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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


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