abilities and it says nothing about work ethic. It does, slightly, imply something about the kinds of finances available, one way or another, to the student. Hence, "just" going to college, getting a degree, and earning more money is elitist. Also implies you either have no family responsibilities, you're ignoring them, or your getting no sleep.
Why don't you read what I write then Laura? I already responded to you about this. I didn't say college is the only way. I specifically said that there are other ways, and listed some others. Nothing I said was insulting, to take it that way is your fault, not mine. Heck, I even mentioned trade schools and apprenticeships specifically in my list of examples.
Everything you are complaining about has nothing to do with what I've said.
I do get very little sleep, thank you very much. I've also been laid up in bed, but I work on the computer, and part of my work includes having 30-second to 5-minute lulls in work, so often i post to fill in the gaps.
Get off your high horse and actually read what I'm posting, instead of chasing straw men.I don't understand the staw men reference, but you seemed unclear as to why John and I are offended by your "college or the highway" and "college is easy for everyone" attitude: you asked several questions which I answered. Don't like the answers? Don't ask the questions, and don't accuse me of being on a high horse when you're the one set on getting every loser through college, whether he/she is cut out for it, wants to do it, is smart enough, or not, and blindly ignoring John's attempts at reminding you that there is more than food and water required to live. Diapers, medical bills (nobody going to college and working 48 hours a week in my state--which, as I said, has one of the HIGHEST (not LOWEST as you said) minimum wages of any state, and no tax on food, clothes, or services... Nobody in MN in that case would be elligible for "welfare" (which is an outdated, politically incorrect term now) to pay any medical bills, which kids always have lots of. Toilet paper, schoolbooks, a backpack to carry them in... Unless you're planning on stealing a lot of your monthly needs, the math just doesn't work in the real world in the best of conditions. And, how could there be a two-person earner? They'd have to pay WAY too much for daycare (in MN)--assuming they were lucky enough to find one that would accept them, so one parent would have to stay home with the kids at all times: 1 income only, 48-hour work-week.
I'm trying to figure out why you don't know these basic things about "extra" money leftover to pay for necessities and that, if your kid gets sick that wouldn't be enough, or if you drop a bag of groceries with eggs in it, that's a fairly big deal. You must either make a lot more money than you need and are therefore blind to all of the little life necessities you buy, or whether you have no concept of budgeting, or whether you live at home on you parents' dimes. (or go to school, but supported by mom and dad).
I noticed you didn't leap to take up my challenge, too, which means you're smart enough to doubt yourself, in which case maybe you're just repeating someone else's party-line. If it's such a piece of cake, going to college and living on mimum wage (which just fundamentally is wrong, given what school costs these days), then why not prove it: live on minimum wage for a month. You'll run out of toothpaste, napkins/paper towels, and all kinds of other things. And SNAP (the current politically correct name for "welfare") won't cover you a dime since it's your foolish choice to go to college in the first place instead of into the military or tradeschool, or community college. Even if they did, they only pay for food (powedered milk, powdered eggs, powdered baby formula...).You're still not listening. Can you read? Can you understand that when I show how anyone(obviously excluding those with disabilities that prevent them from doing so) can subsist on those incomes with those expenses in college, that I'm not saying it's the only way?
Unbelievable, you still think I"m saying college or the highway. Considering that I've said the exact opposite, you're simply wrong. I don't know why you insist on pushing this angle... you have no footing whatsoever.
You think the math doesn't work? Too bad. I've made it work before. It was hard, but we did it. Why don't I rise to your challenge? I've been there already, that's why.
The math in my scenarios works. If it doesn't work in your state, move to a cheaper one. You can deny it all you want, but the fact is it's possible and I showed how. You say school is too expensive, but I can show you schools that aren't.
Problem finder or problem solver. Pick one and be on. I'm not going to live on minimum wage because I have a family, and I'm not going to put them through living the poor life if I don't have to.
You're wrong about other things you posted as well, but if you can't even admit that I said "X, Y, Z" instead of "only X", then there is no hope for honest discussion.
Let's try it. Can you admit that I didn't say college is the only way, and actually mentioned other methods like trade school, apprenticeships, and corporate ladders?
"Heck, I even mentioned trade schools and apprenticeships specifically in my list of examples."
A mention is all it is worth when the reality of these trade schools and apprenticeships are taken into consideration. The trades have been decimated with the dearth of quality schools and training to prepare the novice entering the trades. The expense is almost always financed or picked up by a Marshall GI bill plan that you usually have to put six years in before you can qualify. And then the stipend to live on is below poverty level while you have to live off a family member to survive. Or, the fees have been financed to further exacerbate any advantage to move out of poverty by your own hard work. Yes it can be done but only by the truly extraordinary. That is not what we have in the most case for people left with these choices. I have hired trade school graduates that came with great recomendations and no practical knowledge because of the non-existent apprenticeship that could prepare them for a job. They walk in and expect top dollar because they carry a piece of paper that says they are competent. It usually takes me two to three months to be able to leave them to work unsupervised for any extended time.
After you take all that into consideration the fact that your job you are jumping over barrels to secure comes to the point of fruition and you see it farmed out to overseas companies.
It is truly amazing how the jealousy takes over the conversation when someone speaks about the wealthy. There are more wealthy people in this world who provide much support to others without being taxed by the government. Besides, the government wastes more than they provide. According to the current budgets, the government spends 40 percent of all support budgets on administration and only 50% on those who need it. The other 10% is spent on errors and fraud.
The current budget for those programs exceeds $1.7 trillion that supports 126 overlapping federal programs where the administrators take home more than they provide for the needy.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file … /PA694.pdf- the truly needy and and the so called "needy". I've heard its more like 78 cents to every dollar that is wasted on bureaucracy and who knows what else.
-having a good sunday evening, taburkett?
-aren't we a couple of dopes... addicted to posting in these forums?
I am contemplating going cold turkey soon.
I think I hear clapping..."It is truly amazing how the jealousy takes over the conversation when someone speaks about the wealthy."
That's true. Inequality of wealth and income have grown in this country over the past 40 years to the point where more and more people are losing faith in our democratic, free enterprise system. This feeling can be found in both the Tea Party and Occupy movements.
CEO compensation has increased during this period from 20x the average worker to 300 or 400 times the pay of the average worker. This is the highest in the industrialized world. Ordinary bureaucrats who work their way up the corporate ladder without contributing a single novel idea (except for new ways of screwing their customers and avoiding taxes) are paying themselves as if they were Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.taburkett, I think you're mistaking jealosy for anger and/or hatred at being taken shameless advantage of.
However, I thank you for including a reference for your statistics: that is something that more of us should do, back up our statements with facts.
Your source, however, is apparently very skewed in its makeup. It appears to be a lobbyist group with big-banking interests primarily at heart. So, we need to keep their goals and make-up in mind when we evaluate their statistics. If a person is not a big-banker or someone who profits directly from one, they probably will be ignored and unrepresented by this group, which dares to claim non-partisanship (probably to make their wealthy contributors feel better about themselves as they write their big checks out to Cato).
Here is their description of themselves: http://www.cato.org/about and here is their massive board of directors (mostly big-bankers and all male except for one token female): http://www.cato.org/board-of-directors.@ Ms.Schneider.
What is your proof that the Cato institute is "a lobbyist group with big banking interests primarily at heart" Can you prove that??? Why do you hurl accusations like this when, obviously, it is a perfectly fine organization! All they are doing is attempting to educate the public. They do not take a cent from the government. Are they not allowed to acquire what they need to fund their cause which is to save the country ! ?
You do not understand the concept of equality. You, read the Constitution in the light of the Federalist Papers!
Get Your Copy today.Cato, as I recall, was founded by Charles Koch. It's an extreme libertarian organization that creates much mischief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
The only kernel of truth is that all people are individuals. As such, each individual is different to their own degree. The problem with "One Size Fits All" mentalities is that they impose themselves on others. So because they had parents well off enough to go to college, ALL must have parents well off enough to go to college. This presupposes that your birth environment has absolutely nothing to do with your natural born fate. The wealthy today are unsatisfied to degrees that can only be described as "greed." If this wasn't true, it wouldn't relate to the massive unemployment we see today. It wouldn't relate in any way to the machinations people of wealth put themselves through just to be viewed as "successful."
So...how successful are you if your wealth has caused thousands of others to be unemployed? How successful are you if your profits and your business depend entirely on the generosity of individual taxpayers? How successful was Madoff? For 17 years, this too wealthy billionaire pulled off a scam no American is likely to forget. He is now the absolute picture of greed. No need to defend him or his lack of morals, ethics and scruples. But as we all know, Madoff is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is NO envy among the Middle Class. There is bitterness and resentment that some people in the US cannot earn their wealth honestly and with the highest levels of integrity. Skanking away at the Middle Class and working poor only gives the wealthy exactly what they deserve: Anger from those they've duped to get rich. It's not envy...it's anger. Why live as commonly decent Americans when men like Madoff don't also play by the rules of ethics? Why live as honest Americans if Madoffers can get away with 17 years of wealth and then destroy the lives of thousands of others? Why not just take a leaf from the book of the wealthy and all of us turn skankola tactics into a fine art? Course now, the end result of that will be huge competition between the Middle Class and wealthy.
The US was never intended to build wealth for a few at the expense of the many. If you can't earn your wealth honestly, you are a thief. Period.The GOP apparently thinks American voters want to continue to be screwed by banks, credit card companies and mortgage brokers:
Quietly Killing a Consumer Watchdog
Published: February 10, 2013 105 Comments
If you’d like to know why Republicans are trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, take a look at three things the agency has already accomplished in its first 18 months:
¶It called a halt to predatory practices by mortgage lenders, ensuring that borrowers are not saddled with loans they can’t afford and preventing brokers from earning higher commissions for higher interest rates.
¶It won an $85 million settlement from American Express, which it accused of deceptive and discriminatory marketing and billing practices.
¶It opened an investigation into questionable marketing practices by banks and credit card companies on college campuses, which often take place after undisclosed financial arrangements are made with universities.
The consumer bureau has taken seriously its mandate to protect the public from the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the 2009 recession, and it has not been intimidated by the financial industry’s army of lobbyists. That’s what worries Republicans. They can’t prevent the bureau from regulating their financial supporters. Having failed to block the creation of the bureau in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, they are now trying to take away its power by filibuster, and they may well succeed.
The bureau cannot operate without a director. Under the Dodd-Frank law, most of its regulatory powers — particularly its authority over nonbanks like finance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders and credit agencies — can be exercised only by a director. Knowing that, Republicans used a filibuster to prevent President Obama’s nominee for director, Richard Cordray, from reaching a vote in 2011. Mr. Obama then gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled in another case that the Senate was not in recess at that time because Republicans had arranged for sham sessions.
That opinion, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is likely to apply to Mr. Cordray as well, which could invalidate the rules the bureau has already enacted. The president has renominated Mr. Cordray, but Republicans have made it clear that they will continue to filibuster, using phony arguments to keep the agency from operating.
Earlier this month, 43 Senate Republicans wrote a letter to the president, vowing to block any nominee until “key structural changes” are made, including a bipartisan commission to run the bureau instead of one director, and Congressional control of its appropriations. (It is now financed with bank fees paid to the Federal Reserve.)
These arguments are designed solely to give Congress more opportunities to stop financial regulation. A board evenly divided between the parties would quickly reach a stalemate and become inoperative, much as the Federal Election Commission has become. Besides, board members can be filibustered as easily as a director.
Other bank regulators, like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, are not subject to the appropriations process, as a shield against political interference. Congress does, however, control the budgets of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and House Republicans have voted to strip those agencies of money needed to regulate derivatives and curb abuses. The consumer bureau was enacted by law, and now Republicans are using backdoor methods to destroy it. There is no greater argument for Senate Democrats to ban filibusters of presidential nominees, particularly when the future of an entire agency is at stake.I agree with everything you've said except the last few words: I should think a whole lot more than "an entire agency" is at stake--our people and our economy are at stake if that agency fails to function as it was intended to: as the US needs it to. :-)
SOMEONE who understands what's really going on and can think for themselves, rather than be a marionette with someone else pulling the strings, needs to be in charge of this new committee to make the final calls and issue the final orders after the committee is done with each task it is given and makes recommendations, or to determine what tasks need to be pursued in the first place. For the Republicans to block this process only swings the pendulum further against them, and sham sessions and filibusters are completely childish and disgraceful politics (just what Republicans need--MORE disgrace).
Remember your--our--history? "All men are created equal", "We, the People" like the emperor's new clothes, even members within the Republican party are finally questioning other Republican actions and inactions (which are the same--"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice", as Rush sang).
I urge everyone to remember that our ancestors all came here as refugees or adventurers of one sort or another, determined to cooperate and work hard--together--to make a new life in a new land, just like today's immigrants.
I urge everyone to go and read the actual constitution. Here's a transcript of the original elaborately scrolled text in a font you should be able to read, if you can be bothered to: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html
It begins, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now, wouldn't you agree that we come closer to that ideal every day, but can always move closer still? Wouldn't you like it if that were the country you lived in? Then make it happen.
That preamble is really the most important part, folks. That, and at least the highlights of its few amendments, should be inherently ingrained into you. I doubt anyone other than myself on this thread has read the entire constitution and its amendments front to back, since it was not taught in my schools or other schools in my area, but it is very enlightening and I encourage you to do so right now: we're way off course in our "us vs. them" "winner vs. loser" politics. Our constitution is very strong and can help us through difficult times.
Go to the original source of knowledge about how our country should work, think of the context in which it was written, and read it yourself with an open mind and heart. You will be the wiser for it, whatever your political, religious, or sociologic beliefs may be. Then, make your OWN decisions based on the real constitution.
What does the constitution have to do with us today? Everything. As Merriam Webster says (2/11/2013 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution), a “constitution” is
“1: an established law or custom : ordinance
2a: the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body <a hearty constitution>
b: the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something <the constitution of society>
3: the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4: the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially: the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization”
So, the constitution is the heart, soul, body, mind, and spirit of the United States of America. And this constitution is not in need of dozens of amendments, as other constitutions typically are after a very short while. It is you and I who need amendments to our thoughts to learn to think independently. Be like the soaring eagle that is our nation’s great symbol, and beware of following the herds, afraid of a small yappy dog that can steer that herd so easily yet presents no particular danger to any one member of the herd should that member decide to wander off on its own path.
Oh, and while you're at it, if you have a republican senator, send them an email or letter telling them to grow up and not hold secret sessions just to get their way, or filibusters. Tell them to fight fair and square for their points of view with logical words, like grown-ups do, and to remember the constitution and keep our welfare--everyone's well-being--at heart when they vote. Challenge your senator: has he or she read the constitution front to back, as you have (by then) done?
Really? Hard work? Smarts? Willingness to risk it all? That's what Madoff thought too. He took belongings of $62 billion in retirement funds from his clients. Can any decent, honest American swallow that? 17 years Madoff lived in the lap of luxury, lording it over those he considered beneath his class and it was a phony act. All of it. Now, even his brother and I suspect a large number of accessories to the Madoff crime are one by one ending up in jail. Where they belong. If you can't run a business without scamming others, business isn't your strongest capability.
Please list the "belongings" "taken from people" of wealth. What "belongings" would that be? Their fleets of private jets? Their fleets of luxury and recreational vehicles? Their mansions in the US and offshore? A poor person doesn't have the opportunity a wealthy person has. A wealthy teen can go to Yale. How many truly "poor" teens end up in Yale, Harvard or Vassar?" This is proof that money can buy the best education in the US. Lack thereof means working a full-time job while trying to study to finish a college degree with a scholarship that maybe will pay for two years of college. Then what?
Try to get a job dressed in some second hand store clothing at a Wall Street business. More proof that no matter how smart you are, if you haven't the money to dress in the corporate image, you won't be hired.
There are Americans who through no fault of their own have tried for 3 or 4 decades to rise out of their working poor class. The percentage who actually make it is less than 1%. They don't call the monied Americans "the Privileged Class" for nothing.Sorry, you're very wrong about how many people make it out of the poor working class.
5% go from the bottom 20% to the top 20% over the course of a decade.
10% go from the bottom 20% to the second-highest 20% over a decade.
14% go from the bottom 20% to the middle 20% over a decade.
29% go from the bottom 20% to the second 20% over a decade.
27% of the second 20% go to the middle 20% over a decade.
15% of the second 20% go to the second-highest 20% over a decade.
8% of the second 20% go to the top 20% over a decade.College mistakenly was sold as a route to instant employment and wealth. I work with a PhD from MIT and a graduate of Cambridge in England. Their educations gave them only a foundation for the jobs they now are involved in. The reality is that a college degree granted in 2000 is as obsolete in learning and technique for the hi-tech industries as an Edsel is.
I see this in the company I work full-time for. The environmental engineering business since I began working for the company in 1989 has changed as a result of new technology. The only recourse for the two most degreed men I work with is to continually take refresher courses to keep up with these changes. Even the environmental control engineering designers no longer use the original AutoCad for their designs.
Related Discussions
- 109
Who is Responsible for the Poverty?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 6 years ago
Why there is poverty in specific people while others are well to do people? Who are responsible for poverty - the poor people themselves, Government policies or the system?
- 43
The Welfare Issue.......YET AGAIN
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
The "Great" Society which was instituted in the 1960s led to the current welfare state & the massive socioeconomic malaise associated with it. Many people on welfare are able-bodied people who CAN but WON'T work. Also, much of welfare is generational. There is...
- 41
Should the Wealthy Pay for the Poor in America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
There are some who contend that there is a gross inequality regarding income. They maintain that there are poverty amid wealth. They vehemently decry that there should be equalization in terms of income. They maintain that having wealth borders on obscenity & they should...
- 62
Millennials Vs. Baby Boomers Gov Care Vs. personal Responsibility
by ga anderson 5 years ago
I know I am showing my stripes here, but . . . Check out this blog post and see if you see any truth in it.International Liberty - A Lost Generation of Socialism Youth?And this parody:GA
- 596
Do Wealthy People Work Harder and Are they Smarter?
by Sophia Angelique 6 years ago
According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, the answer is no.Gladwell showed repeatedly that whether people who succeeded or not, depended a great deal on how much wealth and education their parents had. For example, children who have the benefit of a private school learn a lot of things...
- 421
Let's raise the minimum wage to $45 an hour!
by Barefootfae 12 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice little spike in unemployment from the smaller businesses that can no longer...