Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?
The whining and caterwalling of the Poor Rich because they have to do what all other Americans must do...pay taxes is getting a little old. How stupid and lazy is it for 1% who hold 40% of US wealth to think they are entitled to not pay ANY taxes? How is that not taking "belongings" (read Middle Class payroll deductions) from the Middle Class and working poor to fill in gaps left by those who cut their taxes for no reason other than wealth accumulation.
And, let's be honest. Today's wealth is 100% pure nouveau riche. It's not old money of the aristocracy inherited. This means that the nouveau riche earned wealth with the help of other Americans. That means they owe anyone who contributed to the accumulation of their wealth. This is what these Poor Rich victims hate to admit. Truth is the only tool that ever resolves problems. Face it or become the problem.They have to do what all other Americans do?
Really?
Do all Americans pay 24% income taxes?Yes...In fact, my under $40K salary gets hit every year for 28%. You want my taxes? Try these...7% sales and use taxes from state of NJ. Property taxes...highest in the US. So you think your federal income taxes are a burden? Move to Texas. I hear Texas income taxes, according to Rick Perry this past weekend, are "non-existent." And if Texans aren't paying income taxes, someone else, namely people of my state are filling in the gaps for that lost revenue. Some Americans like Mitt Romney, Ralph Reed, Karl Rove, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump barely pay 16% in federal incomes taxes But don't let that bother you. They get more in ROI in business tax cuts, loopholes, subsidies and other things MY taxes pay for when they don't pay theirs.
The rich are far from victims. The very idea that these fools would even attempt to present themselves as such shows they are as slick as a baby's bottom in conning the rest of the taxpayers into believing WE OWE THEM our tax dollars to keep their business profits healthy and their wealth growing. No where in the US Constitution does it mandate that federal income taxes be handed to states like Big Rich Texas, That Whole Other Country who swills at the federal trough to keep state taxes lowest in the country. Sure...why not. The rest of the states are doing the dirty work of busting butt to make up what this Porker State doesn't pay in taxes. Take a good look at how the rich "give back." They only give when they "get." How many Middle Class Americans do that? How many working poor?No, a $40k salary will not be taxed at 28%. Not even if you're single(worst case tax scenario). With no extra deductions or credits, your tax would be right around $4k, or 10%. Not 28%. A married person would pay 5%. With a kid, 0%. You might need to get a new tax preparer if you are paying 28%.
7% sales and use taxes? Wealthy people will pay that too in NJ. That's called fair(both people paying the same).
Property taxes? Wealthy people pay those too.
Texas doesn't levy STATE-level income taxes. Residents still pay federal income taxes. Nobody has to 'make up' for them.
So, you are going to complain that Mitt Romney pays 16% taxes when you pay 10% taxes or less?
Clearly you don't have a very strong understanding of how taxes work... at all.I know what I pay in federal income taxes. Last year, I lost $800 out of $3,000 because that $3,000 was taxed as a 1099 salary. You are wrong. You don't like being wrong do you?
Yes...I intend to complain about Mitt Romney paying 16% taxes when I pay 28% or more when you factor in state income taxes, state disability, state unemployment...You want more? It has always been my experience in my long life that those who try to impress with numbers are some of the biggest thieves going. Try imagining paying $5100 a year for property taxes out of an under $40K salary on top of other state taxes and surcharges. Why on earth would I feel sorry for someone who gets a landfill of tax cuts I don't get just because they are rich?
Stop the whining already. Your immaturity is showing when you attempt to play "know it all."I'm sure you know what you pay in taxes, but if you paid 28%, you need to file an amended return. There is simply no way for you to pay that much.
From the IRS tax table, the federal income tax on $40,000 of taxable income is $6,131. With a salary of $40,000, your taxable income will be lower than that. You have at least 1 personal exemption, and a standard deduction.
You are claiming you paid $11,200 in federal taxes, that's almost double what the actual tax on $40k is.
Seriously, this isn't about who is right. This is about you getting ripped off if you actually paid that much.
But now you say you pay 28% in federal income tax, state income tax, and other taxes? What does that have to do with federal income taxes? Let's keep things straight here. The top 1% of Americans pay an average of 24% in federal income taxes. Why are you trying to compare what they pay in federal income taxes to what you pay in federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales tax, etc? That's a horrible comparison.
I"m not whining, I'm correcting you when you said factually incorrect things. If you don't like the property taxes in your state, I suggest you work on moving to a better state. Or, petition your governments to have things changed. The wealthy are paying those high taxes as well.Also investment income (capital gains) is taxed at a lower rate from regular earnings, because the money which was reinvested had already been taxed. Furthermore, investment interests (dividends) are taxed again.
PS But, now they are raising the capital gains tax by 5%
Excellent use of spin and misdirection on taxes paid.
You pay 28% and complain that Trump pays only 16%. Unfortunately you fail to mention that your 28% includes sales tax, state income tax, FICA tax, property tax, and federal income tax when comparing it to ONLY federal income tax from someone else.
You then go on to complain that because Texas has no income tax that you must be making up the difference for Texans, but fail to mention that they still have a high sales tax rate and a huge property tax rate plus a large state income from oil just as Alaska does. Texas politicians undoubtedly fight for a share of "free" public money, but so does every state.
Next is a complaint that our tax dollars are going into the pockets of business and while that is true it is pretty rare (barring Obama's bailouts). There are pretty few charity checks written by govt. to business.
Next is a complaint that the rich only give when they get - it's a little hard to give when there is nothing to give with. No one I'm aware of gives without having something to give with, but we won't mention that.
Well done - typical socialist spin blaming everyone in sight but the individual who is is ultimately responsible for their support.I live in NJ. My sales and use tax rate is 7%. My property taxes far exceed that of any Texan.
You bet I'm a socialist. I'd rather be a socialist than an anarchist who hates our government and our president and then flies the Stars and Bars and pray for the South to Rise under a free slave labor Confederacy. Why else do those good ole good ole good ole bois drive around in their Bully Boi pickups, ciggies hanging out of the sides of their mouths, rifles in their pickup cabins and the Stars and Bars flying from their antenna? Please...this is the US. Not some Confederate wannabee country.If you're happy with socialism I have to ask why your are complaining about the redistribution of wealth? Just because it is being taken from you instead of given or because it always needs to be someone else that is being taken from? That is what the concept is, is it not? Take from someone else and give it to me?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism - it's pure capitalism, take from the poor and give to the rich.
How is Capitalism "taking from the poor to give to the rich"? First, the poor, by definition, have nothing to take. Secondly, Capitalism is the free exchange of good and services by two or more parties in agreement as to the terms of the transaction. Socialism or Corporatism would better describe what you are talking about.
The poor have plenty to take, their labour!
Capitalism is not the free exchange of goods and services and capitalism is not separate from corporatism, they are one and the same.Oh, I didn't see where you mentioned slavery...that is the taking of one man's labor without an agreed upon compensation. I thought you were talking about employees of a business who get paid.
No, capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services at an agreed upon price or rate of exchanger. Corporatism is the unholy alliance of government and business, in which government picks winners and losers, sets up regulations to favor one over the other etc...two different systems that are usually confused, whether by lack of understanding or for a purpose.
Example. If you choose to purchase a health insurance policy from Company A at $X for specific coverage of your choice, you have engaged in Capitalism.
Example. If you are forced, by the government to purchase a health insurance policy and are not allowed to either not purchase it or choose to a policy of your liking, that is one form of Corporatism.You mentioned slavery, I didn't.
I wonder why then why so many people sell their labour for far less than they can live on when it is for agreed compensation.
If you really think somebody taking a low paid job because it is the only job available actually agrees that they should be paid less than a living wage then there is no hope for you.
I suspect your reasons for separating capitalism and corporatism are to assuage your guilt. The are both the same and all about accumulating capital.I doubt there are more than a few thousand people in the entire country of 350,000,000 that thinks they are paid a fair price for their labor, but then they aren't interested in what "fair" is. Just that it is as much as they can get.
Same with that mythical "living wage". No one cares what it actually costs to live; only that they can get far more than that. No one else has ever been able to define that wage as it varies enormously person to person; what makes you think John Holden can? Or anyone else, (such as government, whether formally elected as in the US or a collection of volunteer committees you seem to prefer) for that matter?
And if you could define it, what makes you think it has any connection to the value of the labor done?So you agree that the idea of a mutually agreed wage is largely hogwash?
Actually, I thought it was pretty clear; any attempt by government or any other entity outside of the two participants is hogwash.
When a company offers a job at X salary, and an employee accepts it at that salary it is finished. No need for anyone else to intervene as long as when the job is done, X is paid. Anything else is a result of the nanny state declaring that the employee is incapable of making decisions for himself and while that is undoubtedly true for the mentally handicapped it is utter hogwash for the general population."I doubt there are more than a few thousand people in the entire country of 350,000,000 that thinks they are paid a fair price for their labor,"
Need I say more?Nope - seems we agree. Nearly everyone is greedy here, wanting more than their share. Employer, employee - it makes not difference. Both want more than they are worth. Sometimes the employer has the club, so to speak, and gets cheap labor. Other times it is the employee with the club and gets more than they are worth. Unions have exacerbated this problem hugely, incidentally, by giving employees far more club than is normal or reasonable.
No, I made the distinction, because there is one.
The fact of the matter is that they did take the job at the agreed upon pay. Some people work two jobs, find a place that sees their talents as worth paying more (as not everyone is worth as much as everyone else) or they start their own business if they have goods or services that other will pay for.
What is a "fair" wage? Who decides? Would you, John, pay someone MORE than their value to you or your business?The employer decides, the employee has little or no say in the matter.
I would pay someone exactly their value, not gouge them down to the minimum.Sorry - we both know the employee has 100% say in where he puts his labor, and how much he is willing to sell it for. Just as the employer has (near) 100% say in how much he is willing to pay and, to a lesser degree, who he is willing to hire.
But make up your mind - either you will pay a living wage or you will pay the value of the work. A great many jobs aren't worth a living wage, and you know that. So will you pay it anyway (going broke by doing so) or will you pay less than living, hoping to find someone that has few needs? Will you do a budget for each employee, paying them what they need to survive (and a little more)? Will you fire the expensive ones because you can't afford them? Will the young buck, doing twice the work of the older employee but needing less (no medical needs, no family, etc.), be paid less because he doesn't need it? Or will the older employee be paid less than the young buck (less work being performed and you DID say the value of the work) and thus cannot feed his large family?Inequality of income and wealth is much less in many other advanced countries. In the U. S. CEO compensation has gone wild in recent years, averaging $14 million or thereabouts currently. It has increased to 250 times the pay of the average worker compared ten or
fifteen times previously here and currently in other countries. Laws requiring a reasonable minimum wage or a living wage are perfectly feasible and won't lead to a big drop in employment as claimed by Walmart and the fast food industry.Come, come, Ralph. There are only a relative handful of corporations out of the thousands and thousands registered in the US that even show 14 million yearly income total, let alone an average of that much to CEO's. You really need to check your sources better.
Likewise, you claim it is easy to pay a living wage, but decline to define how much that is (a major stumbling block). Such laws might or might not lead to massive unemployment - we'll never know until we suddenly double the minimum wage - but they absolutely WILL lead to massive inflation as everyone else in the country raises theirs as well.According to the Washington Post CEO pay in the top 350 companies was $14.1 million in 2012 which was 273x the average worker. They pay themselves as if they were Henry Ford or Bill Gates although they never had an original idea in there life and worked their way to the top by kissing ass and never rocking the boat.
A number of academic studies indicate that increases in the minimum wage will have a negligible effect on employment or the price level. Moreover the purchasing power of the current minimum wage has declined greatly in recent years while income and wealth of the richest Americans has increased tremendously to the point where our country is beginning to resemble a banana republic.
If I cannot afford to pay a proper wage then my business is no business and will not be sponsored by the employees.
While noting that you still decline to define what you now call a "proper" wage, I will submit that an awful lot of businesses will cease to exist (along with their employees and the products people want at prices they can afford) if everyone earned that mythical "living", or "proper", wage.
Fine system you have where many have to live in poverty so that some can have plenty.
*shrug* That's life, isn't it? Not everyone is capable of earning everything they want - God knows I'll never have the small plane I would love to have and fly.
But mostly, you're sidestepping the point. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be those jobs that aren't worth any more, and very few adults are incapable of doing better. Sure, there are a few unscrupulous employers that will try to scrape by for absolute minimum labor cost, but it usually bites them pretty badly when the jobs they offer are worth considerably more than they are willing to pay.
No, John, most people can be trained to be worth lots more than minimum wage, but it does take effort and time on their part. If they don't want to put that time and effort into bettering themselves, I see no reason to raise their wage beyond what their labor is worth. Flipping burgers or digging ditches by hand simply isn't worth any more than bare minimum (certainly not your "living wage"); if people want more learn to cook restaurant quality meals or run a backhoe and get out of the low paying jobs. They are suitable only for those entering the job market and for those wanting a few bucks on the side to supplement other income (retirement, maybe, or a spouse's income). Minimum wage was never supposed to be able to support a family, and that could be seen pretty plainly in the quality of workers earning it (that has changed with the recession, but will swing back given time and recovery)>
No, they both decide. The employer what they are willing to pay and the employee by what they will trade their labor for by accepting the position.
How do you determine what they are worth? What is your formula?
Redistribution of wealth...the Poor Rich's new way of claiming more victimhood. So...how conservative is it to collect huge dollops of tax cuts in 2004, 2008 and again in 2009 that saved an average $520K to anyone earning in the 1% while those same tax cuts for the Middle Class and working poor barely saved $150/yr? Check the GAO report in 2005 if you want proof of who most profited from the 2004 tax cut...by 11% more in growth of wealth. What the conservatives don't admit is that they are the big socialists of all time. $33 trillion sits in offshore tax free havens they enjoy total taxlessness for. Their hands are always out looking for another cut in their taxes to bring them down to zero. Who are the real socialists if not those in the Corporate Welfare state who no longer make it without help from individual taxpayers for their bailouts or to keep their obscene CEOs in more obscene salaries?
There has been a huge redistribution of wealth in the U.S.--from the poor and middle class to the rich.
Funny how some men need to prove their "manhood" but insisting they and only they are always right. Funny how their "manhood" depends on getting the last word whenever they find themselves wrong. Live in NJ. You'll get a rude awakening and a harsh reality of how much of your taxes end up in Texas.
There you go again. How are NJ taxes going to TX?
Please tell me how you DON'T know this. All federal taxes are collected. Got it so far? Then, they are dispersed to various states as a return on the taxes paid. All states pay into the federal kitty. Not all states get the $1.72 that Texas gets or the $1200 tax subsidy for living in Alaska every man, woman and child there gets just to live in that state. How equitable is that?
That federal kitty also disperses funds to corporations in the form of cash subsidies. So when Big Rich Texas, That Whole Other Country gets their $1.72 for every dollar they've paid to the fed, this doesn't begin to count the cash subsidies Big Oil gets. Check the government website...last year, the House paid out $150 billion to profitable corporations...Big Oil's Bite? $12 billion. How's that for Corporate Welfare?Which is why most federal programs should be junked. They are not Constitutional, per the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment, and they are neither fair, nor efficient. Jersey dollars (I'm from here too) should stay in Jersey. Only federal dollars for defending the borders and other things that are equally for ALL citizens should be taken, an on an equal basis.
Rubbish, every food stamp, every housing grant every other payment to low paid workers is a charity cheque to business.
No, of course not! Feel free to leave your two pre-toddlers at home alone all day.
Or... here's a great idea: One of the parents can be at home with them!
See? You come up with a problem, act like it's a game-stopper. Reality, it's not really a problem. Do you look for problems, or do you overcome them?No I didn't.
But, if both parents want to be students, then they are likely going to have to get child care, and both work. Or, they could trim their expenses down even more, and stagger their schedules.
They would also have the opportunity to use some of their grant or loan money to pay for living expenses until they get better work.
Better work, like working at a call center for $10/hr. That's a $500/month raise!
The Paranoia of the Super-Rich
""Is America over?" It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything....
" If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster...."
http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chom … 32&t=4No Jaxson, I've not run out of objections and I still agree that $600 is less than $1200, it's you that can't seem to see the difference.
Answer me this one then. You are sixteen, you've just finished school and your parents tell you that they consider that they've done their duty by you and from now on, you are on your own.
You leave your parents home with the cloths you stand up in and a very generously (!) donated £20 note.
What do you do? Remembering of course that you have been brought up in a sheltered environment and haven't really much clue about how the world works.So, no more objections to the whole college on minimum wage thing?
I'm going to go find (at least) temporary work and shelter. I'd reach out to relatives, friends, churches, charities, in that order. Depends on where I live, exactly what I would do. I'll work on some guy's farm and sleep in the barn if need be.
Interestingly enough, I'm friends with a wealthy couple, who started out in life with no college education, no money, and they were living in a chicken coop. You know what they did? They took what they had, and worked to improve their situation.No, because trying to introduce you to real life is too much of an uphill battle.
Carry on in your delusional life.
By the way, what chance do you think you would have of finding any work when there were millions of men with more experience willing to do work for next to nothing?I can point to dozens of places within 50 miles that will hire pretty much anybody for more than minimum wage.
Seriously, call centers are always needing more workers. Can you read a script? You can probably get a call center job.
Funny, you're trying to introduce me to reality, when you seem to be the one who has been learning about how little money it takes for someone to put themselves through college. I'm guessing you didn't know those things, but clearly aren't appreciative of being shown them.I don't know where you're living, but it takes a boat-load more than what you're suggesting to live on and go to college on. Even public universities cost a bundle. (I'll find out precisely and post the numbers and the link(s) from where they came..)
Here's how it breaks down: (from http://onestop.umn.edu/finances/costs_a … duate.html)
$5,825.00 per semester for Minnesota residents to attend the U of MN Twin Cities; $8,325.00 for non-residents.
So, a year of undergraduate school at the U of MN is $11,650 (and that's not even the absolute minimum because all students have to pay various other fees and such, buy books for their classes, eat, find a place to live and a way to get from there to school and back, etc. If you're an out-of-stater, tuition is $16,650+ per year. All of the students vie for campus jobs, but there are only so many that are available and your chances are very slim that your income (and that of your family) will allow you to even apply for one, let alone get one.Go to a cheaper college. and/or don't take as many credits per semester. Is it really that hard of a concept to understand?
For example:(compared to your $448/credit)
http://www.minneapolis.edu/Paying-for-College - $178/credit
http://www.normandale.edu/future-studen … html#costs - $189/credit
You can find community colleges with courses for under $100/credit.ROTFL! Omigosh. You literally had me LOL. Jaxson, the links you sent are to the junior colleges in the area. Literally, they are made fun of because they are mostly for people who couldn’t (for whatever reasons) finish high school, and therefore they teach high school-level subjects. Degrees from them aren’t worth much in this over-educated mecca of learning surrounding the U of MN (a big 10 school). MCTC, for example, has most of their students majoring in Liberal Arts. Unless they go on to the U of MN or one of the more expensive private universities in town (of which there are plenty—27; I believe I read that on one of the pages) and complete a 4-year BA or MA in Education and pass all of the certifications for being a teacher in Minnesota, they can not even work in a daycare center watching little brats all day and herding them from one activity to the next. The credits, despite what their website says, do not, for the most part, translate to the U of MN or the other Us. So, they just wasted a lot of money on a useless (but possibly interesting, to them) degree—an AA or AS—the kind of degree that might get them bagging groceries and other products at Target and Walmart or pushing a broom and that’s about it. Also, these places are subsidized more than 100% by the state of Minnesota: $1.02 in state funding for every $1 spent by a student (http://www.minneapolis.edu/Paying-for-College), and on top of that 75% of the students (http://www.minneapolis.edu/Why-MCTC/Fact-Sheet) are receiving financial aid. So, their degree is mostly coming from our taxes in Minnesota, not their pockets. They are like high schools and places where professionals with a BA/BS can take a class or two to beef up their skills on a single subject or two that interest them. These places are really to help people learn high school subjects and get their high school diploma if they have not yet done so. Getting the high school diploma, I think, is actually the real battle homeless people are facing: without a high school diploma, it’s very hard to get a job—hard to compete.
You end by saying, “You can find community colleges with courses for under $100/credit.” Okay, prove it: where within a 100 mile radius of downtown Minneapolis can you do that? Normandale and MCTC are the absolute bottom of the barrel I’m aware of: beauty schools are even higher on the measuring stick than they are. Do not get me wrong, they are great for people who can afford to spend that kind of money to transition from high school to college or had learning disabilities or other issues completing high school, but they won’t buy them much in the job market and most of the credits do not transfer to the U of MN or wherever either: usually, for example, 5 credits of one of these colleges is transferred at the rate of 1 credit (5 to 1). Not a very good transfer rate. Great if you just need a certificate in something, though, I’ve taken some classes at the technical college and learned a little (a very little) for a small amount of tuition. Can't say I've ever used any of those skills, though.
Jaxson...Where on earth do you live? There are no farms in NY City, Detroit, Chicago or Boston. There are shelters for the homeless but they are now full to the brim and thanks to conservative nut job misers, no more shelters are built. In my state, a single individual needs to earn $42K a year just to be able to afford housing, food, gas to get to their jobs and to pay the glut of taxes that end up in Porker states. You claim you know so much. Okay...calling your bluff...Find yourself a minimum wage job that you will be able to live on in NJ. This, I've got to see.
It's always the "know it alls" with all the answers who fail the Bluff Test.
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
0Why don't you come up with a budget if you think I'm so wrong John?
Who for?
Everybody is different and has different needs. No one budget would cover everybody in every situation.
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago0
Well, you still seem to think a family of 4 can't do it, even though I laid out the budget... so I don't really know.
You admit 1 person can do it, so no need to go there.
You'll just say the people who don't do it simply can't do it though.Nope, I admitted that one person could do it, subtle difference. That one person was not every person.
And you made an even bigger fuss about 4 people, then seemingly admitted that it can be done, then start going off on the cost of living and how I"m out of touch with reality.
Listen, I'm well aware that there are people who can't actually work. I am. But they are the exception, not the rule. We can spend forever talking about exceptions and what-ifs.
The fact is, improving your future isn't nearly so impossible as people make it seem, too many just aren't willing to do the hard work that can be required.
Jaxson...A family of 4 couldn't survive on the minimum wage of $7.95. Why? Rent in NJ starts at $1000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment. If you have 2 kids, the NJ law demands you have a two bedroom apartment. That's another $1800/month. Then, you'll pay gasoline to get to your job since NJ only has north to south transit and trains cost $20 a pop to get to a job in NY City. You'll also pay state taxes on your income if you choose a minimum wage job in NY City, the nearest big city outside of Newark. Of course, if you are lucky enough to travel by bus, the cost anywhere starts at $10 for a 5 mile ride to the nearest city. $20 if it's further. As for the what ifs? How about Hurricane Sandy demolishes your home and destroys your car? How about your insurance company takes their sweet old time about paying claims your premiums paid for more than 2 decades? These are exceptions? Not really. California, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have their annual wildfires. The midwest states have their annual tornadoes. Exceptions too?
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago0
Let me repeat. I say that people can improve their situation in many ways. One way is to go to college, and a single person, or a family, can put themselves through college on minimum wage.
I also say that people can improve their situations in other ways, like apprenticeships, trade schools, or working their way up the hierarchy of a business.
Then people take that to mean that I'm saying College is the only way and anyone who doesn't go to college sucks? Come on people, reading is fundamental.
ETA I don't have a college degree, BTW.Wrong. IN NJ, the cost for a year of community college is $15,000 at the least expensive in the state. Most of the colleges in NJ cost twice that. How do you figure a person earning a minimum wage will earn enough to afford even one semester at a college?
I'd love to see you try and get into a college on minimum wage. You'd be the first one to be rejected because your income is too low to support the costs. Reality bites, doesn't it?http://www.atlantic.edu/admission/tuitionFees.htm
12 credits for $1600 per semester.
If your state doesn't have a cheap community college, move to a state that does. I picked a community college, and an apartment next to that college, and did the math. If you need to, go part-time instead of full-time.
My original scenario didn't even account for student loans, grants, or scholarships, simply paying for everything out of pocket.Jaxson...My state wouldn't have to have expensive colleges if Porker States weren't eating up our state taxes that pay into the federal kitty.
You original scenario if no one else will tell you is egregiously flawed. Too flawed for any accountant to bother to argue with you over. You do not live in the real world. Either you are Little Lord Fauntleroy who has been coddled since birth or your McMommy and McDaddy never taught you the word "hardship." Men like you have a serious problem when their little worlds crash. Take a good look at the 7 wealthiest Robber Barons and how their lives ended. You have a problem facing reality that money always runs out. Ask Madoff about that. No finer proof of your egregious egomania of excess, wealth, superhuman intelligence exists than Madoff, a man with $62 Billion earned from "hard work" "forced to support the poor" and having his billions "taken from him." Try and defend that one before you live in la la land forever.I never said anything about Madoff.
And you are completely wrong. I was given nothing by my parents, other than shelter, food, and work ethic.
From the time I was 16, I bought my own school supplies, my own clothes, my own car. I paid for my own college, my own rent, my own food. I've struggled at times to put food on the table for my family in the face of medical bills. I've had to move to low-quality housing because I couldn't afford higher rent.
So before you go off writing my own history, why don't you stop making so many assumptions?
"How many children live in poverty?[3]
Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the United States; they are 24 percent of the total population, but 36 percent of the poor population. In 2010, 16.4 million children, or 22.0 percent, were poor. The poverty rate for children also varies substantially by race and Hispanic origin, as shown in the table below[4].
Children Under 18 Living in Poverty, 2010
Category
Number (in thousands)
Percent
All children under 18
16, 401
22.0
White only, non-Hispanic
5,002
12.4
Black
4,817
38.2
Hispanic
6,110
35.0
Asian
547
13.6This really is a good topic. I'm really enjoying this forum.
Jaxson, I'm not trying to break anything, I am just trying to convince you that we are not all clones.
What may be good for one may not be so good for another.
I'm perfectly willing to have discussion about general principles, unfortunately for you my idea of general principles does not include everybody being the same.No, we're not all clones. Allow me a short story:
Near me is a young couple with 4 children. He finished 2 years of school on the GI bill (which he earned with 4 years of military service) while she held a low paying job - they squeaked by on her meager earnings, food stamps and WIC. When he got out he landed a low paying job that over the next few years he leveraged into better pay, although still not good, particularly as they lost most of their food stamps when he went to work. She went to school during that period while they used her student loans to supplement their income. Graduating, she got an entry level position but they lost any and all welfare as a result while picking up day care for 2 children - they were worse off financially than ever. He is now going back to school at night, working on an MBA, but they now have $100 a month or so to go to the movies or hit McDonalds with once a month. They now own a home (that they are upside down on) and 2 older cars outright as well as the beginnings of a retirement account.
No, we are not clones; there are very few couples that will do that kind of thing. It has been a very tough row to hoe, but they have done it and can hold their heads high as a result, not depending on charity because they don't want to work and work very hard with long, long hours.
It can be done, but ONLY if the people are willing to sacrifice and work hard. Or use someone else's money to do it with while they relax and take it easy in the evenings.Exactly, we are not all clones!
The fact that one person can do something does not mean that everybody can do it. And it isn't all ways an option to do it on somebody else's money either.
Your man did it on the back of four years military service, what if he had not been fit for service?It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it? If a person can't work, then what?
Problem is, you seem only concerned about the small handful that can't work and those on the other side of the fence (including myself) are concerned about those that won't work - that just want a free ride or at least an easier ride.
I have yet to see anyone in this forum declare that the handicapped of the country should be allowed to starve - it's always that the capable don't need charity - but your reply is always about handicapped. We really need to be discussing the same thing rather than apples and oranges.No, not a handful, there are millions in my country and yours, who can not work because the capitalist system demands that they remain unemployed to keep down the wages of those with work.
I'll accept that there are a handful who won't work, but would you really trample all over those who would work to punish the handful that wont work?
If you actually bothered to read my replies you would notice that I have never once mentioned the handicapped, even I am not so cynical as to believe that the right would see them all cast aside.Bull****. The capitalist system in no possible way demands that anyone remain unemployed, and all the silly socialistic philosophies to the contrary doesn't change that.
About the closest you can come to such a ridiculous claim is that it is indeed useful to have a few unemployed around (actively seeking work) to replace workers that leave for whatever reason. As there will always be a few, that's all to the good.
People get sick for a year and need a new job; they're looking. People decide to move across country and need a new job; they're looking. People come out of school and want a job; they're looking. We will never have instant job opportunities where you make a phone call and are instantly told to come to work in 30 minutes, and technically that's unemployment so in that sense it is necessary, I guess. It just isn't a reason to make such a claim that unemployment is necessary for capitalism to work.Argue all you like but that won't change the fact that a capitalist system hates full employment.
It leads to an increase in wages and an increase in inflation.
Do a bit of research.
I agree with John on this one. There are MANY partially or totally handicapped persons in the nation(s) at any given moment of any given day. I've heard figures as high as 80% at any given time
when you count the elderly and the temporarily disabled who cannot work (such as after the birth of a child or operation or nervous breakdown). Apologies to anyone I just offended with my use of outdated terminology; my aim was clarity for your sakeNo argument there, and no argument from me in helping them out until they can get back on their feet.
I'm not sure what the 80% refers to, though - 80% of what?Oh, sorry, 80% of people have a disability at any given time. Not necessarily 100% disabled, and not necessarily unable to work, but they have a disability that affects most/all areas of their life. Ex: blindness, deafness, alcoholism, etc.
Laura; could you really mean that 80% of the all the people suffer from some type of disability, at any given moment? I have read this hub for several days now. I see a lot bickering between the majority.
Jaxson is correct in statement regarding College. The fact of the matter is you don't consider it, because it's not the best. We are divided by social classes, meaning some simply cannot afford a "better college." This is the reality of life. John is correct that many of those items we "think" we need are just things we believe we deserve as human beings.
I am not against entitlements, Social Security, Medicaid, even disability for those who are truly disabled. What makes me angry, and I think you would agree, are those who file, and receive the benefits and work under the table, sit at the local bar all day and drink up my hard earned cash. Then have the gull to tell me that a voucher should be good enough for me. I am all for feeding the poor, giving anyone a leg up, providing medical for those in need. My anger is bent toward those that use and abuse the system.
@Ewent) there are plenty of poor children, many of whom are wearing 200.00 dollar shoes, designer glasses, while talking on their smart phone. Mama's got a coach purse and driving a nice car. Hmm....what the hell am I working for? Last year I could have bought food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar? Nope I don't live in the inner city, just a country girl. I believe there are those who truly need assistance. I also believe that about 50% of the people who draw on this assistance are screwing us to the wall.Laura, that's totally ridiculous. 80% of people are NOT disabled at any given moment, although a great many will claim they are.
Far too many people are claiming disability because they have a broken toe, a sick child or want to go fishing today. They are too disabled to work, but not to play golf or basketball. Their back hurts, so can't work, or they have a cast on so can't type or answer phones.
Sorry - I've worked a physically demanding job (construction) with 2 broken ribs; I just don't swallow all the disability claims we see today, let alone an 80% figure.That's a complete b.s. stereotype. The majority of people on welfare and other forms of public assistance are whites in red states.
I almost wish men were clones of women. At the end of the first week, half of them would be dead from exhaustion and by the end of a year, they'd all be carping about how inequitable their salaries are compared to men...rofl.
@HP I am totally fine with this thread. I just want it off my "your" thing. Let's do that. Otherwise, I might actually care.
From "The New Yorker's" unpublished letters to the ethicist:
"For six years, I was the C.E.O. of a large conglomerate. Then, in 2000, there was a precipitous drop in the company's stock. Fortunately, by complete coincidence, I had sold eighty-seven million dollars' worth of shares the week before. For the final three years of my tenure, I had a compensation package that included one of those Jack Welch riders—I was entitled to any perk that Jack got. Now I find that Jack was getting free Yankees tickets and I wasn't. I'm planning to sue my old company for the cost of the tickets, although given the company's current financial situation—it's in Chapter 11—I might get only ten or fifteen cents on the dollar. My wife says that some people might consider the suit unseemly, with so many employees having lost their retirement money and all. But don't you think that fair's fair? The thought of Jack sitting in that box in Yankee Stadium just burns my ass.
"B.P., Naples, Fla."
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/1 … z2KjMpL77TYes, i have been asking this like forever. Some inherit their wealth yes, but others went to school and studied and did what they were supposed to and sooner or later reaped what they sowed and became wealthy. It is something all ppl can do. There are tons of ppl such as Oprah who did not have a great environment and was very abused and poor..Look at her now. Without the wealthy, there's no jobs.
Mustagluver...Really? So ...let's see now..Madoff went to school, studied and did what HE was supposed to do and sooner or later reaped what HE sowed when he became wealthy and then ended up with 3 hots and a cot at taxpayer expense? How about Ebbers? Or Kozlowski? Oh and let's never forget the Enron Bois and their intelligent management of their employees 401Ks. Sorry. But as many execs as I've worked around, few do more than point and delegate. Cheney is the paragon of pointers and delegators. His pointing and delegating led to his chief Scooter Libby taking the rap for him. What do you call that? Intelligence? Doing what Cheney was supposed to do? Try again.
Madoff, a wealthy man who studied and worked hard to end up with a prison sentence makes no sense? Makes perfect sense to me. When men don't learn there are actually limits to their greed, they usually suffer the consequences.
The wealthy are NOT forced to support the poor. In fact, the Middle Class does more than its share on a tri-pronged level to support the wealthy. We pay the taxes when they don't as taxpayers - Prong No. 1. We buy their services and goods as consumers - Prong No. 2 and We work for their companies as employees - Prong No. 3.
What the wealthy today want is to be totally free of accountability for the decisions they make no matter what the ripple effect may be. It's all about them and their money. Sorry..NO NO NO it isn't. Money runs out and when it does, the wealthy run like mad men to taxpayers for bailouts. When their wealth growth begins to slip what do they do? They seek our help as taxpayers and beg government funding and subsidies and their favorite...tax reductions to the taxes they pay.
If greed isn't at the center of today's wealthheads, please do explain why their salaries have escalated at the same time their employees salaries have seriously stagnated. Get it yet? Their salaries grow when their employees salaries don't. That's called G R E E D...pure and simple.
Are the wealthy the only ones entitled to get ahead for the work they do? Are the wealthy the only ones who are entitled to regular salary increases? They seem to think so from the looks of the downturn in US wages for the past decade under the greedheaded conservatism these loonies try to ram down our throats. We're leaving them in a lurch. We will demand an end to all tax subsidies for their businesses for every year they turn a profit and don't increase employees salaries. If they can increase their salaries, they can afford to increase salaries of their employees.
This is not a true statement regarding "tons of people" Oprah is one in a Million, 2% of the population holds the majority of wealth. I guess you might believe they did most of the work to make this happen. There have been abuses throughout history, regarding this matter. There really isn't anything wrong with any system, until you put a human in the mix, and believe that greed would not over take them. Walmart did not make his money being fair with his employees, Meijer is not rich because he gave out raises to his dedicated employees worked hard, to make the customer happy. It's a shell game, broken promises, and threats of losing your job. A majority of the people live and work in fear.
The problem is that the POTUS has made taxation of wealthy a bigger priority than helping poor people out of their financial situation. Taxing the rich to help the poor isn't a complete solution any more than raising minimum wages is. We need jobs. We need reasonable consumer prices. We need a valuable dollar. We need hope. Right now, what we're getting is greater taxes for the wealthy and government-sponsored assistance for the poor. Help the poor help themselves. If welfare is truly supposed to be a handup rather than a handout, where is the hand helping people out of their current financial problems?
Because ....DUH...the wealthy continue to grow wealthier while the rate of poverty increases. What does that say? It says that the wealthy grow wealthier at the expense of the Middle Class they are shifting into lower and lower levels of poverty. In a democracy, every American has the right to get ahead when they are gainfully employed. Employers today are a bunch of whiners who love to hide their wealth under tons and tons of accounting tricks they get away with because they use the money they save to pay their million dollar CPAS. All while they don't pay living wages that keep up with the cost of living THEY increase every time they increase THEIR salaries. Pigs usually don't know when enough is enough. They think swilling their lives away is their entitlement.
"In a democracy, every American has the right to get ahead when they are gainfully employed"
Where did you ever get such a silly idea? Neither you nor anyone else has any "right", God given or otherwise, to "get ahead" in life. "Getting ahead" in life requires a level of work, both quantity and quality, that increasingly fewer numbers of people are willing and able to do.
Add in that we are intentionally destroying the incentive to get ahead through our own accomplishments and that only gets worse every year.Thanks for making my point. . . . when they are gainfully employed. We need jobs, not perpetual government assistance. Blame it on the rich all you want, but this has less to do with wealthy people and more to do with the government making job promotion its biggest priority.
I'm sure there is some truth to what you are saying about employers. However, you can tax the wealthy people into poverty, and that's not going to produce many jobs. You may be able to give government handouts while taxing wealthy people at greater and greater rates, but how will this produce jobs? How is that a handup rather than a handout?
You are correct,,here in Fl you can't tell the rich from the poor..All the apt complexes are filled with welfare ppl that get rent subsidy, stamps and a check. They live high off the hog. They have big screen TVs in every room and the best stereos money can buy, a brand new Hummer in the driveway, best cell phones, cable/satellite..they work off the books..i could go on and on..
What is the purpose of life if we don't help one another?
That's just my two centsI'm with you, healthyfitness! After all our (especially my) rantings and ravings, it's just what we should do.
Helping others is fun and rewarding (not to sound too Hallmark/babyish or anything, but it is). And, it's the right thing to do because someday you'll need/want help in return. People help me a lot, so I try to help others a lot, too. (Even if they're not the same people who helped me.) Pay it forward, or bank some credit: someday we'll all be glad we did.We should help others. The question is what do we consider helping? I believe helping others has less to do with a government check and more to do with helping them secure a good job. Taxing the rich at greater and greater rates may make people feel like there is justice. It may even help the poor. Is it really a permanent solution to send government assistance? No. We need to help people get good jobs by making job creation our greatest priority.
It is easy to demonize the poor. That way you dont have to feel guilty because you have more than you need and you dont help them. It may sound bad, but I wish everyone could be homeless and poor for a few months, just to see what its really about.
People talk about welfare, but those same people dont talk about corporate welfare. More government money is spent on handouts to big corporations than is spent on helping poor people.
Oil companies get BILLIONS yearly in cash from the government, just because. There are subsidies for many industries - farming, mining, etc. There are subsidies to keep companies in a certain location.
Also, the total spent on social welfare is less than one percent of the entire federal budget. Google it ...
You people who think the poor are just mooching need to get to know some of them.Yes, it is easy to demonize the poor, but it is just as easy, if not more so, to demonize the rich. We have a strong tendency to view them as evil, immoral thieves which automatically makes them demons.
We give billions upon billions to corporations as well, mostly in an effort to promote social engineering programs and "encourage" them to run their business in a manner that is, in the long term, harmful to the country. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame the companies for following the wishes of our politicians, particularly when they are paid to do so.
We demonize rich individuals as well, feeling that because we aren't rich, too, that they had to have done something wrong to accumulate their wealth. We want it, they won't give as much as we think they should to us and that's wrong, too. Obviously bad people.
Your figure of 1% of the budget that goes to welfare programs is just outright wrong. Just about 20% of the federal spending goes to either health benefits outside of medicare or to social safety net programs (welfare).I feel sorry for the poor. Our idea of helping them is to send a check. How will poor people ever overcome their financial situation when there are so few good jobs? Again, we need to make job creation our biggest priority. Sending a check to poor people isn't a permanent solution to our problem. We truly need to help poor people up and out of poverty. Government checks put food on the table, but they do not help poor people get ahead financially.
+1
Absolutely correct - rather than actually helping the poor we instead lock them permanently in a world of poverty when we simply pay for their needs rather than teach and help them to support themselves.
"You people who think the poor are just mooching need to get to know some of them." I totally completely agree! And have dinner at a homeless shelter sometime and listen to the talk. It's not about how to fleece the system, it's about how the system continuously changes for the worse for them, making it harder to get the money they need to get an address and phone number and job--to get the most basic needs we all take for granted, like baby diapers and hair cuts.
All 6 of the homeless people I've known well enough to have dinner with (6) are just desperate to get a job and off of the welfare train--they're treated like criminals and like little children who don't understand anything; I've heard people actually talk V E R Y L O U D L Y and slowly, as though the person was deaf and stupid. But "all" of the money they get, which is taxed like everything else, doesn't come to enough to buy shoes and school supplies for their kids at the Goodwill or dollar stores, let alone an outfit for themselves good enough to wear to any job interview. Without a permanent address and phone number, they can't really get a job that pays enough to help support their families, let alone their own needs. It's like Jr. High, where you're treated like leppers who are stupid and can therefore be herded from place to place and ordered around like servants. Most of the people just seem to be mental patients who were let out of the insttutions years ago, don't have the money for the medicines they need to control their conditions (obviously), therefore that's an additional mountain they have to climb on their own (without medications they need to help them). Most of them know they have mental prroblems, but they don't know how obvious it is to other people, so they think that when interviews go badly the person is reacting badly to them as a person, rather than to their disease which needs treating.We're not necessarily saying they are mooching. What we're saying is that many people want good jobs, not government handouts. Government checks do not allow people to escape poverty, good jobs do. Do many mooch? Yes. Do many people want to find work? Yes. We're not condeming all poor people here. What we are doing is saying that the government isn't solving this economic crisis by sending checks; government checks provide temporary assistance but do not help people escape poverty. Job creation has to be the biggest priority, because it is the single best way to help people who are struggling. What's wrong with that?
Of course job creation has to be a priority, but that can't be done instantly. How do poor people manage in the meantime? Starve?
Trickle down economics - doesn't create new jobs. The rich don't use their extra wealth to create work for poor people: they keep it. Look how the distribution of wealth has changed in the US in recent years.In fact trickle down economics doesn't work at all!
Would that any government would try trickle up,it would be much more effective. The wealthy would just have to wait a little longer for their money. They would still get it though.
*Rather a lot of would's in that isn't there?*Absolutely. The unemployed can work go to work immediately and the profits will eventually trickle up to the business owners.
Wait. Without that business owner (that needs the profit to feed himself) there is no job to work at and nothing to trickle up. How does that work again?Recently the British Government bailed out the banks to the sum of £900 for every adult living in the UK.
Had they actually given that £900 to every adult think how that would have boosted the economy. Instead they gave it to the banks with conditions that they should relax lending to small businesses and mortgage applicants, both of which they have failed to do, but still managed to pay massive bonuses to top bosses.
Recently one boss did refuse his bonus, one of his board of directors said he should have accepted it as his remuneration of £1.6 million a year was only a modest amount!
As to the idea of the boss needing the profit to feed himself, the profit would take very little time to trickle up, much less time than to trickle down.Kudos and huzzahs to that boss who did refuse his bonus! That sends a strong message to the company. I hope it was put to good use within the company. Otherwise, that boss could have accepted the bonus and given it to charity. (not a hand-out charity, but a hand-up charity such as Habitat for Humanity or something.
The problem with that boss though is that his bank was at the centre of an inter-bank interest rate scandal.
Be glad they have not relaxed their lending rules. That's exactly what happened in the US and is one of the largest causes for the nearly worldwide recession that has persisted for nearly a decade.
Congress demanded that those rules be relaxed; that loan applicants that could never pay back the loan be given it anyway. When they (inevitably) defaulted, mostly on mortgages, it caused an ongoing tailspin resulting in the economic breakdown we are all suffering through.
If govt. wants individuals or businesses to have free money they can't pay back, give it to them. No strings, just give it to them - better than building and bursting a bubble that can't sustain itself and then blaming the banks for it.Unfortunately only after the well meaning but stupid policies had already sent the economy down. At that point it's kind of late.
If govt wants someone to have a house that can't afford it, just give them the house! No need or reason to require that banks provide all the money for charity and then "refund" it to them in the form of a bailout. That most obviously didn't work out so well.The UK relaxed lending rules in the 1980s when we had that great socialist Margaret Thatcher (spit) in charge. You want a 120% mortgage, no problem, why not make it 150%?
Agreed, John! Trickle-down economics doesn't work at all. I can't think of any incentives serious enough for the rich to make it work, either. It just isn't logical.
*Yes, rather a lot of "would"s in that statement. Better than all of my typos, however! I've been getting really sloppy lately.*
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago0
I have no idea the reputation of those schools, I'm not from the area. I just pointed them out. The story is the same everywhere. Junior colleges and community colleges have low tuition. Go there for two years, get good grades, transfer to a larger university with a scholarship or savings.
You can't just say junior colleges are worthless. My brother started at one, paid his entire way, transferred to a university, got his bachelor's, and within 4 years was earning in the top 1%.
I didn't say you could find under $100 within 100 miles of minneapolis. Maybe you can, I don't know. I know you can find those prices in other states, so maybe you should be willing to move.
It's always the same. 'That job isn't good enough', 'That job doesn't pay enough', 'That degree isn't from a fancy enough school'... always excuses and complaints, instead of just getting things done.
Considering that I set out to show that someone could pay their own way through college on minimum wage, without even considering student loans, grants, or scholarships, it's astonishing how much people complain that such an option is available.
If you factor in student loans, grants, or scholarships, then even more options open up. But, complainers will always find something to complain about. I was looking at colleges that offered certification courses for aircraft mechanics. Found one in Arizona that only charges $76 per credit hour, and the certificate you get from there is as good as a certificate you get from anywhere. Literally no difference.
But go ahead, ROTFL with your omigosh LOL. To elitists, junior colleges are just pathetic. Ironically, many junior colleges are actually very highly regarded, because students get 1-on-1 time, even in introductory classes, with professors, instead of being 1 of 200 students being taught by an aide or adjunct.You miss my point. I was laughing because in a city filled with so many of the country's best colleges and universities, where associates credits transfer at a rate of 5 or more (it was 5 when I was in school) = 1 credit at the higher college/university, it's really not worth the money unless, as you point out, a person is looking for a specific skill/certificate type of thing. None of the classes I took at the U of MN or at Hamline U. were ever taught by aides or adjuncts, and the ratio of students to teachers I felt was reasonable for all of the classes I took there: professors were always available to answer questions before, during, or after class and held office hours several times a week to make sure everyone was doing well in their classes. Very few students attend those two junior colleges compared with all of the other options: I guess we can all do the math that the credits won't transfer 1:1, making it a losing battle for most.
"Equal Opportunity--Our National Myth" Joe Stiglitz
"...The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity.
"Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was more opportunity than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but given how they’ve lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been...."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … ef=opinion"...The gap between aspiration and reality..
the phrase just stopped me in my tracks,.. its the only reason i clicked on your post in the news feed,.. i dont usualy get embroiled in these threads,.. but THAT phrase got me..... hmmmmmmmm
the gap between aspiration and reality may well lie in having a realistic spiration,..... all kids today are under the eternaly juvinile delusion that they ALL will grow up to be lawyers, rock stars, or super models,.... its no wonder the dissapointment factor is so high.Oh but now it must be right and true because it came from.....wait for it......The New York Times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I take it from that that you think everything the New York Times prints is a lie! Everything!
Of course not......but there are lot's of liberal hacks there.
Whether you like it or not the NYTimes is THE U.S. newspaper of record. No other publication is close. It's true that the paper's editorial pages generally support Democrats, but its reporting on U.S. and international news is accurate and complete. Moreover, it has a pretty good sports section. However, to get a well rounded view of what's happening, a variety of sources are required. (Rush Limbaugh and Fox news aren't sufficient.)
The article didn't come from the NY Times. It came from Nobel Prize economist, Joseph Stiglitz. It was printed in the NYT. Stiglitz was formerly chief economist of the World Bank and chairman of president Clinton's council of economic advisers. He's one of the very top economists in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_StiglitzRalph Deeds...Congratulations...a slam dunk! Great post. And...great comeback.
Clinton's council?
More hacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Stiglitz advised Clinton who was the first president in a while to run a budget surplus. Remember?
That would be so great, except for the fact that Clinton didn't run a surplus, and the fact that it was even less of a surplus if you realized that a 'surplus' in FICA contributions isn't actually a surplus after all, and except for the fact that it was a conservative congress, not a liberal one, that cut the spending.
Sorry if we don't all have subscriptions to the DogPatch Daily News. I'm sure the DogPatch Daily News is soooooo much more respected and has sooooooo many more Nobel Prize winners to their credit. Yeesh...now what was that I posted about "ignernce?" roflmao
A- No
B- Retirement
C- we hold all responisbilities, should not ask for government helpThe number of lazy, unambitious people in the U.S. has increased in recent years.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/9-econo … 36&t=3In the beginning the planet belong to the people yet there are those who divided the planet up and began taking from the planet as they started charging the people. Once people get wealthy enough then begin putting constraints on what other people can do thereby ensuring their continued wealth. This is a clear case of getting wealthy off of the backs of others. When businesses are established and within a town of 1000 people there only 75 jobs what are they supposed to do?
SpanStar, you asked, "When businesses are established and within a town of 1000 people there only 75 jobs what are they supposed to do?" Move to where the jobs are, commute to where the jobs are or create a job by offering goods or services that others either want or need...why is this a hard concept to understand?
How does one person acquiring wealth (at whatever arbitrary level you pick) put constraints on anyone else in a free market? Be specific.And therein lies the obsession. Must every person be a billionaire? Should any American be a billionaire if they only way to wealth is to cause massive unemployment? Acquiring wealth today has become worse than a cocaine addiction and just as obsessive and manic. It's up to the 1,000 people living in a town to create their jobs and hire if they in fact need employees. This has been done since the first settlers came to the US and jobs were created on kitchen tables and last longer than 1 year. That's the trouble with some in the US...Get Rich Quick schemes and hurry hurry hurry to become "wealthy."
The market is not now nor ever has been "FREE" in the vernacular to which it was intended. How can it be? You have corporations living off federal tax dollars in billions of subsidies they don't need. Then, they take our tax dollars and stack the cards against the very taxpayers handing them these billions every year. The only thing free about the "free market" and is free and easy ideas that quick sell, quick cash and no long term residual assets are necessary to invest in business these days. Take a good look at what Wall Street is doing. A yo you has less motion. And why is that? Because long term anything these days is demonized. How can any start up business break their billion record in a 5-year span of time and then go bankrupt the next? Bad management? No...stupidity. If you are in business for the short term only, spend your money in a casino. That's the same Get Rich Quick gambler mentality of the world's biggest gambling Casino today...Wall Street.
Do you think you cold go out and dig ditches day after day after day?
At my age, no. As a 20 something young man, certainly. I've never been a ditch digger, but have had jobs that were very hard labor. At least the level of ditch digging - try bucking 100#+ bales of hay all day, or swinging a wood splitting maul for 8-10 hours.
But what does my ability (or lack thereof) to dig ditches have to do with a minimum wage and what it should be?Because many people (e.g. me) completely lack the ability to perform any kind of hard labor, thus it's a skilled position. Also, who in their right mind would shatter their bones and tear their muscles every day when they could work at a fast-food joint and do light customer service for the same pay?
Hard labor jobs like construction and ditch-digging and wood-splitting should pay at least twice the minimum wage.Are they worth double pay? When value is set by the market and there is a nearly unlimited supply of young folks willing to sell their hard labor (for a time) for a low price?
While it's true that not everyone can do hard labor, there isn't much left. Machinery has taken care of that. There are lots of "medium" labor jobs, and lots of jobs with poor working conditions though, and anyone can do them if they so choose."Are they worth double pay? When value is set by the market and there is a nearly unlimited supply of young folks willing to sell their hard labor (for a time) for a low price?"
You seem to think there is a free market to base the current wages that are offered in the workforce for those that have lower skills. The truth of the matter is that the market is shaped by the activities of the complicity between government and big business that sets the standards in motion. The lack of illegal worker enforcement and the slave wages that are a result is something big business wants to encourage with the government so the status quo remains. You can look to the meat packing and produce companies for most examples. The movement of jobs to other shores has been a great incentive for the American worker to accept the lower wages as a result. For some odd reason you think that if business were allowed to run amok and operate in a wild west scenario we would all reap the benefits of such an atmosphere. I just feel so sorry for the billionaires who promote such conditions and keep getting richer.Sorry, I don't see the "complicity" that you do.
Surely, govt. refuses to enforce laws against illegal aliens, and certainly business wants and uses them and that lowers wages, but beyond that there isn't a lot of complicity.
Unless, of course, you believe that govt. should be able to run the business FOR the owners; perhaps forcing every American business to retain all labor within our borders or pay uncompetitive wages that result in bankruptcy. It doesn't work in a worldwide economy.
I've seen very few business "run amok" in my life, but HAVE seen employees (unions) do it the point the business went under because they could not compete in the market while paying wages the union demanded. Wild West indeed, when unions forcibly stop a business from operating at all - when they shut down access to a business or do physical damage to the workplace (and yes, I've seen both happen) or other employees willing to work for a reasonable and competitive wage.
I've only seen two business "run amok"; one very nearly died when the employment picture improved and employees voted with their feet not to work there. The other was one I worked at myself and where the plant manager considered himself as God and upper management let it slide. I, too, voted with my feet and left. That's what happens when businesses "run amok" - it cannot continue long in a good economy."Sorry, I don't see the "complicity" that you do.
Surely, govt. refuses to enforce laws against illegal aliens, and certainly business wants and uses them and that lowers wages, but beyond that there isn't a lot of complicity."
You must have blinders on to not see the complicity. Especially in the elections and congressional voting that goes on. If you can't see it then you can't have the conversation. If you think that the regulations that are rampant are an invention of the government to just collect taxes then you miss the service industries that support the enforcement of many of these regulations. More paperwork creates more business to support it.
Just walking away from a job does not fix anything as there are more people to fill the slot. Especially the illegal workers who fill the slots just nicely.
The fact that somebody who can do something you can't should be worth less than you.
What greedy little people we have become once again. During the start of the industrial age business owners preferred children labor placing them in hazardous work conditions, people's health and safety were in jeopardy working at these unsafe business jobs in order that a few people can profit.
Laws had to be drawn up in order to protect workers from the hazards of the jobs created by men. So I guess we should feel sorry for the businessman and simply accept that whatever they prescribed is a good and necessary action-(are you kidding me?)
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/la … story.html- delleaposted 11 years ago0
Why not flip the coin and look at the other side of your initial question? Should the poor, the blue collar workers, the self-employed, and small businesses be taxed to death while the rich and the corporations get away with paying a mere pittance? I think not!
The case should not be a matter of the rich supporting the poor. In very general terms the entire taxation system should be switched to a flat tax for everyone. Sure, we all would lose write-offs and loopholes, but a flat tax could practically eliminate the IRS altogether and our hard-earned money wouldn't have to be wasted on paying tax preparers either... a simple flat tax that you could figure on a calculator from the dollar store and bang, your taxes are paid without all the hassle, the overhead, and having to look over our shoulders all the time for auditors.
As a side note, the health care system should be dealt with the same way. Why do health insurance companies get billed tens of thousands by hospitals when someone spends a few hours in the emergency room, especially if it's for something non life threatening or medically complicated? Why do doctors have to charge patients without insurance $200 for a 15 minute visit? Why have health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals been allowed to get so far out of control with their prices and fees?
Over the course of time large entities have gotten all twisted and contorted! Government is loaded with politicians who continually make politics more complex as they're padding their own pockets, playing golf, buying yachts and putting the screws to the taxpayers! Hospitals are no longer hospitals, they are businesses, and they care more about their own bottom line than they care about our health! Doctors are screwed because they have to pay astronomical insurance fees to protect themselves from being sued. Even our schools and colleges are run as businesses, where the administrators make all the bucks sitting on their duffs in offices and looking important, while the teachers get practically a minimum wage for doing all of the work teaching the students!
Today, it seems that the rule of thumb for big government and big business is to continually make things more complex so that all of the people who are really doing all of the work are getting screwed on a daily basis, and they are too busy trying to pay bills and survive to know that it's happening... mindless sheep heading for the slaughter, and there is practically no more middle class in America because of it!
I'm not saying that everyone deserves to be rich, I believe that people should get paid more honestly based on the work they deliver. I'm also not saying that poor people are lazy, yes, some of them are, but there are tons of people out there who are jobless, flat broke, and see no light at the end of their tunnel... they are willing to work but there isn't enough work to go around anymore. If people can't work, they can't pay their fair share in taxes either, zero times zero is zero!
And finally, I'm also not saying that the rich should be supporting the poor. However, if big government keeps allowing big business to outsource all of our manufacturing and other jobs to foreign countries, then despite whatever tax system is in place it will always be broken! For example, why has the government allowed corporations to buy out and shut down most of our paper mills and outsource all the paper manufacturing to other countries? My father worked at a mill for 38 years of his life, he was forced into early retirement when his mill was bought out and shut down, and they took all the millions of dollars of equipment and shipped it overseas... this put over 130 local families out of work, out of jobs, and out of income... no income = no taxes and long lines at the unemployment offices! Another example, why is all of America's tech support outsourced to India when there are endless thousands of technically qualified college kids without jobs who could deliver the same support right here in America?
All in all, maybe the rich should stop whining and crying about having to pay so much in taxes and they should start thinking about how their votes can destroy NAFTA and the other overseas agreements so that Americans can be self-sustaining, employed, working and paying their fair share in taxes! Flat taxes and simplified healthcare should be a common goal for the rich and the poor alike here in America! Common sense dictates that big government should be shaved down and simplified, streamlined, and actually productive, the same goes for corporations and healthcare, and as a faithful, honest, hardworking taxpayer I don't think that's too much to ask for!
One final thought... I'm sick and tired of seeing a "Made in China" sticker on everything I have to buy in a store! Everything that's made in China is cheap disposable junk and ends up in our landfills! It's about time that everything in the stores was Made in America! We need to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the broke and the home of the naive!
Related Discussions
- 109
Who is Responsible for the Poverty?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 5 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...
- 21
If YOU were wealthy, would YOU FINANCIALLY support your children in adulthood o
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
If YOU were wealthy, would YOU FINANCIALLY support your children in adulthood orencourage THEM to make THEIR own way in life?
- 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
- 42
Divided America: The Battle for Core Values and Who Will Prevail
by Sharlee 4 weeks ago
Americans have become deeply divided over a combination of political, cultural, and social factors that have been escalating for decades. The truth is, political polarization has intensified significantly over the last 40 years. The two major parties have moved further apart ideologically, with...
- 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...