Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,284
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on May 11, 2019 13:05:01 GMT -5
Heaven help us. This did not work for the native american tribes, it will not work in this case either. Beyond the social services system? The free money is creating a major problem in the future.
On the news, I also heard of another option being put forth to any financially insecure. Only the wealthy putting this forward will have money and live the high life.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on May 11, 2019 13:26:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, $4,000 A YEAR? What problems, exactly, do you think this is going to create?
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 11, 2019 13:42:55 GMT -5
If automation continues and job loss continues in the future something is going to have to happen. What happens to all the surplus workers?? Tax the robots to pay people. But not good having people not working and just getting money.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,284
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on May 11, 2019 13:44:16 GMT -5
Free money and support didn't work for the native american tribes. I don't know what the annual level of support is but I know the after math of alcoholism and drugs. There is no guarantee the money will be used for the family. It is a step in the direction of a problem.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 11, 2019 13:48:39 GMT -5
Yeah and now with no abortion and some not wanting birth control either we are going to pump out future unneeded workers. That makes sense.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,284
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on May 11, 2019 13:52:40 GMT -5
On FB I got a notice of grant money from the government to update your home. One comment said the grant amount is added on to your mortgage. Not free money with that said.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 11, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5
I guess you’ll get to see how it works, since it’s a study... to you know, see how well it works...
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 11, 2019 15:00:04 GMT -5
Yeah and now with no abortion and some not wanting birth control either we are going to pump out future unneeded workers. That makes sense. Actually in countries where 3 years of graduated paid paternal leave is guaranteed they have fewer babies...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 12:00:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 15:20:25 GMT -5
I don't think it is enough money to demonstrate anything. These people live on the edge. 4k a year isn't enough to get them off the edge. If the assumption is that the parents will be able to quit a third job (more time with the kids), buy better quality food (stop eating fast food or processed food or carbs), and buy a membership to the children's museum, I think they are wrong. It won't even pay for childcare so the mom can go to school.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 11, 2019 16:02:56 GMT -5
I agree, they are so far down, it will just feed them extra so they can live in abject poverty longer.
I want to see the big corporations be required to pay a living wage, then they have the pride of earning a living. the corps don't have to worry about giving money to charity and quit paying CEO's hundreds of times more then the workers. They talk about charity, people need to know their work has value, not be standing there waiting for handouts.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 11, 2019 16:15:28 GMT -5
I don't think it is enough money to demonstrate anything. These people live on the edge. 4k a year isn't enough to get them off the edge. If the assumption is that the parents will be able to quit a third job (more time with the kids), buy better quality food (stop eating fast food or processed food or carbs), and buy a membership to the children's museum, I think they are wrong. It won't even pay for childcare so the mom can go to school. Depends. On the 333 a month end, maybe? One would assume this is in addition to other programming? Regardless hopefully that is something they assess.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 12:00:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 18:05:23 GMT -5
I don't think it is enough money to demonstrate anything. These people live on the edge. 4k a year isn't enough to get them off the edge. If the assumption is that the parents will be able to quit a third job (more time with the kids), buy better quality food (stop eating fast food or processed food or carbs), and buy a membership to the children's museum, I think they are wrong. It won't even pay for childcare so the mom can go to school. Depends. On the 333 a month end, maybe? One would assume this is in addition to other programming? Regardless hopefully that is something they assess. I am hoping that they aren't messing with other social safety nets. That is what often happens. The mom goes to work and earns just a few $$$ too much for subsidized housing, Medicaid, or food stamps.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 11, 2019 19:45:54 GMT -5
I agree, they are so far down, it will just feed them extra so they can live in abject poverty longer. I want to see the big corporations be required to pay a living wage, then they have the pride of earning a living. the corps don't have to worry about giving money to charity and quit paying CEO's hundreds of times more then the workers. They talk about charity, people need to know their work has value, not be standing there waiting for handouts. Agree with your thoughts about not paying people to wait for handouts. The WPA and CCC projects of the 1930’s have provided benefits for nearly a century. Not so sure about your idea that big corporations should pay people a living wage. Are you suggesting that MacDonalds should pay a 16 year old in their first job a wage that will support a family of four? It seems that some of the folks supporting minimum wage increases want to force their employer to turn entry level, first job type employment into a career. That would suggest that if I start mowing your lawn at 16, at 35 I should be able to demand that you pay me $60K a year to mow your lawn, if $60K were considered a living wage. Why do you limit your living wage idea to big corporations? If people must have a “living wage”, they need those wages regardless of whether they work for a big business or a small one. Are you suggesting that it is OK for small businesses to underpay their employees? According to a report from the Huffington Post, 62% of the private sector workforce are employed by small and medium sized businesses. If you want to improve the lives of the most people, rather than requiring a living wage for just over a third of the private sector workforce (only a small portion of which are now paid less than a “living wage”), wouldn’t it make more sense to require that all employers pay a “living wage”? Including the businesses most likely to pay their employees less than a “living wage”, small businesses.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 11, 2019 21:36:59 GMT -5
It does make sense but could a small business do it? If we hired people we would have to rent our houses for a ton more money and since people here don't make that much it would be difficult. Well unless they were paid more, a vicious circle I guess.
I say that because most big businesses are really gigging people, if they were not they would not be making the outrageous profits and paying no taxes. But then tax laws are written by and for the rich.
I remember back when people made union wages, corporations were taxed at 90% as were others, the wealth was spread, we had health care and pensions, more income equality. The CEO's made good money but not like they are now. Income inequality is what is splitting this country now and someone like trump is using it to push his agenda.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 12, 2019 19:53:40 GMT -5
Yeah and now with no abortion and some not wanting birth control either we are going to pump out future unneeded workers. That makes sense. And yet the democrats are welling to being in a million illegal immigrants this year seeking these jobs that are going away.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 12, 2019 20:15:04 GMT -5
I think you misunderstand, they just want immigration handled legally. I don't hear of any democrats saying bring it on.
This is another trump created emergency. When he started all this close the border BS the ones south of us got scared and figured this was their last chance. He created a mass exodus that he cannot handle. I don't know how he is going to fix the mess he created. Like he said its all on him, and he is correct.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2019 21:06:44 GMT -5
Free money and support didn't work for the native american tribes. I don't know what the annual level of support is but I know the after math of alcoholism and drugs. There is no guarantee the money will be used for the family. It is a step in the direction of a problem.
This may be a false correlation. The problems between the USA and native American culture are complicated. Throwing a few bucks at them didn't solve anything, but I am not sure it caused the addiction problems.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 13, 2019 8:32:45 GMT -5
It does make sense but could a small business do it? If we hired people we would have to rent our houses for a ton more money and since people here don't make that much it would be difficult. Well unless they were paid more, a vicious circle I guess. I say that because most big businesses are really gigging people, if they were not they would not be making the outrageous profits and paying no taxes. But then tax laws are written by and for the rich. I remember back when people made union wages, corporations were taxed at 90% as were others, the wealth was spread, we had health care and pensions, more income equality. The CEO's made good money but not like they are now. Income inequality is what is splitting this country now and someone like trump is using it to push his agenda. Pensions and healthcare for lifetime after retirement is what was kiling big business. The former employees do not ant value to any production in current years but drain the parent company of funds. Years ago pensioners did not live to the mid 80's and died off by 75 or younger, keeping costs in check. GE and other corporations have made many terrible mistakes, but the pension liabilities eventually do so many corporations in. A corporation is not the government. Eventually they cannot borrow enough money to cover the benefits. You are basically suggesting socialism of corporations enforced by the Federal government. That might work for a generation before it implodes.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,709
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 13, 2019 8:57:00 GMT -5
The reason that is so they were unfunded liabilities. I remember when they made them recognize the liabilities on the balance sheet up till then they did not, they were screaming mad. They never did plan on paying them, takes awhile to see those things.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 13, 2019 9:42:05 GMT -5
How can I volunteer to to receive $4000 a year,, I promise not to waste it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 12:00:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 9:58:21 GMT -5
How can I volunteer to to receive $4000 a year,, I promise not to waste it Well, for starters you have to be a mom of an infant making less than $25,700/year. If you want to volunteer to be in that situation like that, you're a little crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 12:00:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 10:14:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry, $4,000 A YEAR? What problems, exactly, do you think this is going to create? Exactly, and it's only to 400 people for a study.
If people receiving unearned income is going to cause problems they'd better get rid of the lottery, because a lot more than 400 people a year win over 4K/year. In my state alone about 25 people a week win between 2K-500K.
|
|
jd2005
Established Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2011 14:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 411
|
Post by jd2005 on May 13, 2019 10:30:55 GMT -5
$4K a year...I won't turn that down. Don't think it solves any problems, but I'll line up if you are giving it away.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on May 14, 2019 8:36:41 GMT -5
How can I volunteer to to receive $4000 a year,, I promise not to waste it Well, for starters you have to be a mom of an infant making less than $25,700/year. If you want to volunteer to be in that situation like that, you're a little crazy. I know this is grammar nazi shit, but I laughed so hard because most babies earn less than $25,700/year. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 14, 2019 11:06:58 GMT -5
Depends. On the 333 a month end, maybe? One would assume this is in addition to other programming? Regardless hopefully that is something they assess. I am hoping that they aren't messing with other social safety nets. That is what often happens. The mom goes to work and earns just a few $$$ too much for subsidized housing, Medicaid, or food stamps. and it puts the finger on what is, IMO, one of the biggest problems with our safety net: it is a "go off the cliff" system. Earn just a little more than the limit and all your benefits (worth much more than that little overage) will disappear. The system, as is, actually works against people trying to get off welfare. A more graduated approach would be much more effective. We could introduce something like we already have in place for those who take SS early and continue to work. But that seems not to be an option worth considering by certain people in power.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,870
Member is Online
|
Post by haapai on May 14, 2019 12:49:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure if it is factually correct to speak of cliffs when speaking of our social safety net. We still have a few cliffs but we also have a lot of phase-outs, which are often stacked on top of each other, and a confusing mess of different income bases, base periods, and annually adjusted base numbers. It takes a hell of a lot of math-fu and tell-me-fu to figure out how any of our social safety net programs are supposed to work even when the working of the program is amply disclosed and there are almost no administrative delays or snafus to navigate.
My father is an accountant. My mom majored in math and computer programming when women were not supposed to take such classes. In my elementary years, I won math and maths prizes. My 750 math SAT score was recentered to an 800 score two decades ago. I have a B.A. in accounting. And despite all that background in math and detail, I sweated bullets trying to figure out how the earned income credit for adults without dependent children actually applied to me, and how the phase-out would effect me.
FWIW, the phase-out period of the earned income credit for persons without a dependent child involves some crazy jumps in marginal tax rates that can really bite you in the ass if you are not careful. It's also one of the most clear-cut safety net programs out there. I often weep for folks who have to navigate parts of our safety net that are less clearly defined or require more sign-offs and verification.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2019 15:18:24 GMT -5
It does make sense but could a small business do it? If we hired people we would have to rent our houses for a ton more money and since people here don't make that much it would be difficult. Well unless they were paid more, a vicious circle I guess. I say that because most big businesses are really gigging people, if they were not they would not be making the outrageous profits and paying no taxes. But then tax laws are written by and for the rich. I remember back when people made union wages, corporations were taxed at 90% as were others, the wealth was spread, we had health care and pensions, more income equality. The CEO's made good money but not like they are now. Income inequality is what is splitting this country now and someone like trump is using it to push his agenda. Pensions and healthcare for lifetime after retirement is what was kiling big business. The former employees do not ant value to any production in current years but drain the parent company of funds. Years ago pensioners did not live to the mid 80's and died off by 75 or younger, keeping costs in check. GE and other corporations have made many terrible mistakes, but the pension liabilities eventually do so many corporations in. A corporation is not the government. Eventually they cannot borrow enough money to cover the benefits. You are basically suggesting socialism of corporations enforced by the Federal government. That might work for a generation before it implodes. Funny how it doesn't kill big business in other countries.....
|
|
engineerdoe
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Posts: 496
|
Post by engineerdoe on May 14, 2019 18:11:57 GMT -5
Free money and support didn't work for the native american tribes. I don't know what the annual level of support is but I know the after math of alcoholism and drugs. There is no guarantee the money will be used for the family. It is a step in the direction of a problem.
This may be a false correlation. The problems between the USA and native American culture are complicated. Throwing a few bucks at them didn't solve anything, but I am not sure it caused the addiction problems. Not to mention that the money given was hardly "free". Native Americans were removed from their lands where they were able to hunt and fish and gather food as they needed and forced to live in squalor and now they have to buy the food that the land used to supply.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on May 14, 2019 21:33:55 GMT -5
Pensions and healthcare for lifetime after retirement is what was kiling big business. The former employees do not ant value to any production in current years but drain the parent company of funds. Years ago pensioners did not live to the mid 80's and died off by 75 or younger, keeping costs in check. GE and other corporations have made many terrible mistakes, but the pension liabilities eventually do so many corporations in. A corporation is not the government. Eventually they cannot borrow enough money to cover the benefits. You are basically suggesting socialism of corporations enforced by the Federal government. That might work for a generation before it implodes. Funny how it doesn't kill big business in other countries..... Nor do taxes or social medicine, but....whatever.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 15, 2019 3:24:01 GMT -5
It does make sense but could a small business do it? If we hired people we would have to rent our houses for a ton more money and since people here don't make that much it would be difficult. Well unless they were paid more, a vicious circle I guess. I say that because most big businesses are really gigging people, if they were not they would not be making the outrageous profits and paying no taxes. But then tax laws are written by and for the rich. I remember back when people made union wages, corporations were taxed at 90% as were others, the wealth was spread, we had health care and pensions, more income equality. The CEO's made good money but not like they are now. Income inequality is what is splitting this country now and someone like trump is using it to push his agenda. I would like to point out that the only time in history that the US had 90% income tax rates was in the years following WWII. It was an unusual period. The US levied high taxes to pay off war bonds and other war related debt. The US was able to levy unusually high taxes because the US had participated in destroying most of the world productive capacity. The only country in the world with significant manufacturing capability that was not largely destroyed during the war was the US. It was functionally equivalent to having the only grocery store in a five mile square area of NYC. The world needs what you manufacture, and you are the only source of supply in the world. You can pretty much charge whatever you want because you have no competition. This sustained the astronomically high taxes for a relatively short period of time. In today’s world of global competition, the US has the highest, or second highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax rates put US corporations at a competitive disadvantage in our global markets, where they are competing against foreign corporations that typically pay 15% or less in income taxes. The cost of US income taxes cost my last employer between 25% and 50% it’s potential revenue, and prevented us from hiring about 100 American workers. Instead, many of those jobs went to Australians who were employed by one of our competitors.
|
|