1.76 trillion dollars (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Define this but if you are turning your nose up at Wal Mart and target employees, fast food workers, grocery clerks, these folks work themselves to the bone in some of these places for very little.

If you can hold a job I think we as a society need to fill in the gaps. Give these people a better living wage and then cut off some of the freebies like food stamps and health care and allow these folks to enjoy an actual choice of where they want to go.

Minimum=$15, at least double what folks make now. Goods will rise a few cents across the board but folks can afford it and it will save on the taxes that are already being collected. We have plenty of revenue from taxes in this country but the problem is how the money is mishandled in D.C.

 

[TripItUp]

Anybody that had the opportunity for a decent high school education and subsequent higher education, but didn't take advantage of it shouldn't get to vote.

No lazies in my country.

People without educations have always been poor and end up having the ####ty jobs...you'll need to go to Euro style socialism if you want to change that here. Of course the downside of that is that most will be less motivated, work less hard and the entire country suffers.

Go live in Europe if you want that cluster#### of an economy over there.

 

[TripItUp]

Bottom line, if you had a decent chance at an education or trade skill, and you blew it...I don't give a rats ### how poor you are.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

I'm for small business owners so I wouldn't go after them the way I would a company that is part of the Fortune 500 for example. There needs to be a slice of socialism injected into Wall Street. I still want capitalism but with a few buffers and also can't get out of tax brackets so they pay their fair share. No companies should be allowed to operate with a bunch of food stamp employees, that's horse spit.

 

[jonessed]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Define this but if you are turning your nose up at Wal Mart and target employees, fast food workers, grocery clerks, these folks work themselves to the bone in some of these places for very little.

If you can hold a job I think we as a society need to fill in the gaps. Give these people a better living wage and then cut off some of the freebies like food stamps and health care and allow these folks to enjoy an actual choice of where they want to go.

Minimum=$15, at least double what folks make now. Goods will rise a few cents across the board but folks can afford it and it will save on the taxes that are already being collected. We have plenty of revenue from taxes in this country but the problem is how the money is mishandled in D.C.

And some wouldn't. It has nothing to do with "turning your nose up". It's about how replaceable the labor is.

 

[TripItUp]

All of that being said, the effective tax rate should be the same for the ultrawealthy and the FFA wealthy....pretty much everybody agrees on this. We should see some legislation on this eventually.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Anybody that had the opportunity for a decent high school education and subsequent higher education, but didn't take advantage of it shouldn't get to vote.

No lazies in my country.

People without educations have always been poor and end up having the ####ty jobs...you'll need to go to Euro style socialism if you want to change that here. Of course the downside of that is that most will be less motivated, work less hard and the entire country suffers.

Go live in Europe if you want that cluster#### of an economy over there.

Do all kids have an equal opp at a good education? What if mom n dad are drug addicts in one form or another, is it the kids fault? Should we just make blanket statements about everyone's soul or just what works and makes us feel better about ourselves?

Trip, I like your posts because a lot of folks feel the same as you do. I waffle some but I feel like the working poor suffer as much as anyone. How can a 14 year old know what is best for them? A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school.

 

[James Daulton]

Again this is the Cuba/Russian, etc. utopia. It is not up to me to provide a #######g living for an employee. It is up to the worker to provide for himself. Doesn't like the damn job, then get another. Doesn't like that one then get two more jobs. Don't like those then get your #### fired & get food stamps. Socialism is a fine experiment that went terribly wrong. You may have some fine intentions but a poor grasp of history.

So those folks who didn't win the genetic lottery like you apparently did, and can only ever be skilled enough to push a broom or dig a ditch, but are wiling to do both, just get thrown aside and paid pennies on the dollar because some ######## company owner thinks that's all their effort is worth.

This is how you think a civilized society should treats its people?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Define this but if you are turning your nose up at Wal Mart and target employees, fast food workers, grocery clerks, these folks work themselves to the bone in some of these places for very little.

If you can hold a job I think we as a society need to fill in the gaps. Give these people a better living wage and then cut off some of the freebies like food stamps and health care and allow these folks to enjoy an actual choice of where they want to go.

Minimum=$15, at least double what folks make now. Goods will rise a few cents across the board but folks can afford it and it will save on the taxes that are already being collected. We have plenty of revenue from taxes in this country but the problem is how the money is mishandled in D.C.

And some wouldn't. It has nothing to do with "turning your nose up". It's about how replaceable the labor is.

Their human beings just in case you didn't know. Maybe instead of adding to the poor and eliminating jobs which creates more poverty, maybe just look at Wal Mart like an adult day care for the mentally challenged. They need to work somewhere and they need to have food, clothes, medicine and a place to live. I can't understand why anyone would want to try and eliminate these jobs or vilify people that are just trying to live and make it from one paycheck to the next if they are lucky.

Why are people who likely make somewhere in the range of $50k-$200k which is most of this board...are we really taking pride that we are somehow better than the folks who work in poverty? I find that disgusting. This board should be changed to the FFY...Free For Yuppies!

 

[Joe T]

I'm a small business owner and also a CPA. I'll be happy to forward you some numbers showing where at certain levels of income a business owner making $400,000 per year can pay over 50% on his next dollar.

As CPA you know are many ways for a small business owner to reduce their taxable income, especially at that level.

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

This is obviously not true. All business owners pay no taxes and won't even pay their employees a living wage!

 

[RealReactions]

world always needs ditch diggers.

 

[jonessed]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Define this but if you are turning your nose up at Wal Mart and target employees, fast food workers, grocery clerks, these folks work themselves to the bone in some of these places for very little. If you can hold a job I think we as a society need to fill in the gaps. Give these people a better living wage and then cut off some of the freebies like food stamps and health care and allow these folks to enjoy an actual choice of where they want to go.

Minimum=$15, at least double what folks make now. Goods will rise a few cents across the board but folks can afford it and it will save on the taxes that are already being collected. We have plenty of revenue from taxes in this country but the problem is how the money is mishandled in D.C.

And some wouldn't. It has nothing to do with "turning your nose up". It's about how replaceable the labor is.

Their human beings just in case you didn't know. Maybe instead of adding to the poor and eliminating jobs which creates more poverty, maybe just look at Wal Mart like an adult day care for the mentally challenged. They need to work somewhere and they need to have food, clothes, medicine and a place to live. I can't understand why anyone would want to try and eliminate these jobs or vilify people that are just trying to live and make it from one paycheck to the next if they are lucky. Why are people who likely make somewhere in the range of $50k-$200k which is most of this board...are we really taking pride that we are somehow better than the folks who work in poverty? I find that disgusting. This board should be changed to the FFY...Free For Yuppies!

Where is this rant directed? You are setting up straw-men and knocking them down at a frantic pace.

 

[jonessed]

Again this is the Cuba/Russian, etc. utopia. It is not up to me to provide a #######g living for an employee. It is up to the worker to provide for himself. Doesn't like the damn job, then get another. Doesn't like that one then get two more jobs. Don't like those then get your #### fired & get food stamps. Socialism is a fine experiment that went terribly wrong. You may have some fine intentions but a poor grasp of history.

So those folks who didn't win the genetic lottery like you apparently did, and can only ever be skilled enough to push a broom or dig a ditch, but are wiling to do both, just get thrown aside and paid pennies on the dollar because some ######## company owner thinks that's all their effort is worth.

This is how you think a civilized society should treats its people?

Paid pennies on the dollar? What does that even mean in this context?

If a community feels they should pay minimum wage workers more they should increase minimum wage to reflect the cost of living. Many cities have done that. Why is that uncivilized?

 

[Shula-holic]

I'm a small business owner and also a CPA. I'll be happy to forward you some numbers showing where at certain levels of income a business owner making $400,000 per year can pay over 50% on his next dollar.

As CPA you know are many ways for a small business owner to reduce their taxable income, especially at that level.

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

This is obviously not true. All business owners pay no taxes and won't even pay their employees a living wage!

I missed the memo and have been paying the IRS each year

 

[TripItUp]

Do all kids have an equal opp at a good education? What if mom n dad are drug addicts in one form or another, is it the kids fault? Should we just make blanket statements about everyone's soul or just what works and makes us feel better about ourselves?


Trip, I like your posts because a lot of folks feel the same as you do. I waffle some but I feel like the working poor suffer as much as anyone. How can a 14 year old know what is best for them? A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school.

A) 95% of kids have the opportunity for a good enough education to get them ahead in life. Plenty of self made millionaires in this country come from middle class/even lower class neighborhoods

B) My comments have nothing to do about myself, and more to do about the well being of this country...socialism doesn't work and will drag this country down

C) "A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school."...great, I have no problem with this.

 

[humpback]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

What kind/quality/quantity of housing, food, and health care, and for how many people? What else should it "cover"?

What exactly is over the top? Should a person working full-time be homeless? Be hungry? Die because they can't afford health care?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are thinking. My idea is the very basics - a small one bedroom apartment, enough money to buy food at a grocery store and not go hungry, and health care when they need it. If you aren't willing to pay someone enough so they can afford to live then you shouldn't have employees.

Who said anything about over the top? I'm simply asking you to define "living wage", which despite your "like I said", you still haven't done. It means very different things to different people, I might actually agree with you depending on your definition.

 

[cstu]

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

I'd assume someone making over $400,000 is already maxing their SEP. Then I would do a lot of business travel. Take clients out. If you have kids, hire them and set up Roth IRA's for them, buy new office equipment and furniture.

And the ultimate crazy one - give your employees a big bonus.

 

[cstu]

Who said anything about over the top? I'm simply asking you to define "living wage", which despite your "like I said", you still haven't done. It means very different things to different people, I might actually agree with you depending on your definition.

In Los Angeles I'd guess it's about $30,000 (~$15 an hour). In places with lower cost of living, about $20,000 (~$10 an hour).

I'm also in favor of universal health care so that wouldn't be an expense in that wage.

 

[heropretend]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

I think you're seriously misunderstanding what has been said. Someone suggested we limit net worth to $1 billion and tax and redistribute everything above. I responded that would cut all incentive for billionaires to earn another dollar. Duh. You're the one with the weird rhetoric. Billionaires with lower tax rates aren't even working for their money so of course they'll be motivated and have incentive at a 50% income tax. I may be wrong, but I think if you tax anything above 200k above 50% then we're going to stop working as hard for that 201k.

You are already taxed at a higher rate than billionaires. Why would they lose incentive if they were taxed at the same rate you are? You haven't.

Put it another way, you and I, we will always need every dollar we make. We will not die with billions in the bank. We will die happily broke with a bit of inheritance or donations leftover. I have much much less incentive to make more $$$$ after being taxed 50%.

A billionaire should pay a bit more than me obviously. Their money will always be working for them. Extra income above the hypothetical 50% tax rate will go to their LEGACY. They're motivated by their ego.

 

[heropretend]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

What kind/quality/quantity of housing, food, and health care, and for how many people? What else should it "cover"?

What exactly is over the top? Should a person working full-time be homeless? Be hungry? Die because they can't afford health care?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are thinking. My idea is the very basics - a small one bedroom apartment, enough money to buy food at a grocery store and not go hungry, and health care when they need it. If you aren't willing to pay someone enough so they can afford to live then you shouldn't have employees.

More households should be shared. That's how it's always been done. We're moving towards 30% single households and 70% 2 person households. This idea that we all deserve our own place and all the poor are starving is baloney. Nobody starves in the US, most of the homeless are homeless because of mental illness.

 

[Shula-holic]

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

I'd assume someone making over $400,000 is already maxing their SEP. Then I would do a lot of business travel. Take clients out. If you have kids, hire them and set up Roth IRA's for them, buy new office equipment and furniture.

And the ultimate crazy one - give your employees a big bonus.

Everything you just named is accounted for in normal day to day business expenses, it's not some loophole or accounting trick to decrease income. If my employee's laptop breaks down, I'm paying to have it fixed or buying them a new one. It's expense, just like cost of goods sold, wages, advertising, necessary business travel, desks as needed for employees, etc. It's not some tax plan to reduce income.

The statement you made was that as a CPA I should know there were "many ways" to reduce taxable income for a small business, inferring by some accounting practice or loophole small businesses could gain an advantage. There simply isn't anything like that. I realize it fits an agenda to represent it as so, but it isn't the case.

 

[heropretend]

Anybody that had the opportunity for a decent high school education and subsequent higher education, but didn't take advantage of it shouldn't get to vote.

No lazies in my country.

People without educations have always been poor and end up having the ####ty jobs...you'll need to go to Euro style socialism if you want to change that here. Of course the downside of that is that most will be less motivated, work less hard and the entire country suffers.

Go live in Europe if you want that cluster#### of an economy over there.

Do all kids have an equal opp at a good education? What if mom n dad are drug addicts in one form or another, is it the kids fault? Should we just make blanket statements about everyone's soul or just what works and makes us feel better about ourselves?

Trip, I like your posts because a lot of folks feel the same as you do. I waffle some but I feel like the working poor suffer as much as anyone. How can a 14 year old know what is best for them? A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school.

Trip, ,ost of us with educations did work hard, but we also had more chances. I agree that everyone has a chance, but for poors their chance starts early and ends early. I'm willing to bet that everyone on these forums had by historical levels some ridiculously supportive backgrounds with personal computers, no teenage preggers, internet access, ability to take out a student loan and receive some assistance from parents when buying their first car, house, degree, etc.

 

[heropretend]

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

I'd assume someone making over $400,000 is already maxing their SEP. Then I would do a lot of business travel. Take clients out. If you have kids, hire them and set up Roth IRA's for them, buy new office equipment and furniture.

And the ultimate crazy one - give your employees a big bonus.

Everything you just named is accounted for in normal day to day business expenses, it's not some loophole or accounting trick to decrease income. If my employee's laptop breaks down, I'm paying to have it fixed or buying them a new one. It's expense, just like cost of goods sold, wages, advertising, necessary business travel, desks as needed for employees, etc. It's not some tax plan to reduce income.

The statement you made was that as a CPA I should know there were "many ways" to reduce taxable income for a small business, inferring by some accounting practice or loophole small businesses could gain an advantage. There simply isn't anything like that. I realize it fits an agenda to represent it as so, but it isn't the case.

It's just terrible that someone believes running a small business is some tax haven and is telling a CPA that they're doing it wrong if they're not Warren Buffet yet. Buying that Eames lounger for $5k means cutting into your margin or taking on $5k more work and deducting what, 40%? So I want to spend $3k on a chair and lower margins further so I can say I paid less taxes???

 

[cstu]

It's just terrible that someone believes running a small business is some tax haven and is telling a CPA that they're doing it wrong if they're not Warren Buffet yet.

I've paid very little tax being self-employed and am not looking to change the laws.

 

[tommyGunZ]

1,760,000,000,000.00

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know enough about this when I was in my 20s and early 30s running around. It saddens me that it is so difficult to make masses of people understand what probably needs to happen at some point. The reason the super rich don't fear much is there really is not a threat of revolution. We have a very soft and lazy society at the bottom where welfare has created a mindset for many of why go work? And then you have the far worse situation with the working poor. People going to work everyday, perhaps working 2 jobs to make ends meet and even that is not enough.

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Great topic Fred, I hope there will be some meaningful discussion in here. I was called a cutthroat capitalist in school, sung all the traditional business ways but my views and stance have greatly changed over the last 5 years I would say. We have to find a way to bridge the gap and at least make a healthy wage increase for all and let Wall Street know their bully tactics will not be tolerated any more.

You say your mindset has changed, but your immediate response to Fred's post blames poor people for be lazy, soft, welfare leechers.

No TGunz, I have a lot of empathy for those that slave away at low wage jobs vs just throwing in the towel and staying home. No pity for those that will not work, lots of pity for those trying to work and can't afford rent, a car, food, and provide for a child, you just can't do it on minimum wage or really anything much less than about $30k-$50k a year depending on region of the country. We have to stop demonizing folks who work and can afford to eat at McDs daily, that's not much of a lifestyle IMO. Please stop trying to box me into whatever suits you. I mean you can do it but I am going to continue to push back hard. Would like to get past it and move to more meaningful discussion. Also I have to say TG, I'm disappointed since last I was around, it seems you have gotten worse(?) on some issues. I used to know a guy who was always wanting to time the RE market and was working hard on law school, now it just reads like a social worker who feels anyone with a job should give half away in taxes and such. Educate my errors but it's difficult to post with you at the moment. Trying to get a read on what's real and what's schtick.

You stated that "welfare has created a soft and lazy society at the bottom where people don't want to go to work".

Equating gov't assistance to "soft and lazy" is a big part of the problem. If you want to be seen as compassionate and understanding, stop this.

 

[bostonfred]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Do all kids have an equal opp at a good education? What if mom n dad are drug addicts in one form or another, is it the kids fault? Should we just make blanket statements about everyone's soul or just what works and makes us feel better about ourselves?


Trip, I like your posts because a lot of folks feel the same as you do. I waffle some but I feel like the working poor suffer as much as anyone. How can a 14 year old know what is best for them? A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school.

A) 95% of kids have the opportunity for a good enough education to get them ahead in life. Plenty of self made millionaires in this country come from middle class/even lower class neighborhoods

B) My comments have nothing to do about myself, and more to do about the well being of this country...socialism doesn't work and will drag this country down

C) "A lot of folks go out and find themselves in their 20s and then go to school."...great, I have no problem with this.

Total garbage and made up in your head. Come teach in a Title I school with me for a few days and your tune will change mightily.

 

[James Daulton]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

And not all of those 1% were self made. I don't know the number but I'd bet a substantial percentage inherited their money. So basically we're getting a modified aristocracy.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

MoP knows because he's one of the ones providing a crappy education.

 

[Joe T]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

I think this is an interesting and worth topic. The next question is how would you fix it (if we agree it is a problem worth fixing).

For those in the bottom half and who are not lazy and doing nothing, why are they not able to generate more wealth? How do we get them access to more opportunity to generate more wealth on their own? What is holding them back?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

MoP knows because he's one of the ones providing a crappy education.

 

[Cjw_55106]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

I think this is an interesting and worth topic. The next question is how would you fix it (if we agree it is a problem worth fixing).

For those in the bottom half and who are not lazy and doing nothing, why are they not able to generate more wealth? How do we get them access to more opportunity to generate more wealth on their own? What is holding them back?

Anytime you talk about "the world", you can ignore every stat afterwards. They are meaningless. If you want to confine that down to first world countries or the US, the stats mean a little more.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

I think this is an interesting and worth topic. The next question is how would you fix it (if we agree it is a problem worth fixing).

For those in the bottom half and who are not lazy and doing nothing, why are they not able to generate more wealth? How do we get them access to more opportunity to generate more wealth on their own? What is holding them back?

1. Drugs and Alcohol addiction

2. Arrest records with a lot of petty things that many times most of us would do if in the same situation. Petty to me is stealing food, peddling dope, non violent offenses.

3. Job opps. We need to get off our high horse that these folks should have studied hard in school. Righteous group of folks that act towards this issue the way Seniors do about their social security, lot of entitlement for degrees and such. I would like to see the entitlement aimed at those with jobs, whatever jobs they are.

4. Very little incentive to go from welfare to minimum wage job. We need to make it obvious that folks want to work and make their way in this world. Most do but when raised in a ghetto and seeing nothing but poverty folks who work the system as best they can, that next generation and the one after that are going to be mentally prepared to live off the government and we need to all work to change that. Show people how awesome life will be once they get off government assistance.

I know there are people reading all this and saying "I went to the mall and this woman with 4 kids and 100 lbs overweight is just parading around the mall when she should be working" and I get it but for everyone of those slackers are folks who want to work and many times having to work 2 jobs or 70-80 hours a week to make ends meet. You cannot keep that up forever and ever. And it's easy for folks once they make a certain amount or get to a certain spot in life to not look back or want to help those they passed in order to get there.

Company employees should not need food stamps and we need to put an end to this nonsense.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I think #4 is a huge problem. The second someone on welfare gets a job, they get cut off. Making up hypothetical numbers, here is what I would be in favor of:

Current setup:

Person gets $1000 a month on welfare/food stamps, and gov insurance

If they work, they get nothing other than maybe food stamps.

Id like to see:

Person currently on welfare gets a job making $10 an hour. Lets call it $1000 a month after taxes and health insurance.

The now employed welfare recipient continues to get $500 a month in welfare for the first year.

Drop it to $300 a month after that or eliminate it totally. Either way, they are contributing to society.

I really think most people don't mind welfare. Its people getting something for nothing for decades (or generations) that bothers people.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is Joe T really asking why people born in the developing world can't accumulate wealth?

 

[bostonfred]

That's where the basic income guarantee comes in. Everybody gets welfare whether they deserve it or not. The people at the top don't actually keep it, because their tax burden also goes up to pay for the program, but the people at the bottom no longer have a disincentive to work because they don't lose their welfare or other social programs once they have income to report.

 

[jonessed]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/rich-have-only-got-richer-since-2000-davos-a6823281.html

The bottom 50% of the world received only 1% of the wealth created since 2000

Think about this for a minute. This isn't the laziest people doing nothing and getting nothing. This is literally half the world - everybody below average.

In fact just 13% of all gains in worldwide wealth have gone to the bottom 90%.

Over 50% of those wealth gains have gone to the top 1%.

Let me say that again because percentages are boring. 90% of the world split 13% of the wealth created in the last 15 years. During the same time, 1% of the world enjoyed over 50%.

I think this is an interesting and worth topic. The next question is how would you fix it (if we agree it is a problem worth fixing).

For those in the bottom half and who are not lazy and doing nothing, why are they not able to generate more wealth? How do we get them access to more opportunity to generate more wealth on their own? What is holding them back?

Anytime you talk about "the world", you can ignore every stat afterwards. They are meaningless. If you want to confine that down to first world countries or the US, the stats mean a little more.

Unless we are prepared to throw money at corrupt governments in Africa or gift payments to China and India there is little to nothing we can do directly for the overwhelming majority of the world's poor.

We can have indirect influence by working to maintain a stable and growing global economy. Millions in China and India are being brought out of poverty in this way.

 

[bostonfred]

Is Joe T really asking why people born in the developing world can't accumulate wealth?

I think it's obvious they're lazy.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I think #4 is a huge problem. The second someone on welfare gets a job, they get cut off. Making up hypothetical numbers, here is what I would be in favor of:

Current setup:

Person gets $1000 a month on welfare/food stamps, and gov insurance

If they work, they get nothing other than maybe food stamps.

Id like to see:

Person currently on welfare gets a job making $10 an hour. Lets call it $1000 a month after taxes and health insurance.

The now employed welfare recipient continues to get $500 a month in welfare for the first year.

Drop it to $300 a month after that or eliminate it totally. Either way, they are contributing to society.

I really think most people don't mind welfare. Its people getting something for nothing for decades (or generations) that bothers people.

Agree, something like training wheels until they can rise on their own. I'm not sure of the math here either but I like the idea that they work in order to get the government help.

 

[jonessed]

That's where the basic income guarantee comes in. Everybody gets welfare whether they deserve it or not. The people at the top don't actually keep it, because their tax burden also goes up to pay for the program, but the people at the bottom no longer have a disincentive to work because they don't lose their welfare or other social programs once they have income to report.

The idea makes sense to me, but I don't ever see it happening.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

That's where the basic income guarantee comes in. Everybody gets welfare whether they deserve it or not. The people at the top don't actually keep it, because their tax burden also goes up to pay for the program, but the people at the bottom no longer have a disincentive to work because they don't lose their welfare or other social programs once they have income to report.

I would start with the military budget and cut it down a good chunk. Where would you get the money to start the programs? I would want to reallocate the money the government already is taking in.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

That's where the basic income guarantee comes in. Everybody gets welfare whether they deserve it or not. The people at the top don't actually keep it, because their tax burden also goes up to pay for the program, but the people at the bottom no longer have a disincentive to work because they don't lose their welfare or other social programs once they have income to report.

The idea makes sense to me, but I don't ever see it happening.

I'm sure Ford and Edison had a tough time convincing folks of their ideas ever happening when they first unveiled them.

 

[jonessed]

That's where the basic income guarantee comes in. Everybody gets welfare whether they deserve it or not. The people at the top don't actually keep it, because their tax burden also goes up to pay for the program, but the people at the bottom no longer have a disincentive to work because they don't lose their welfare or other social programs once they have income to report.

The idea makes sense to me, but I don't ever see it happening.

I'm sure Ford and Edison had a tough time convincing folks of their ideas ever happening when they first unveiled them.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

This is a nice easy to read pie chart and basics of the federal budget. Seems obvious where the money is going and what we need to do. I'm tired of hearing how many men and women in the military will be out of a job. We will find them something to do here. Most of them excel and are excellent in any walk of life they choose when they return home.

I encourage folks who want to discuss the economy and allocation of spending to click on that link even for just 30-60 seconds so you can see how the money flows. It might infuriate a good many of you and perhaps eye opening for others.

 

[Joe T]

Is Joe T really asking why people born in the developing world can't accumulate wealth?

No.

 

[humpback]

Who said anything about over the top? I'm simply asking you to define "living wage", which despite your "like I said", you still haven't done. It means very different things to different people, I might actually agree with you depending on your definition.

In Los Angeles I'd guess it's about $30,000 (~$15 an hour). In places with lower cost of living, about $20,000 (~$10 an hour).

I'm also in favor of universal health care so that wouldn't be an expense in that wage.

IMO that's too much when you add in the "free" health care.

I've said this before, but increasing the minimum wage shouldn't be the focus. It's a band-aid solution to a much larger problem.

 

[TripItUp]

Who said anything about over the top? I'm simply asking you to define "living wage", which despite your "like I said", you still haven't done. It means very different things to different people, I might actually agree with you depending on your definition.

In Los Angeles I'd guess it's about $30,000 (~$15 an hour). In places with lower cost of living, about $20,000 (~$10 an hour).

I'm also in favor of universal health care so that wouldn't be an expense in that wage.

IMO that's too much when you add in the "free" health care.

I've said this before, but increasing the minimum wage shouldn't be the focus. It's a band-aid solution to a much larger problem.

Correct.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-pay-raises-most-201836063.html

Announcement today that Wal Mart workers totaling over 1.2 million people are all getting a raise.

Our work here is done boys.

 

[cstu]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-pay-raises-most-201836063.html

Announcement today that Wal Mart workers totaling over 1.2 million people are all getting a raise.

Our work here is done boys.

Last February, Wal-Mart announced that it would raise base employee wages for 500,000 workers to $9 an hour last year, with plans to move it to $10 per hour, next month. The company also said new entry level workers hired after Jan. 1, 2016 would start at $9 per hour, but move to at least $10 an hour after completing a six-month training program.

Better short Wal-Mart stock because there's no way they can stay profitable now.

 

[cstu]

Who said anything about over the top? I'm simply asking you to define "living wage", which despite your "like I said", you still haven't done. It means very different things to different people, I might actually agree with you depending on your definition.

In Los Angeles I'd guess it's about $30,000 (~$15 an hour). In places with lower cost of living, about $20,000 (~$10 an hour).

I'm also in favor of universal health care so that wouldn't be an expense in that wage.

IMO that's too much when you add in the "free" health care.

I've said this before, but increasing the minimum wage shouldn't be the focus. It's a band-aid solution to a much larger problem.

Low income people are already getting free health care so it's really a non-issue.

Minimum wage is part of the solution because for too long the incentives have been in the wrong place. It's should never be a logical decision to not work and choose to live off welfare yet that's what we've created. There should be more incentives for becoming educated and incentives for showing up to work every day.