Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Nearly 76% of Americans in the recovering economy are now living paycheck to paycheck   (townhall.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, Americans, Greg McBride, David Limbaugh, unexpected events  
•       •       •

1362 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-25 09:29:34 AM  
Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.
 
2013-06-25 09:31:51 AM  

Diogenes: Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.


Nonsense. By cutting off the bottom rungs, you just create more incentives for people to stay higher up.
 
2013-06-25 09:32:44 AM  
I bet they have refrigerators though, so quit bellyaching.
 
2013-06-25 09:35:34 AM  

BunkoSquad: I bet they have refrigerators though, so quit bellyaching.


76% doesn't just include the people on food stamps and poor folks.  I sure plenty of these people with no savings are driving new cars, have big screen TVs, and take nice vacations.
 
2013-06-25 09:41:32 AM  

EvilEgg: have big screen TVs


You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?
 
2013-06-25 09:44:21 AM  

WHAR JERB CREATORZ WHAR

 
2013-06-25 09:44:25 AM  
The economy isn't getting better and the unemployment numbers we keep seeing are far from accurate. According to 76 percent of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck....Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen Report shows the majority want the government to cut spending in order to spur economic growth.

I'd ask that Townhall connect those dots for us, but:

1)  Cut spending is their answer to everything, including, "What would you like for breakfast?"

2)  I don't care for Jackson Pollock's work.
 
2013-06-25 09:44:47 AM  

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


It just takes to long to write 65" OLED TV.  Okay actually it doesn't, but still, There are big screen TVs and then there are big screen TVs.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:04 AM  
I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame
 
2013-06-25 09:51:56 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history
 
2013-06-25 09:57:01 AM  
I bought a gun so I can live mugging to mugging.
 
2013-06-25 09:58:03 AM  
something something bootstraps
 
2013-06-25 09:58:37 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


Given how intrinsically linked government is nowadays in regards to the concentration of wealth in the highest echelons, it was kind of inevitable.  We can't even have a discussion about a proper "distribution" of wealth because of the herp derp about wealth redistributors, tax cuts, gubmint spending etc.  You've been guilty on this very subject a number of times as well so I'm not really sure your comment is well-founded.

I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country.  My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years.  So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.

The free market isn't going to correct to concentrate more wealth at the lowest levels, I mean that's obvious; that's what the government is supposed to help with.  To take care of the people.  Hence partisan political bickering and hackery.  But, there's a huge contingent that is way more interested in the fight than the solution, on both sides of the fence, because the fight allows them to distract us little people into a country-wide sporting event, while the owners of the teams lap up all the excess.

*shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.
 
2013-06-25 09:59:40 AM  
Just yesterday I got a corporate email blast - "We beat expectations once again!  Earnings at all time high!"  Then went to a team meeting where we were told we can't buy new equipment, travel for classes, hire new staff (despite measurable increases in workload), or expect raises.  It's been like this since 2000 (we did an astounding job at weathering the recession - earnings never dipped).  And all along we're told, "Consider yourself lucky you have a job."

This is not a whine, it's a fact.  And I am certainly not alone in this experience.

While I like the idea of a tax holiday for consumers or a decrease on federal taxes for fuel, I seriously doubt Townhall would suggest such specific and direct reliefs.  Look at their 'concluding' paragraph.  Cut government spending = reduce corporate and business taxes, to free them to generate wealth.  Except they're not.  How much longer are we expected to buy this lie?  How much more wealth must be concentrated at the top before it trickles down?  Is there some threshold?  Is it like bursting a dam?

I'm not taking issue you with you, Stealth Hippopotamus.  It's Townhall and the same tired subtext (which is admittedly less obvious this time).  Blame government, and blame the middle class for not being able to consistently do more with less while being denied the means to advance up the ladder of opportunity.
 
2013-06-25 09:59:44 AM  
All that wealth will trickle down some day.  I just know it.
 
2013-06-25 10:04:10 AM  

cman: What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history


Oh I understand the correlation between the two subjects. However most (not all) Business Tab threads don't go full derp. Its been a place where we could have a somewhat reasonable debate without having to hear from the hacks about how one party wants to starve people and bomb brown people for oil. This thread took a bee line to the sub basement.

This is a real problem that the federal government could do something about. But instead of that discussion we get treated to a rehash of a discussion about a admittedly poorly executed "how do we define poor in the richest country in the world" discussion.
 
2013-06-25 10:13:19 AM  
How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?
 
2013-06-25 10:18:21 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:36 AM  
What was the number before the recession?
 
2013-06-25 10:19:13 AM  
Elandriel:I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country.  My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years.  So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.

You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:38 AM  

Elandriel: *shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.


I dont troll. You maybe talking about me getting troll but when someone brings up the subject it is normally an accusation. Believe it or not there are people out there that disagree with other people and don't do it for the lulz.

That being said my main problem with "wealth distribution" is we are relying on the federal government to do two things: 1) be highly efficient with the collection and distribution of the funds (as close to 1 dollar out for every dollar in) 2) to distribute the funds fairly and without political basis or agenda. You really think they can do that? Or are they trying to gain power and influence with our dollars? If I am "guilty" of anything it's not trusting people in large groups.

That's why I favor tax holidays and tax cuts. The only way to be efficient and non basis is to never send the money to Washington in the first place. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" for years now and I think it's time to demand an exist strategy!
 
2013-06-25 10:20:52 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.


Dammit. Business tab I meant.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:41 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.

Dammit. Business tab I meant.


Now that you've corrected that, you can point out where the political derp is in that statement.
 
2013-06-25 10:25:50 AM  
I wasn't aware that "living paycheck to paycheck" meant having less than six months' worth of expenses in the bank.  Unless you get paid twice per year.  It's bad to not have a fallback plan like that, but it's not as bad as the headline makes it sound.

Also, the article claims it's measured by money in a savings account.  You know where I try to avoid parking money?  In "savings" accounts that bear virtually no interest.  I invest excess money aggressively, because selling investments in the event of a crisis isn't especially hard.  Internet, push some buttons, I'll have cash in a couple days.  There's very little I can't pay for by credit card, so by the time the surprise bill comes, the investment money would be in hand.

Also, is this a sign of the economy, or a sign that Americans are particularly stupid about saving money?  The Census tracks household saving rates, and America's has been low (2.7% in 2008, not much different from 2000-2007), while several countries in Europe with crappier economies were much higher (Italy 8.6%, Spain 6.1%).
 
2013-06-25 10:30:09 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.

Dammit. Business tab I meant.

Now that you've corrected that, you can point out where the political derp is in that statement.


Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?

If I responded that I believe that the gas tax is in fact too low, and that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles is a higher gas tax, would tat be political? Or if I argued that the middle class shouldn't get a tax cut, would that be political?
 
2013-06-25 10:30:36 AM  
www.nefe.org
 
2013-06-25 10:32:38 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Elandriel: *shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.

I dont troll. You maybe talking about me getting troll but when someone brings up the subject it is normally an accusation. Believe it or not there are people out there that disagree with other people and don't do it for the lulz.

That being said my main problem with "wealth distribution" is we are relying on the federal government to do two things: 1) be highly efficient with the collection and distribution of the funds (as close to 1 dollar out for every dollar in) 2) to distribute the funds fairly and without political basis or agenda. You really think they can do that? Or are they trying to gain power and influence with our dollars? If I am "guilty" of anything it's not trusting people in large groups.

That's why I favor tax holidays and tax cuts. The only way to be efficient and non basis is to never send the money to Washington in the first place. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" for years now and I think it's time to demand an exist strategy!


You might not consider it trolling, and maybe it's not; what I should say is you have a reputation around here for making a Custer's Last Stand on logically unstable positions that don't benefit from established fact or evidence, and then breathlessly insist you're right in the face of overwhelming reinforced objection.  But, I don't really take issue with what you've said in this thread except for actively making the thread more political than it already was.

That said, I would like an exit strategy from the war on poverty, but first I would like if we could stop taking friendly fire.  If there is to be a war on poverty, then it needs to be against the causes of poverty, and not the people suffering it.  And no, we certainly can't trust the government to do it right -- if I were to wager a guess, I would say it's because the rich are the government, they fund it, they choose the candidates, they propose the policies, they support the excess, they stack the deck.  So no, of course we can't trust the government in its current form, because it exists to protect the status quo and/or shift even more wealth upward.  Nothing the government does actually helps prosperity grow because that affects the top-heavy balance of power.  If we could separate money from politics, maybe we'd have a chance, but the funny part of that is the politicians who would make the laws separating money from politics benefit from money in politics.

And, given that laws are now being proposed that attempt to outright ban political participation (such as the "no more 3rd parties" law in Arizona) I doubt very much that we're going to have a snowball's chance of upheaving the existing political apparatus short of actual widescale rebellion.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:16 AM  
Obvious tag off to get another payday loan?
 
2013-06-25 10:36:41 AM  
   I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.
 
2013-06-25 10:36:41 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?


Well you going overboard on you assessment proved my point about the derp level. So I thank you for that. And I really don't think it's political. Now with your example of trying to change people's buying habits by increase the taxes for no other reason than to effect that behavior, yes I would call that political. With a blanket tax cut on a product that damn near everyone uses (fuel powers truck that deliver product so you dont need a car to benefit.) it removes political interests and benefits people without having to waste money in Washington.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:12 AM  
This is misleading. Not having half a freaking year's salary in your savings/checking account isn't "living paycheck to paycheck." For those of us with reasonably good job security, we often judge that it is worth taking our savings and using it to pay down debt early. Any time my checking account gets over $5k, I make a double payment on my mortgage.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:28 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If I responded that I believe that the gas tax is in fact too low, and that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles is a higher gas tax, would tat be political? Or if I argued that the middle class shouldn't get a tax cut, would that be political?


The Stealth Hippopotamus defines any tax cut he doesn't want as "political".  Anything he wants is "common sense".  He's not an honest person.

And yes, as regressive as the fuel tax is, it's the last tax we should be cutting back on.  Cheap gasoline means more incentives for dirty air and water, and we pay out the nose for these already in terms of excess cases of respiratory illness in polluted areas.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:15 AM  

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


Additionally, who's selling CRTs nowadays?
 
2013-06-25 10:42:31 AM  
It should be noted that the study the article cites defines living paycheck to paycheck as not having a  liquid six month reserve.  It doesn't take into account things like retirement accounts that would still count as savings but couldn't be accessed easily.  Also, it is important to note that the original article points out that:

Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation.

So this probably says more about the savings habit of Americans than it does about the strength of the economy.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:40 AM  
Deflation will fix that in a hurry.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:15 AM  
I don't know what the answer is on the one hand we have a party, the Democratic party, that can't muster up the will to do what we know will help the economy and that is stimulus spending in the form of a jobs bill. On the other hand on their watch they have allowed the Federal Reserve to enact over 2 trillion in stimulus spending that went directly to the wealthiest 1% in the form of Quantitative Easing.  That 1% did not do anything with that free money, but stockpile it, they are sitting on mountains of cash and the Democrats refuse to do anything about that. Hell President Obama refuses to do anything at all, he has become a lame duck in the first year of his second term.

Now the Republicans on the other hand areguaranteed to screw the middle class and help the rich only.

So, We The People are damned. I'm wondering if it will get bad enough that we start shooting rich motherfarkers again like we did in the 1900's.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:17 AM  

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


The point is more that, if you're really living paycheck to paycheck...maybe you shouldn't be purchasing a HDTV, which is a luxury item (not a necessity). Yes, a decent 40"+ HDTV can be had for around $500 (or less if pick a house brand).

But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:18 AM  
76% living paycheck to paycheck?

gee i hope the healthcare mandate doenst impact on top of the problems they have already.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:19 AM  
Yay for Townhall... for pointing out the obvious and then blaming the wrong reasons. The reason we are living paycheck to paycheck is because there is no company loyalty anymore to it's employees. When a person who sells a widget at a retail store is told after five years of loyal employment doing commissions based sales, "We're taking away your commissions, but you better sell more widgets, because I can find someone else to take your job *snaps fingers* like that.", staying with that company to keep food on the table, and then see a news report on how their company has made record profits; the employee is not going to think, "Well, if my bosses taxes weren't so high, he could of continued to give me those commissions!"
 
2013-06-25 10:45:44 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?

Well you going overboard on you assessment proved my point about the derp level. So I thank you for that. And I really don't think it's political. Now with your example of trying to change people's buying habits by increase the taxes for no other reason than to effect that behavior, yes I would call that political. With a blanket tax cut on a product that damn near everyone uses (fuel powers truck that deliver product so you dont need a car to benefit.) it removes political interests and benefits people without having to waste money in Washington.


And right on time, you prove my point.  Really, there's no political interest in oil?  You can't think of anything?  That must be why the oil industry spends zero dollars on lobbying and I never, ever read about oil in international news.

Wasting gasoline is the least patriotic thing Americans routinely do.  It fouls our air, hastens climate change, stresses our crumbling infrastructure, and strengthens our geopolitical enemies.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:15 AM  
Are there policies we need to change that can alter the original distribution of wealth, rather than redistribution through the tax code?

For example, what if we change corporate law so that artificial companies cannot own shares of other artificial companies unless they form one company? The idea is to slow down the concentration of wealth and allow small businesses to have a greater chance of success.

And if Obama is so damned liberal, why haven't we trust busted the big banks?
 
2013-06-25 10:47:38 AM  

KFBR392: But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.


Highspeed internet is probably the most cost-effective "optional" bill you pay.  The TV is not, but lumping the two misses the point.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:50 AM  
I don't think we have six months in savings, but we're also trying to pay down debt as quickly as we can right now, so we can put more into savings and investments in the future. F*cking student loans and car payments.
 
2013-06-25 10:55:13 AM  

Elandriel: You might not consider it trolling, and maybe it's not; what I should say is you have a reputation around here for making a Custer's Last Stand on logically unstable positions that don't benefit from established fact or evidence, and then breathlessly insist you're right in the face of overwhelming reinforced objection. But, I don't really take issue with what you've said in this thread except for actively making the thread more political than it already was.


I really dont think I could have made it more political. The Boobiess had nothing to do with the article or the topic it was just hackery about another thread that was purely political. You can't make that more political. And how can a call to end something make it more political?
As far as how others see me, they could be wrong. Or they may be just projecting. Either way how others see me is none of my concern.

Elandriel: That said, I would like an exit strategy from the war on poverty, but first I would like if we could stop taking friendly fire. If there is to be a war on poverty, then it needs to be against the causes of poverty, and not the people suffering it. And no, we certainly can't trust the government to do it right -- if I were to wager a guess, I would say it's because the rich are the government, they fund it, they choose the candidates, they propose the policies, they support the excess, they stack the deck. So no, of course we can't trust the government in its current form, because it exists to protect the status quo and/or shift even more wealth upward. Nothing the government does actually helps prosperity grow because that affects the top-heavy balance of power. If we could separate money from politics, maybe we'd have a chance, but the funny part of that is the politicians who would make the laws separating money from politics benefit from money in politics.


You accuse me of making a circular argument? We need the government to spread the wealth around but we can't trust the government to spread to wealth around because it is made up of rich dudes. So do you agree with me that the only fair and equatable way of getting money into the people's pocket is tax cuts and tax breaks? Or do you see a third way?

See! This is the debate I wanted! And the debate that should happen under the business tab!

Woot!!
 
2013-06-25 10:56:50 AM  
A working class hero is something to be.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:25 AM  
The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:57 AM  

llortcM_yllort: It should be noted that the study the article cites defines living paycheck to paycheck as not having a  liquid six month reserve.  It doesn't take into account things like retirement accounts that would still count as savings but couldn't be accessed easily.  Also, it is important to note that the original article points out that:

Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation.

So this probably says more about the savings habit of Americans than it does about the strength of the economy.


It actually says more about interest rates than it does about anything else.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:40 AM  

Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.


Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:12 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes,


...you're right.  That time was when the government extended all the tax cuts on the rich.

/We can't call it a double-dip recession when most people haven't started recovering from the first.
 
2013-06-25 11:06:40 AM  

chimp_ninja: And right on time, you prove my point. Really, there's no political interest in oil? You can't think of anything? That must be why the oil industry spends zero dollars on lobbying and I never, ever read about oil in international news.

Wasting gasoline is the least patriotic thing Americans routinely do. It fouls our air, hastens climate change, stresses our crumbling infrastructure, and strengthens our geopolitical enemies.


No political interests on the pump side. That's just between the federal government and the end user. And you admitted it's the most regressive tax! That's what we are trying to do is get money into the hands of the lower incomes! Fuel is also a cost of goods sold of every single thing you buy! And that was just half of the ideas I listed. So did you like the other one?

Ok you don't like my idea, what's yours?


Oh and by the way. You accuse me of being dishonest. Do you have any proof or are you just slandering me for giggles? And please provide me an example where I used the term "common sense". It's really strange you picked that term. I really find it annoying and grating when people use that term and I try not to use it myself. I file it under the same heading as using "everyone knows".
 
2013-06-25 11:12:09 AM  
Meanwhile, consumer spending is surging. I guess that all comes from 1%-ers spending $70,000 each on dog massages and ruby-encrusted dildos.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:33 AM  

Phil McKraken: Are there policies we need to change that can alter the original distribution of wealth, rather than redistribution through the tax code?


Most of the things I can think of would run afoul of a few Constitutional Amendments, if they got through in the first place (which, with the rich fighting them, would not).  Things like executive pay ceilings, tougher price-fixing and speculation laws, and even increasing the Federal Minimum Wage are about as likely to be enacted as any sort of gun control law in this environment.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:10 AM  

IlGreven: ...you're right. That time was when the government extended all the tax cuts on the rich.


See Elandriel this is how a guy gets a reputation! I don't say a effing word about the rich, hell I'm talking about letting up on a highly regressive tax! And someone goes derp tax cut rich derp all over me.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:12 AM  

InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.


There you go.

Don't economists believe spending everything you have makes everybody rich?
 
2013-06-25 11:17:54 AM  
And before the recovering economy how many were living pay check to pay check ?
/ personal responsibility is dead
 
2013-06-25 11:22:33 AM  
The biggest issue a lot of people, like me, face is everything becoming more expensive without making any additional income. My house payment has gone about about $100/month over the last few years due to increases in property taxes and insurance. Grocery prices are at least 10% higher than a couple of years ago. There is absolutely nothing that costs less than it use to.  And here's the kicker,  my mortgage is the only debt I have.  Cars are paid for, no credit cards, etc. All of this "cut back on spending" talk is nice, but some of us don't have much more to cut.

/cutting cable this afternoon
 
2013-06-25 11:23:52 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You accuse me of making a circular argument? We need the government to spread the wealth around but we can't trust the government to spread to wealth around because it is made up of rich dudes. So do you agree with me that the only fair and equatable way of getting money into the people's pocket is tax cuts and tax breaks? Or do you see a third way?

 
The government we have doesn't serve the "people", so no, they are ill-equipped to assist in this situation.  But, the free market, unimpeded and left to its own devices, will continue to reward those at the helm with callous disregard for those who put them there.  So, government is necessary to intervene and ensure the needs of the little people are met.  Problem is, the people at the helm are the ones who decide the government, which then serves them, leaving the little people entirely out of the loop.

It's not really hard to follow, I don't think I am making a circular argument.  Collusion is once again breeding a culture of selfishness and aristocracy, and the stress fractures are steadily getting worse.

The proper way to do this isn't via tax cuts, because then the spending the government would perform for lower income financial aid would be cut off (let's be honest, it's not like they are going to make cuts in other areas) and ultimately the only ones who would benefit are those who are already rich.  It's nice to have another $200 in your pocket via tax cut, but now you have $200 less of aid in healthcare, subsides school lunches, SNAP, etc - things the rich don't qualify for because they are priced out of the income bracket necessary for these benefits.  For those who are struggling, tax cuts make absolutely no headway apart from changing the source of the benefits or income.  Hell I don't know what to do, but having seen 15 years of tax cuts as an economic strategy plus credit-card funded militaristic adventurism has us now sitting here waist-deep in debt and excrement with people more worried about who has more poo on their faces than how to actually clean it off.  So, I am not convinced that another round of tax cuts and stuff is going to work, unless they found a way to say "This only applies to the first ~$60,000 of income, and by the way if your salary is higher than X you don't benefit from it at all" which is just not going to happen.

Really what we should do is find a way to divest money from politics, because free of the influence of money (and in an idealized and admittedly non-existent world) politicians perhaps wouldn't be beholden solely to the interests of corporations and could serve the actual people that populate the country.  But, I mean good luck with that.  Pretty much you would have to say "Hey run for office, and also start hating money."

*shrug* I don't disagree with your basic premise that little people need some help.  At least you're not cheerleading the rich.  I disagree with your starting point though.
 
2013-06-25 11:26:33 AM  

majestic: The biggest issue a lot of people, like me, face is everything becoming more expensive without making any additional income. My house payment has gone about about $100/month over the last few years due to increases in property taxes and insurance. Grocery prices are at least 10% higher than a couple of years ago. There is absolutely nothing that costs less than it use to.  And here's the kicker,  my mortgage is the only debt I have.  Cars are paid for, no credit cards, etc. All of this "cut back on spending" talk is nice, but some of us don't have much more to cut.

/cutting cable this afternoon


You are saying exactly how it is for me too. Only I'm older and know what it's like to live on a "fixed income".
Used to laugh about people talking about fixed income, but now I know it's real.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:16 AM  
Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:52 AM  
I call bullshiat.

"Paycheck to paycheck" implies that they have jobs from which to receive paychecks.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:28 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?


well, just like it did in greece, spain, italy, and the UK, obviously!
 
2013-06-25 11:44:32 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.


If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:54 AM  

AcneVulgaris: God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.

If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.


If only everyone wore a rubber every time.  I bet that in about 40 years we wouldn't ever have to worry about tax policy again.
 
2013-06-25 11:56:32 AM  
Living paycheck to paycheck is better than not having enough to pay for everything. Employers should pay their employees by how much they will spend a month on necessities so that they won't gain or lose anything. Spending everything on your paycheck for necessities grows the economy. Saving is for morans and hurts the economy. You should save by spending it today.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:25 AM  

Elandriel: The government we have doesn't serve the "people", so no, they are ill-equipped to assist in this situation. But, the free market, unimpeded and left to its own devices, will continue to reward those at the helm with callous disregard for those who put them there. So, government is necessary to intervene and ensure the needs of the little people are met. Problem is, the people at the helm are the ones who decide the government, which then serves them, leaving the little people entirely out of the loop.


Can you name the government that has done this? What government in the history of man has served the people to the level you are thinking of? Rome worked out really well for it's people for a long time, however they ground up and used up whole continents to make that work. Unless you want to start a Pax America we are going to have problems.

Elandriel: The proper way to do this isn't via tax cuts, because then the spending the government would perform for lower income financial aid would be cut off (let's be honest, it's not like they are going to make cuts in other areas) and ultimately the only ones who would benefit are those who are already rich. It's nice to have another $200 in your pocket via tax cut, but now you have $200 less of aid in healthcare, subsides school lunches, SNAP, etc - things the rich don't qualify for because they are priced out of the income bracket necessary for these benefits. For those who are struggling, tax cuts make absolutely no headway apart from changing the source of the benefits or income.


They've proven that they won't spend the money wisely. I think we agree on that, and if not I apologies for making that assumption. So what do we do? Hope they figure it out? Like you said that is unlikely. So we have to take back the power by taking back our money. Demand a balance budget amendment and then start demanding tax cuts. You're not going to get ahead with a handout from the the government. The government can keep you alive but that's about it.

And you want to end "militaristic adventurism"? Give a congressman a choice between the bridge in your district or invade another country? Odds are they would rather have their name on that bridge.

Elandriel: So, I am not convinced that another round of tax cuts and stuff is going to work, unless they found a way to say "This only applies to the first ~$60,000 of income, and by the way if your salary is higher than X you don't benefit from it at all" which is just not going to happen.


Here you are trying to fund a government you say wont do the right thing! Everyone is focused on the taking and no one is thinking about how the must efficient way to get the money out. Taking is fun and is feel good. Now you have to have follow though. That's what I call class warfare, we hurt the other guys but we start fumbling when it comes to helping the reason we are taking. Taking just to take is stupid and give Washington too much power.

My plan is at least something new. Finding new and interesting way to the old isn't going to give us a different result.

Elandriel: Really what we should do is find a way to divest money from politics, because free of the influence of money (and in an idealized and admittedly non-existent world) politicians perhaps wouldn't be beholden solely to the interests of corporations and could serve the actual people that populate the country. But, I mean good luck with that. Pretty much you would have to say "Hey run for office, and also start hating money."


It's a political reality that you need funding to run for office. The current President is the first billion dollar President. The only way you could get money out of political is to find a way to run an election for free. I guess you could have a person self fund a run but he would be crucified for that rich and would be accused of trying to buy the White House.

Elandriel: *shrug* I don't disagree with your basic premise that little people need some help. At least you're not cheerleading the rich. I disagree with your starting point though.


I don't think anyone disagrees with helping people, the only real differences is how.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:26 AM  

Funk Brothers: Living paycheck to paycheck is better than not having enough to pay for everything. Employers should pay their employees by how much they will spend a month on necessities so that they won't gain or lose anything. Spending everything on your paycheck for necessities grows the economy. Saving is for morans and hurts the economy. You should save by spending it today.


Better yet, borrow and spend!  That way when you're finally sucked under, your creditors can sell your stuff to the next debt slave, and the banking system will be saved!
 
2013-06-25 11:58:50 AM  

Diogenes: Just yesterday I got a corporate email blast - "We beat expectations once again!  Earnings at all time high!"  Then went to a team meeting where we were told we can't buy new equipment, travel for classes, hire new staff (despite measurable increases in workload), or expect raises.  It's been like this since 2000 (we did an astounding job at weathering the recession - earnings never dipped).  And all along we're told, "Consider yourself lucky you have a job."


In the same boat. My team has a 30 to 40% workload increase and we've gone from 15 people to 12. One is quitting soon and another is retiring this fall: I'm being told I won't get replacements.

/No raise in 3 years
 
2013-06-25 12:02:47 PM  

AcneVulgaris: God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.

If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.


Does GIMC-P even have a cock?
 
2013-06-25 12:03:02 PM  
Ingorance is strength
 
2013-06-25 12:05:00 PM  

Elandriel: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You accuse me of making a circular argument? We need the government to spread the wealth around but we can't trust the government to spread to wealth around because it is made up of rich dudes. So do you agree with me that the only fair and equatable way of getting money into the people's pocket is tax cuts and tax breaks? Or do you see a third way?
 
The government we have doesn't serve the "people", so no, they are ill-equipped to assist in this situation.  But, the free market, unimpeded and left to its own devices, will continue to reward those at the helm with callous disregard for those who put them there.  So, government is necessary to intervene and ensure the needs of the little people are met.  Problem is, the people at the helm are the ones who decide the government, which then serves them, leaving the little people entirely out of the loop.

It's not really hard to follow, I don't think I am making a circular argument.  Collusion is once again breeding a culture of selfishness and aristocracy, and the stress fractures are steadily getting worse.

The proper way to do this isn't via tax cuts, because then the spending the government would perform for lower income financial aid would be cut off (let's be honest, it's not like they are going to make cuts in other areas) and ultimately the only ones who would benefit are those who are already rich.  It's nice to have another $200 in your pocket via tax cut, but now you have $200 less of aid in healthcare, subsides school lunches, SNAP, etc - things the rich don't qualify for because they are priced out of the income bracket necessary for these benefits.  For those who are struggling, tax cuts make absolutely no headway apart from changing the source of the benefits or income.  Hell I don't know what to do, but having seen 15 years of tax cuts as an economic strategy plus credit-card funded militaristic adventurism has us now sitting here waist-deep in debt and excrement with people ...


I completely agree with the collusion/consolidation of power being the main issue.  Problem is, before any real discussion of the future of politics can begin, everybody needs to recognize one inherent fact.  People prioritize their actions based on 1) Themselves, 2) their family 3) Priorities from their religion or moral beliefs, 4) their friends, and then it gets more and more attenuated until you get to 100) some guy on the other side of the world that he has never heard of.  So once somebody gains power, they will use it according to that priority list.  I don't care if they are a ceo, a congressman, or the manager of a burger king.

This premise is the same root cause of the downfall of capitalism and every form of government in history.  I am not sure where the conversation can go from there, but people need to stop wasting time proposing solutions where the easy first rebuttal is "What happens when power is consolidated and used against the people who gave it to them"

This isn't a new conversation, it's the exact same conversation the founders had.  That's why they drafted the constitution from the angle of "We the people have the power" towards "This is a document designed to limit the few powers that we give the government"

If I was to start over on my own island, I would start the same exact place.  A more concrete constitution limiting federal power, with an added article that limits the power of corporations (for example by limiting market cap or make it so only people can own corporations).  Then, a progressive tax system that never stops making increments (i.e. it exponentially approaches, say... 90%).  There wouldn't be any monopolies or anything.  Tort law, criminal law, etc, would be the same.  Keep in mind, this would come along with what many people would consider to be major downsides.  Infrastructure would be limited, life would be simple, no Walmart, not alot of complex goods.  You have the right to pursue happiness, if happiness is caused by enjoying time with friends and family, enjoying nature, handcrafting, sailing, whatever.  You do not get to enjoy happiness if happiness is brought by the constant pursual of power, because the government will be designed to keep you from getting it.  No new york city, everybody would have jobs if they want them, they just wouldn't be created by the government.  No welfare.  Leave the island if you don't like it.  The government would be small, and everybody could participate (as a true "public service" by joining committees) If they didn't then they would lose their voice.   Oh, and since this is Fark, I am the dictator. and I live in a palace with everybody's first daughter (if they are hot, and they will be, because my island rocks) until they are 25.
 
2013-06-25 12:14:25 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Diogenes: Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.

Nonsense. By cutting off the bottom rungs, you just create more incentives for people to stay higher up.


Of course a rising tide lifts all boats.

/poor people don't own boats of course, so they just drown
 
2013-06-25 12:20:01 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: My plan is at least something new. Finding new and interesting way to the old isn't going to give us a different result.


I'm not convinced that tax cuts and a BBA is a new plan.  =)

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's a political reality that you need funding to run for office. The current President is the first billion dollar President. The only way you could get money out of political is to find a way to run an election for free.


That's what I am driving at.  All your arguments about my thoughts toward the government run afoul on the simple fact that I believe the government we have now sucks.  I feel that government in and of itself should, in a perfect world, actually help the low man on the totem pole, but I feel that the people who currently comprise our government are not willing or able to do this.  Government can help, our current government can not.

I would prefer free, publicly-financed elections, with zero interference from outside groups.  No 501(c) groups.  No Citizens United.  No political interference from the private sector or the free market.  No 24-hour political news cycle endlessly inventing, abusing, rehashing, recycling and disposing of "scandals".  Just people who are interested in running a country the right way to benefit the people of that country.  Getting the money, its corrupting influence and its inherent bias toward more money, the fark out of the political process would do a lot toward balancing things for the long-term.

But!  I'm not naive enough to think that's going to happen!  So instead I will post screeds and argue with you on the internet, and vote third party.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:09 PM  
Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses

Having 5 months' expenses in a savings account is paycheck to paycheck now? Well, shiat.
 
2013-06-25 12:23:24 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Can you name the government that has done this? What government in the history of man has served the people to the level you are thinking of? Rome worked out really well for it's people for a long time, however they ground up and used up whole continents to make that work. Unless you want to start a Pax America we are going to have problems.


There are other nations than the USA, you know. Canada, Australia, the Scandinavian nations are all doing reasonably well at serving their people. I don't much like the current Conservative government here in Canada just now, but that's mainly because I perceive them as moving towards the American model!

It is possible to have a government not beholden to corporatism that functions reasonably well. Part of your problem is that you have been exposed to the idea that government is bad for so long you have stopped seeing that those who are telling you this are doing so for ulterior motives. If you don't trust government and are disenchanted with its inability to remedy problems, then you end up contributing to that inability.

What you need to remember is that government is not static. It changes with time. Currently the American system as it is now is the result of a decades long slow process of co-option by business interests. Note that I mean no conspiracy here. I simply mean that businesses have predictably used their money to leverage political power incrementally over the years through a variety of means, including the spreading of their ideology.

This is not irreversable. It can be remedied by a similar process that will be long and incremental. The problem is finding the political will to engage in that process. That means either money or sufficient social dysfunction to provoke public outcry and unified demands for change. Currrently the moneyed interests in the USA are doing their best to play the disaffected off against each other in order to maintain their pôwer and privilege. Again, this does not require conspiracy, simply people being people and seeking their own personal short term interests at the expense of the long term interests of their society.

It remains that government is the only estate of society that is intended to be responsive to the will and needs of the people. Business and industry manifestly is not; they are responsive to the need to make more profit for the owners and shareholders. The media can be, but there is no designed intent for such as their is with government, and they have also been deeply infiltrated by corporatism.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:42 PM  

plcow: I completely agree with the collusion/consolidation of power being the main issue. Problem is, before any real discussion of the future of politics can begin, everybody needs to recognize one inherent fact. People prioritize their actions based on 1) Themselves, 2) their family 3) Priorities from their religion or moral beliefs, 4) their friends, and then it gets more and more attenuated until you get to 100) some guy on the other side of the world that he has never heard of. So once somebody gains power, they will use it according to that priority list. I don't care if they are a ceo, a congressman, or the manager of a burger king.


So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.
 
2013-06-25 12:35:10 PM  
Impossible. 100% of the people on Fark have no mortgage or credit card debt and 2 years worth of living expenses in savings.

/they can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true
 
2013-06-25 12:36:57 PM  
Uncle Ben doesn't want you to have any money in a saving account.

In days past, getting a decent interest rate on your savings account was a key to working class stability. There is no incentive to save money now. The Banksters can't earn hundreds of millions in salaries unless all the nation's earnings are directed to the Wall St. casino.
 
2013-06-25 12:38:09 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: chimp_ninja: And right on time, you prove my point. Really, there's no political interest in oil? You can't think of anything? That must be why the oil industry spends zero dollars on lobbying and I never, ever read about oil in international news.

Wasting gasoline is the least patriotic thing Americans routinely do. It fouls our air, hastens climate change, stresses our crumbling infrastructure, and strengthens our geopolitical enemies.

No political interests on the pump side. That's just between the federal government and the end user. And you admitted it's the most regressive tax! That's what we are trying to do is get money into the hands of the lower incomes! Fuel is also a cost of goods sold of every single thing you buy! And that was just half of the ideas I listed. So did you like the other one?
Ok you don't like my idea, what's yours?


1) Every single decision involving gasoline is intensely political.  Full stop.  It impacts our foreign policy, air quality, water quality, climate, etc.  Ask the House what they think of cleaner air right now, and you'll hear nothing but frontier-grade gibberish.

2) Fuel is regressive.  I don't like that, but it's still the last thing I'd want cheap, because as I've stated above, burning gasoline is incredibly harmful to the nation.  I'd be in favor of higher fuel taxes (and/or eliminating subsidies to the industry) and increased, stimulative spending on infrastructure, including mass transit, universal availability of high-speed Internet, and a reform of the energy grid.  The energy grid should be prioritized as essential to national security, because it is.  An adversary could inflict far more damage to this country by surgically disrupting electricity, Internet, and water than they ever could with soldiers.  And our current grid doesn't have to be disrupted to be harmful-- the coal emissions and fracking it presently relies on do that.

This creates a lot of jobs that can't easily be outsourced, and it puts money back in the hands of consumers when they don't need a second (or first) car, their existing car breaks down less often, they waste less time commuting, etc.  It was good enough to build the interstate highway system back when the Republicans weren't insane.  It's good enough now.

Couple of easy other things to do:
1) Lift the income cap on payroll taxes, the way Medicare works.  It presently caps out at $113,700.  Terribly regressive for no reason.
2) Tax capital gains as income.  If you make $10,000 working or $10,000 from selling stock at a profit, it counts the same.  If anything, income earned by labor should be taxed at the lower rate of the two, because we want to encourage labor over speculation.
3) Change corporate taxes so this "I have a three-room HQ in Ireland, therefore I owe no taxes" nonsense stops immediately.  Companies want to close all their US offices and give up on this market?  I dare them.
4) Move the retirement age, with reviews every 5 years to reassess it based on lifespan data.  People receiving benefits at age 62 was sensible under FDR, because you probably didn't live to see 70.  With modern medicine, it's crazy talk.  These days, most people can work at 62, or 65, or 68.

Do all of this, and suddenly you're not doing idiotic things like defunding SNAP and elementary schooling.  Some of these could also be done revenue-neutral, if that's your thing-- FICA wouldn't need to be 6.2% if everyone was paying it on their full paycheck (just like poor and middle-class people do right now).
 
2013-06-25 12:41:04 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.


Yeah, that would be great in times of recession or war.  We need more bullets.  Better cut schools and medicine.

The Government being able to incur debt when it needs to is a feature, not a bug.  Our current Government abuses that, but it hasn't always.
 
2013-06-25 12:45:50 PM  

Vectron: InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.

There you go.

Don't economists believe spending everything you have makes everybody rich?


Well, not "everybody", but when government and financial sectors can only exist when they can needlessly insert their snout into every financial transaction for a taste of commission or tax, you can see why spending everything you have is strongly encouraged.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:59 PM  

Elandriel: I'm not convinced that tax cuts and a BBA is a new plan. =)


Well it's never been tried and it's still in the box. Can we go with "like" new?

Elandriel: I would prefer free, publicly-financed elections, with zero interference from outside groups. No 501(c) groups. No Citizens United. No political interference from the private sector or the free market. No 24-hour political news cycle endlessly inventing, abusing, rehashing, recycling and disposing of "scandals". Just people who are interested in running a country the right way to benefit the people of that country. Getting the money, its corrupting influence and its inherent bias toward more money, the fark out of the political process would do a lot toward balancing things for the long-term.


But how can we figure out who gets the government funding to run an election? I'd run every time for the funding, spend half of it on friends (correction) advisers and pocket the other half. If you need so many signatures to get funding, well you'll have people spending money on getting those.

Elandriel: But! I'm not naive enough to think that's going to happen! So instead I will post screeds and argue with you on the internet, and vote third party.


I don't think we are arguing, I don't think we are even debating. I'd go with hashing out ideas. I'm not delusional, at the end of the day this means nothing. But I enjoy the exchange of ideas.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:45 PM  

chimp_ninja: The Government being able to incur debt when it needs to is a feature, not a bug.


The problem with that is that it appears that the goverment 'needs it' about 95% of the time.  While I agree that limiting you ability to incur debt spending is not helpful, they are not good at controlling the urge even when they don't need it.  We need to change that.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:22 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?


In the long run, it should help to save on the interest payments to the national debt, which will help to reduce the taxpayer liability (and subsequently, taxes).  Typically, this is a good way to help spur economic growth.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: Couple of easy other things to do:
1) Lift the income cap on payroll taxes, the way Medicare works. It presently caps out at $113,700. Terribly regressive for no reason.
2) Tax capital gains as income. If you make $10,000 working or $10,000 from selling stock at a profit, it counts the same. If anything, income earned by labor should be taxed at the lower rate of the two, because we want to encourage labor over speculation.
3) Change corporate taxes so this "I have a three-room HQ in Ireland, therefore I owe no taxes" nonsense stops immediately. Companies want to close all their US offices and give up on this market? I dare them.
4) Move the retirement age, with reviews every 5 years to reassess it based on lifespan data. People receiving benefits at age 62 was sensible under FDR, because you probably didn't live to see 70. With modern medicine, it's crazy talk. These days, most people can work at 62, or 65, or 68.

Do all of this, and suddenly you're not doing idiotic things like defunding SNAP and elementary schooling. Some of these could also be done revenue-neutral, if that's your thing-- FICA wouldn't need to be 6.2% if everyone was paying it on their full paycheck (just like poor and middle-class people do right now).


So we would create thousands of pages of new IRS mambo jumbo? Why not just go to a sales tax that way there is no way to avoid it and you can't hide money in foreign countries? I know a sales tax is regressive, so we would have to wave it on fuel, rent, and food. Oops sorry, strike fuel. Lets just say we would limit it on the basics of life?

Still waiting for an example of my dishonesty and/or the use of "common sense". Or is it common sense that I am dishonest?

ok, that last line made me laugh and no you can't use that as an example of me using that term.
 
2013-06-25 01:06:19 PM  
This is going to sound way worse than it should, but I can't think of a nicer way to say it.

But if you're complaining about the cost of child care, why did you have kids? If you can't afford to take care of them, you might have been better off not popping them out.

If you cannot afford to have the wife take off work to care for them until they reach school age, perhaps you acted irresponsibly and did something really expensive and foolish with really long term financial repercussions, and you should take responsibility for your bad decision and suck it up, buttercup.

Some of us don't have young kids right now because we decided it was not a good idea to do so, given economic realities. We don't need to listen to you whine because you can't be bothered to think ahead.
 
2013-06-25 01:07:15 PM  
Thanks Obama

/geez, do I have to do everything around here.
 
2013-06-25 01:19:23 PM  

Via Infinito: AcneVulgaris: God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.

If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.

Does GIMC-P even have a cock?


Not lately. :(
 
2013-06-25 01:31:02 PM  

Eapoe6: Ingorance is strength


This is either the dumbest or most brilliant post ever, I can't decide.
 
2013-06-25 01:35:37 PM  

xria: Pocket Ninja: Diogenes: Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.

Nonsense. By cutting off the bottom rungs, you just create more incentives for people to stay higher up.

Of course a rising tide lifts all boats.

/poor people don't own boats of course, so they just drown


The way I see it, since poor people spend all the money they have, economic assistance to the poor is the most effective economic assistance, since that money is then spent on goods and services that businesses profit from; thus the best way to make the "tide" rise is to give poor people money, and then rich people will see their boats lifted.  But the rich don't seem to want their boats lifted -- they want them to fly over the other boats and this metaphor is getting way out of hand.
 
2013-06-25 01:55:05 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Via Infinito: AcneVulgaris: God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.

If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.

Does GIMC-P even have a cock?

Not lately. :(


I'm sorry about that. I've been missing the cock lately as well.
But what I meant was that you don't strike me as being a dude.
Your farky is "REVENGE OF THE LADY PARTS" after all. ;)
 
2013-06-25 02:08:06 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: chimp_ninja: Couple of easy other things to do:
1) Lift the income cap on payroll taxes, the way Medicare works. It presently caps out at $113,700. Terribly regressive for no reason.
2) Tax capital gains as income. If you make $10,000 working or $10,000 from selling stock at a profit, it counts the same. If anything, income earned by labor should be taxed at the lower rate of the two, because we want to encourage labor over speculation.
3) Change corporate taxes so this "I have a three-room HQ in Ireland, therefore I owe no taxes" nonsense stops immediately. Companies want to close all their US offices and give up on this market? I dare them.
4) Move the retirement age, with reviews every 5 years to reassess it based on lifespan data. People receiving benefits at age 62 was sensible under FDR, because you probably didn't live to see 70. With modern medicine, it's crazy talk. These days, most people can work at 62, or 65, or 68.

Do all of this, and suddenly you're not doing idiotic things like defunding SNAP and elementary schooling. Some of these could also be done revenue-neutral, if that's your thing-- FICA wouldn't need to be 6.2% if everyone was paying it on their full paycheck (just like poor and middle-class people do right now).

So we would create thousands of pages of new IRS mambo jumbo? Why not just go to a sales tax that way there is no way to avoid it and you can't hide money in foreign countries? I know a sales tax is regressive, so we would have to wave it on fuel, rent, and food. Oops sorry, strike fuel. Lets just say we would limit it on the basics of life?

Still waiting for an example of my dishonesty and/or the use of "common sense". Or is it common sense that I am dishonest?

ok, that last line made me laugh and no you can't use that as an example of me using that term.


I'm all for a VAT as well as a financial transactions tax, provided that you also expand the EITC to more tax payers.  The changes suggested above are relatively modest and would not result in "thousands of pages of IRS mumbo-jumbo."  I personally think that taxes should be much more redistributive at the fringes.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:20 PM  

xaks: This is going to sound way worse than it should, but I can't think of a nicer way to say it.

But if you're complaining about the cost of child care, why did you have kids? If you can't afford to take care of them, you might have been better off not popping them out.

If you cannot afford to have the wife take off work to care for them until they reach school age, perhaps you acted irresponsibly and did something really expensive and foolish with really long term financial repercussions, and you should take responsibility for your bad decision and suck it up, buttercup.

Some of us don't have young kids right now because we decided it was not a good idea to do so, given economic realities. We don't need to listen to you whine because you can't be bothered to think ahead.


I was in a different situation years ago when my son was born.  This weird thing happened in 2008, not sure if you were watching, it was called "the second worst recession in the history of the United States".  You're being a bit disingenuous here anyway; are you suggesting that I should have waited until I had enough savings to provide for my klids for 18 years regardless of my yearly income?  As far as I am aware, people can't actually see the future so they make the best decisions they can based on existing circumstances.  If I had known my comfortable job that provided enough for us was going to disappear then maybe I would have told my wife we should hold off, but then I wonder if I would now be coming on Fark to mock people because they made different life choices and have it harder than me.

I think I'd rather take financial hardship over being an insufferable prick.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:27 PM  

Via Infinito: God Is My Co-Pirate: Via Infinito: AcneVulgaris: God Is My Co-Pirate: Childcare is crippling us. The daycare in my office wants $2000 per month, per child.

If you'd just worn a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, you'd not be in the mess you're in.

Does GIMC-P even have a cock?

Not lately. :(

I'm sorry about that. I've been missing the cock lately as well.
But what I meant was that you don't strike me as being a dude.
Your farky is "REVENGE OF THE LADY PARTS" after all. ;)


Thanks. Happily married, but his job has him travelling for the next three months. :(
I did not know that was my fark but I feel honoured.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:04 PM  

Elandriel: xaks: This is going to sound way worse than it should, but I can't think of a nicer way to say it.

But if you're complaining about the cost of child care, why did you have kids? If you can't afford to take care of them, you might have been better off not popping them out.

If you cannot afford to have the wife take off work to care for them until they reach school age, perhaps you acted irresponsibly and did something really expensive and foolish with really long term financial repercussions, and you should take responsibility for your bad decision and suck it up, buttercup.

Some of us don't have young kids right now because we decided it was not a good idea to do so, given economic realities. We don't need to listen to you whine because you can't be bothered to think ahead.

I was in a different situation years ago when my son was born.  This weird thing happened in 2008, not sure if you were watching, it was called "the second worst recession in the history of the United States".  You're being a bit disingenuous here anyway; are you suggesting that I should have waited until I had enough savings to provide for my klids for 18 years regardless of my yearly income?  As far as I am aware, people can't actually see the future so they make the best decisions they can based on existing circumstances.  If I had known my comfortable job that provided enough for us was going to disappear then maybe I would have told my wife we should hold off, but then I wonder if I would now be coming on Fark to mock people because they made different life choices and have it harder than me.

I think I'd rather take financial hardship over being an insufferable prick.


You mean 'whining like a little biatch because I couldn't plan ahead'? Because I don't made poor financial decisions and complain about it to random strangers on a message board, I'm a prick.

OK. I guess I can live with that. Have fun being short-sighted and poor while my childless prick ass with spending money takes his wife out to dinner at a nice hibachi grill.

To celebrate.

See, we do plan ahead. My wife didn't quit working and go back to school until we had enough socked away to cover our collective asses in case something bad happened.

Like me losing my job. With zero warning. And zero severance. Like happened this spring (gotta love 'right-to-work' states).

Forget that our planning ahead allowed us to keep the lights on, keep food on the table, even though I didn't get unemployment for months and didn't get a new job until...last Friday.

But, yea, I'm a prick for making smart financial decisions with my life and my families' future. And you...well, have kinds you can't afford and whine about it.

GO YOU!
 
2013-06-25 02:43:49 PM  

xaks: You mean 'whining like a little biatch because I couldn't plan ahead'? Because I don't made poor financial decisions and complain about it to random strangers on a message board, I'm a prick.

OK. I guess I can live with that. Have fun being short-sighted and poor while my childless prick ass with spending money takes his wife out to dinner at a nice hibachi grill.

To celebrate.

See, we do plan ahead. My wife didn't quit working and go back to school until we had enough socked away to cover our collective asses in case something bad happened.

Like me losing my job. With zero warning. And zero severance. Like happened this spring (gotta love 'right-to-work' states).

Forget that our planning ahead allowed us to keep the lights on, keep food on the table, even though I didn't get unemployment for months and didn't get a new job until...last Friday.

But,
yea, I'm a prick for making smart financial decisions with my life and my families' future. And you...well, have kinds you can't afford and whine about it.

GO YOU!


TL;DR
 
2013-06-25 02:51:11 PM  

xaks: You mean 'whining like a little biatch because I couldn't plan ahead'? Because I don't made poor financial decisions and complain about it to random strangers on a message board, I'm a prick.

OK. I guess I can live with that. Have fun being short-sighted and poor while my childless prick ass with spending money takes his wife out to dinner at a nice hibachi grill.

To celebrate.

See, we do plan ahead. My wife didn't quit working and go back to school until we had enough socked away to cover our collective asses in case something bad happened.

Like me losing my job. With zero warning. And zero severance. Like happened this spring (gotta love 'right-to-work' states).

Forget that our planning ahead allowed us to keep the lights on, keep food on the table, even though I didn't get unemployment for months and didn't get a new job until...last Friday.

But, yea, I'm a prick for making smart financial decisions with my life and my families' future. And you...well, have kinds you can't afford and whine about it.

GO YOU!


It seems I was wrong about you, sorry for assuming you were anything but selfless.  Your humility and grace in the face of others' adversity is a shining example to everyone.

I'm not sure where you're coming from but I get the impression you assume I just said "fark everything!  let's form babby LOL" as if I was just going to wade ignorantly into the financial reality that is a child and then assume the kindness of the real world was going to catapult me into prosperity.  Enjoy your smug sense of superiority and your hibachi dinner because I am sure they isolate you from the reality of the world where real things happen to people even if they plan ahead.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But how can we figure out who gets the government funding to run an election? I'd run every time for the funding, spend half of it on friends (correction) advisers and pocket the other half. If you need so many signatures to get funding, well you'll have people spending money on getting those.


I didn't forget you!  Hi.  It's a system that would need to be fleshed out, but I would suggest perhaps that it begins with petitions to get on the primary ballot, with maybe the top 5 or 10 candidates being accepted into the primary, which then is used to select the top 3 which will run for election using equally distributed public funds.  It would be difficult to separate the petition process from corporate influence, but I'm not the kind of person who determines these sort of things.  I'm not a election process analyst or whatever you would call the sort of person who designs elections.  I don't know how to prevent against the corrupting influence of money in politics as much as someone who maybe has studied it for years.  Other countries seem to manage somehow though, maybe we as a country can get past "America is The Best and shouldn't take advice from anyone" and move toward a more fair and open electoral process?

I have enjoyed our conversation!
 
2013-06-25 03:01:27 PM  

Elandriel: Enjoy your smug sense of superiority and your hibachi dinner because I am sure they isolate you from the reality of the world where real things happen to people even if they plan ahead.


Like losing my job?

Like not getting unemployment comp for almost three months because my old employer flat-out lied, and the state eventually got to the truth and forced them to pay me what I had earned?

Like said unemployment not even covering the rent where we live, thanks to Republicans in Tallahassee a couple years back deciding that, regardless of what you pay in, you can't get more than $275 a week as 'an incentive to return to the workforce'.

Like my wife having to start over at a third her previous salary at a new profession fresh out of school because she was miserable at her old profession, even with the better money?

Yup. I'm TOTALLY insulated over here.

How about losing my LAST job because that company folded into bankruptcy without the owner even telling the employees, and us showing up to work LAST JULY and finding the doors chained shut? Had that happen too.

But, no, nothing bad ever happens to me either. Totally the world harshing your kid-vibe there, mate.
 
2013-06-25 03:08:31 PM  

Elandriel: I have enjoyed our conversation!


I too sir.
 
2013-06-25 03:08:37 PM  
xaks:  words

Now look at what you said, look at what I said, and realize the only difference between us is that I have kids and therefore a different kind of expense.  You're preaching to the choir here, but claiming some kind of superiority because you don't have children.  We both lost jobs, we both lost wages, we both got completely screwed because politics is about scoring one agianst the other guy instead of working to help everyone.

We are the goddamn same except for my kids!  And you're attacking me for saying I am whining about it.  No, I am 'whining' about the economy, the job force, the tax policy, the government's failure to protect consumers, the ever-increasing expense of everything without a correlating increase in compensation, with the kids as an additional expense of top of it which makes it difficult to add a second income into the equation.

You are a very confusing person who has for whatever reason decided to latch on my kids as the sole reason for my financial woes, glossing over just about everything else I've said.
 
2013-06-25 03:19:52 PM  

Elandriel: You are a very confusing person who has for whatever reason decided to latch on my kids as the sole reason for my financial woes, glossing over just about everything else I've said.


What's confusing about him? You must have encountered a dickhead at least once or twice in your life.
 
2013-06-25 03:23:33 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And please provide me an example where I used the term "common sense". It's really strange you picked that term. I really find it annoying and grating when people use that term and I try not to use it myself. I file it under the same heading as using "everyone knows".


For me, it's the phrase "so what you're saying."  The Internet has taught me that any post beginning with "so what you're saying" can be skipped, and nothing of value is lost.

/back to lurking
 
kab
2013-06-25 03:36:38 PM  

xaks: Like losing my job?


Yes, we get it.  You run the bootstrap factory.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:00 PM  

xaks: Have fun being short-sighted and poor while my childless prick ass with spending money takes his wife out to dinner at a nice hibachi grill.


Oooh.  A hibachi dinner.  You must have tens of dollars.
 
2013-06-25 03:48:03 PM  

xaks: But, yea, I'm a prick for making smart financial decisions with my life and my families' future.


You live in Florida.  How smart can your decisions be?
 
2013-06-25 03:49:42 PM  

Elandriel: xaks:  words

Now look at what you said, look at what I said, and realize the only difference between us is that I have kids and therefore a different kind of expense.  You're preaching to the choir here, but claiming some kind of superiority because you don't have children.  We both lost jobs, we both lost wages, we both got completely screwed because politics is about scoring one agianst the other guy instead of working to help everyone.

We are the goddamn same except for my kids!  And you're attacking me for saying I am whining about it.  No, I am 'whining' about the economy, the job force, the tax policy, the government's failure to protect consumers, the ever-increasing expense of everything without a correlating increase in compensation, with the kids as an additional expense of top of it which makes it difficult to add a second income into the equation.

You are a very confusing person who has for whatever reason decided to latch on my kids as the sole reason for my financial woes, glossing over just about everything else I've said.


Actually, sparky, I made a generic post about not having kids if you can't afford them.

Your name is nowhere in my post. Nor are you referenced directly.

YOU are apparently the fragile, beautiful snowflake what latched on to me. Cause apparently people that choose to spend their money on things like food, socializing, celebrating, instead of having kids we can't afford to take care of makes us pricks.

You're actually the one that decided that I was talking to you, specifically, directly. So, apparently, I'm the bad guy when you can't afford your crotchfruit but attack me?

imokwiththis.jpg

As you said, we're the same except for the decision to have expensive kiddies that are a long, long, LONG term attachment of time and money. We talked about this and chose not to. You apparently did not, and now can't afford kid care.

But I'm the prick.

*shrug
 
2013-06-25 04:04:24 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus complains about thread-shiaters and then proceeds to shiat all over the thread himself with argumentative posts defending his derp.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:47 PM  

xaks: Actually, sparky, I made a generic post about not having kids if you can't afford them.

Your name is nowhere in my post. Nor are you referenced directly.


Excellent point!  I was one of two posters who mentioned childcare in the entire thread, so you could have very well been responding to GIMC-P, whose post about childcare was two sentences long and was otherwise vague in regards to her existing circumstances.  Your logic, sound as Gibraltar, has swayed me.  I relent!  I concede.  I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.

Well played sir.  +1 internets.  Tip o' the hat.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:54 PM  
Well this thread went down the biatchfest shiatter in a hurry.
 
2013-06-25 04:30:41 PM  

Elandriel: I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.


You're in a thread talking about how you are having trouble affording child care.

That tells me you can't afford them.

But hey, enjoy your fart machines.
 
2013-06-25 04:41:56 PM  

nmemkha: The Stealth Hippopotamus complains about thread-shiaters and then proceeds to shiat all over the thread himself with argumentative posts defending his derp.


Don't worry, his solution to that problem is also tax cuts to help the oil industry, because there's no politics there.
 
2013-06-25 04:45:03 PM  

Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.


Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.
 
2013-06-25 04:47:03 PM  

xaks: Elandriel: I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.

You're in a thread talking about how you are having trouble affording child care.

That tells me you can't afford them.

But hey, enjoy your fart machines.


The entire premise of your post was laying out groundwork to state the reason I "can't afford them" is because I didn't plan for them.  That's what I take issue with.

And no, I can't afford child care.  That is different from I can't afford children.  I am struggling because my wife can't get a job because any wages she would make would be eclipsed by the cost of child care.  I am struggling because my high paying job doesn't exist anymore and my low paying job isn't increasing the pay at a rate keeping up with inflation and the expanding COL in this area.  But not because of kids...they are just preventing my wife from having a job of her own.  Here, a refresher:

Elandriel: I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country. My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years. So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.


But, by all means -- continue to make it up as you go along.
 
2013-06-25 04:50:40 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.


What I got from that guy's post was that she would watch the kids during the day while I worked, and I would watch them in the evening while she worked.  It makes a certain kind of sense, but comes at the cost of spending time together as a family.  It's something we have been discussing for a while now though, we figure even if it's just a part timer for 4 hours a night twice a week, it's better than nothing.
 
2013-06-25 05:33:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Oh I understand the correlation between the two subjects. However most (not all) Business Tab threads don't go full derp. Its been a place where we could have a somewhat reasonable debate without having to hear from the hacks about how one party wants to starve people and bomb brown people for oil. This thread took a bee line to the sub basement.


Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.
 
2013-06-25 05:50:31 PM  

KFBR392: sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?

The point is more that, if you're really living paycheck to paycheck...maybe you shouldn't be purchasing a HDTV, which is a luxury item (not a necessity). Yes, a decent 40"+ HDTV can be had for around $500 (or less if pick a house brand).

But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Most people have no idea how to live within their means they're so busy trying to keep up with the Joneses. If that's the case, please shoot yourself now because you will only become a drag on society later.
 
2013-06-25 05:51:02 PM  

Elandriel: To take care of the people.


Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'

jst3p: Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.


I hate to break it to you but knocking down the 1% isn't going to make you or anyone else richer.
 
2013-06-25 05:59:24 PM  

o5iiawah: jst3p: Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.

I hate to break it to you but knocking down the 1% isn't going to make you or anyone else richer.


I am willing to bet you vote GoP. I say this because you appear to be ignorant of history and lack fundimental math skills.

dont-tread-on.me
 
2013-06-25 06:01:42 PM  

o5iiawah: Elandriel: To take care of the people.

Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'


The preamble to the constitution would like to have a word.

We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.  Maybe we should rewrite it to state something like "promote the corporate welfare and screw the lil' man".
 
2013-06-25 06:28:53 PM  
the only thing that is trickling down is poo.
 
2013-06-25 06:33:06 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.


He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.
 
2013-06-25 06:48:58 PM  

Ethertap: Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.

He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.


That's assuming the wife could get a Wal-Mart or fast food job that had a regular schedule. They don't do that anymore, now they'll work you 8pm-2am one day, Noon-4pm the next, 6pm-8pm that same day, then maybe another 4 hours the next night, then an afternoon...you get the point.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:47 PM  

InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.


This.  Most folks who live paycheck to paycheck are not good with saving money, and feel they "need" a cel phone, or a TV, or whatever else with a recurring monthly subscription because our culture demands it.  Many people that make more money (middle class) still live paycheck to paycheck, they just buy a newer phone, a better TV, subscribe to more premium channels, go out to dinner, all instead of reducing costs  and saving.

/frequently guilty myself, but trying to break the bad habits
 
2013-06-25 07:56:43 PM  
Is it too late for me to blame those with better foresight and/or intelligence for my own situation in life yet?
 
2013-06-25 08:20:41 PM  
Weird. I'm actually saving money for the first time since 2001.


Got a new job a year ago, now I have savings, two used cars, a new computer and tablet and I'm going on vacation in a month. So...*shrugs*
 
2013-06-25 10:12:19 PM  
Well, I think I have the answer. Instead of "big screen TV" as a barometer for poor people not being poor, let's use "custom tires and wheels on their SUV".
 
2013-06-25 10:29:24 PM  

buzzcut73: Ethertap: Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.

He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.

That's assuming the wife could get a Wal-Mart or fast food job that had a regular schedule. They don't do that anymore, now they'll work you 8pm-2am one day, Noon-4pm the next, 6pm-8pm that same day, then maybe another 4 hours the next night, then an afternoon...you get the point.


As I've found out twice in the last year, farking THIS.

Once you've gotten to a certain level of either professionalism, or experience, or income, or *insert thing here*, 'lower than that' jobs won't even look at you, regardless. You're "overqualified". You'll leave as soon as a 'real' job opens up.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the 'OQ' tag while looking for work, and it pisses me off like little other can. I mean, really? You'll leave the position unfilled because you're afraid I'll leave too fast? It doesn't matter that I could easily have truthfully told them, "Look, I understand. I'm not planning on leaving for at least a year. I know you're looking for a young kid that won't biatch about the hours and workload but still has some experience. I'll take it, and give you ample time at the back end to find a replacement AND I'll stick around and get him up to speed for at least a month!"

Don't matter. They see a 50k+ salary for the last decade and 15+ years experience, you can not even waste time applying for a 'sub-40K with matching 401' job.
 
2013-06-25 11:33:41 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.

This.  Most folks who live paycheck to paycheck are not good with saving money, and feel they "need" a cel phone, or a TV, or whatever else with a recurring monthly subscription because our culture demands it.  Many people that make more money (middle class) still live paycheck to paycheck, they just buy a newer phone, a better TV, subscribe to more premium channels, go out to dinner, all instead of reducing costs  and saving.

/frequently guilty myself, but trying to break the bad habits


Well I could just accept my lot in life and ditch the phone and internet ($70/mo) and never look for a better job because nobody would be able to contact me.

I mean, look, there's some lovely filth over here!
 
2013-06-25 11:55:13 PM  
i have always lived paycheck to paycheck

guess i'm ahead of my time
 
2013-06-26 02:26:43 AM  

cman: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history


The Merchants:

The bottom rung of feudal Japanese society was occupied by merchants, both traveling traders and shop-keepers.

Merchants were ostracized as "parasites" who profited from the labor of the more productive peasant and artisan classes. Not only did merchants live in a separate section of each city, but the higher classes were forbidden to mix with them except on business.

Nonetheless, many merchant families were able to amass large fortunes. As their economic power grew, the restrictions against them weakened.


We need to bring back this kind of thinking (before the system was bought).

Capitalists are parasites, not providers.
 
2013-06-26 02:53:13 AM  

chimp_ninja: Also, is this a sign of the economy, or a sign that Americans are particularly stupid about saving money? The Census tracks household saving rates, and America's has been low (2.7% in 2008, not much different from 2000-2007), while several countries in Europe with crappier economies were much higher (Italy 8.6%, Spain 6.1%).


That metric is also skewed by the rich.  They are the ones that save anything (because they have more to spend, and because saving doesn't make them more money.

Christ, didn't anyone read the citigroup memos?

The rich are being perfectly rational. As their wealth/income ratios have been rising, and as
we highlighted earlier, the latest SCF data suggests wealth/income has grown even larger,
why should they not consume from their wealth rather than just their income? The more rich
people there are in an economy, and the more affluent they feel (as they do right now), the
more likely we believe an economy will be to experience falling savings rates. When your
wealth has soared, the need to save diminishes. Rational, but apparently a conundrum and an
accident waiting to happen, according to the perma-bears. Not to us.


But go ahead, blame the poors for the actions of the rich.  Again.  And again and again.
 
2013-06-26 03:09:34 AM  

Macular Degenerate: Meanwhile, consumer spending is surging. I guess that all comes from 1%-ers spending $70,000 each on dog massages and ruby-encrusted dildos.


A good chunk of it is, yes.

Plu-ton-o-my.


It's never been so expensive to be rich...

Another new data point we have is the CLEW (Cost of Living Extremely Well) Index from
Forbes Magazine for 2005 (in our original Plutonomy note back in October, we didn't have
the latest data point for the year 2005).

CLEWI is an inflation index of the cost of luxury goods. It measures such things as the cost
of suite at the Four Seasons in New York (up 15% year on year) and a kilo of Imperial
Beluga caviar (at US$6840, up 40% year on year). In 2005, the CLEW Index rose 4%, while
US CPI rose at 3.6%. Luxury goods still have relative pricing power. The 0.4% gap might
not sound all that impressive, but bear in mind that a stronger US dollar, probably helped
check this inflation rate (many luxury goods come from Europe, but the CLEWI is a
measure in dollars). At any rate, the year to year fortunes of the CLEWI versus the CPI are
less relevant. The long-term chart says it all (Figure 4). The most recent data point just
confirms that in the search for pricing power, we'd rather be in luxury goods, than low end
consumer businesses
 
2013-06-26 06:07:16 AM  

chimp_ninja: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.

Yeah, that would be great in times of recession or war.  We need more bullets.  Better cut schools and medicine.

The Government being able to incur debt when it needs to is a feature, not a bug.  Our current Government abuses that, but it hasn't always.


A balanced budget system is a terrible idea - it basically tells the government that they have to exacerbate the highs and lows of the private markets - every boom they have to spend more money or cut tax, causing the boom to get bigger, and every bust they have to cut back spending or raise taxes, making the bust worse.

The thing that needs to happen is for people to be just as hard (or even harder) on government spending and pushing for improved tax efficiency when the economy is going well, rather than just letting politicians freely indulge in all their expensive pet projects when things are good, and for most people to only pay attention when the economy is bad.
 
2013-06-26 06:35:51 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-26 07:29:05 AM  

HeadLever: Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?

In the long run, it should help to save on the interest payments to the national debt, which will help to reduce the taxpayer liability (and subsequently, taxes).  Typically, this is a good way to help spur economic growth.


You're referring to how to pay for the spending.  That has nothing to do with the question.

You do realize the government can spend money without going into debt, right. 

But under your logic, if we then decrease government spending to zero, the economy will go to infinity, right?
 
2013-06-26 08:10:56 AM  

jst3p: I am willing to bet you vote GoP. I say this because you appear to be ignorant of history and lack fundimental math skills.


I vote for people who uphold free and fair markets and generally leave the people alone unless one of them breaks the laws.  Your cute picture illustrates the public revolting over the government aristocracy and complicit bankers/landholders who partnered with them.  Why do you have a problem with someone who earns a good living based on having skills or creating an idea that people want?

Oh, and "Basic math" is a cute way of telling me you have no idea how taxation works and that when you just decide to soak someone for what they've earned, they'll leave and go somewhere else that would welcome them with open arms.

Elandriel: Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.


Actually you are misreading things.  I'm going to take a wild guess that you havent read the Federalist papers or any of Madison's letters on the language of the Constitution

The "General welfare" is something  which is supposed to benefit all and be paid for by all and in the course of providing general welfare, Congress is authorized to carry out the 18 enumerated powers in article 1, section 8.  A uniform system of laws where all can compete fairly in the marketplace is general welfare. A military which protects all shores and all states is general welfare. A patent system which protects even the smallest inventor from the largest corporation is general welfare.

Taking something away from someone who lawfully earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is not general welfare.
 
2013-06-26 08:17:35 AM  

morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.


but but..I thought unions protected people...a historically union city like Detroit must really be thriving
 
2013-06-26 08:39:48 AM  

Tommy Moo: This is misleading. Not having half a freaking year's salary in your savings/checking account isn't "living paycheck to paycheck." For those of us with reasonably good job security, we often judge that it is worth taking our savings and using it to pay down debt early. Any time my checking account gets over $5k, I make a double payment on my mortgage.


Exactly.  I feel like my wife and I are quite financially secure, with a good bit of money in our retirement accounts and no debt other than what's left on our ~15 year mortgage and a few very low interest student loans.  But we'd be paycheck to paycheck by their definition because we don't have six month's salary socked away at 0.75% interest.

I'm not saying we don't save anything.  We have a about a month's (take home) pay in a savings account linked to our checking so that we can have instant access, and a few month's take-home in an online savings account that pays that 0.75% interest but takes a week or so to get at.

However, if we got to the point where we had over six month's pay sitting in a savings account I'd be thinking really hard about whether there was a smarter place to park that cash.
 
2013-06-26 08:41:58 AM  

morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.


Cars are still being manufactured in the world. More now than ever before. So why did Detroit lose some of this base?  Could it be that unions stunted quality and wages and benefits have become ridiculously high?
 
2013-06-26 08:42:27 AM  

Parkanzky: However, if we got to the point where we had over six month's pay sitting in a savings account I'd be thinking really hard about whether there was a smarter place to park that cash.


And "park that cash" is a bit punny here, since I seem to blow our cash on a new car every time I scrape some money into a bit of a heap.

/Loves cars.
//Needs help.
 
2013-06-26 08:51:40 AM  

Nemo's Brother: morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.

Cars are still being manufactured in the world. More now than ever before. So why did Detroit lose some of this base?  Could it be that unions stunted quality and wages and benefits have become ridiculously high?


I live in Michigan and the blight here is not a decline in Michigan dragging on Detroit.  The pain here revolved around the automotive and the pharmaceutical industries.  So it was more Detroit dragging the state down.

Big pharma cut a ton of professional jobs in Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo and Holland.  That would have probably only significantly impacted the immediate areas of the closings without too much ripple, but the auto industry was also imploding at the same time.  The big three closed plants all over the place (I lived in Lansing when GM closed the assembly plant there).  That was crushing to Michigan.

However, Detroit has been an armpit for years.  My family lived there 45 years ago and always talked really fondly of the place, but it's been in serious decline since the 70's.
 
2013-06-26 08:53:05 AM  
Anybody who thinks that the economy has been recovering is an idiot.
 
2013-06-26 08:55:24 AM  

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


And when the poor people are all eating caviar and foie gras while flying around in their Lear Jets, we'll stop using that as a barometer, too, and continue to whine about how bad they have it.
 
2013-06-26 09:00:28 AM  

chimp_ninja: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.

Yeah, that would be great in times of recession or war.


Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. Wars of aggression, to build and maintain the empire, are a big part of why our economy is in the mess it's in. Cutting military spending, and the taxes needed to pay for it, by 90% would be the best thing we could do for the economy.
 
2013-06-26 09:04:34 AM  

Elandriel: o5iiawah: Elandriel: To take care of the people.

Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'

The preamble to the constitution would like to have a word.

We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.  Maybe we should rewrite it to state something like "promote the corporate welfare and screw the lil' man".


Actually, you are misreading "promote the general welfare." It's understandable, tho; you probably went to public school. You probably think that "the press" refers to newspapers, too.
 
2013-06-26 09:05:02 AM  

DrPainMD: Anybody who thinks that the economy has been recovering is an idiot.


I don't think it's as simple as grunting "Economy good!" or "Economy bad!"  There are definitely some aspects of the economy that have improved recently.  I work for a global consumer products company and I have been keeping an eye on the revenues and I think it provides an interesting perspective on the relative condition of various world economies.  Seeing the rate of revenue growth for various product categories in places like Russia, India, China, Korea, Japan, the EU and North America may not tell the whole story but it does provide some insight into how consumers are feeling in those locales.
 
2013-06-26 09:06:51 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?


At this point, all it can do is make the inevitable crash and Great Depression II a little less severe.
 
2013-06-26 10:04:34 AM  

InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.


Yes.  My friend called me from Floria.  He's a pediatric surgeon.
... asking me for financial advice on how to keep his 3 cars and boat...
never mind all the rest of the waste
 
2013-06-26 10:23:05 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: You do realize the government can spend money without going into debt, right.


Correct, but cutting spending with keeping everything else constant will decrease the deficit/debt over what it would have been, thereby decreasing the interest cost and taxpayer liability.  That was my point.
 
2013-06-26 02:37:15 PM  

Diogenes: Just yesterday I got a corporate email blast - "We beat expectations once again!  Earnings at all time high!"  Then went to a team meeting where we were told we can't buy new equipment, travel for classes, hire new staff (despite measurable increases in workload), or expect raises.  It's been like this since 2000 (we did an astounding job at weathering the recession - earnings never dipped).  And all along we're told, "Consider yourself lucky you have a job."

This is not a whine, it's a fact.  And I am certainly not alone in this experience.

While I like the idea of a tax holiday for consumers or a decrease on federal taxes for fuel, I seriously doubt Townhall would suggest such specific and direct reliefs.  Look at their 'concluding' paragraph.  Cut government spending = reduce corporate and business taxes, to free them to generate wealth.  Except they're not.  How much longer are we expected to buy this lie?  How much more wealth must be concentrated at the top before it trickles down?  Is there some threshold?  Is it like bursting a dam?

I'm not taking issue you with you, Stealth Hippopotamus.  It's Townhall and the same tired subtext (which is admittedly less obvious this time).  Blame government, and blame the middle class for not being able to consistently do more with less while being denied the means to advance up the ladder of opportunity.


Could be worse, as you could be in science research and have your funding cut continually for the past 8 years.
 
Displayed 149 of 149 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report