billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 29, 2015 15:40:04 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 15:41:15 GMT -5
This is F'ng depressing. It really is! How on earth do these folks survive? I'm not even asking how they have the "good stuff." I'm trying to figure out how in the heck they stay alive! I guess if you live in a rural area where you can grow your own food (if you can afford the seeds, fertilizer, water, and whatever else), it might be better, but it sure isn't going to be anything close to reasonable, IMO. I have a friend that lived (single) comfortably on about $14K a year for three years in Indiana. No health insurance, though. It can be done depending on where you live. The thing I wonder about is are wages of part-timers, entry-level, and/or live-at-home "kids" being counted here? I made about $9,000 a year part time as a college student.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2015 17:16:02 GMT -5
time to raise FMW to at least $10/hr. that will put anyone full time above $20k. And the people that can't get jobs, or lose their jobs will be at $0. most FMW jobs are in the food service sector. you can't get robots to do that job for $10/hr, so what are you going to do if you are McDonals or KFC? make your fried food in India? you are businessman, Paul. start talking like one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2015 17:18:29 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. this is PRECISELY the conversation we need to have. it is the elephant in the room.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 29, 2015 17:19:37 GMT -5
... so what are you going to do if you are McDonals or KFC? make your fried food in India? ... KFC, no problem. Big Mac's, problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2015 17:25:29 GMT -5
so, Cruz proposes replacing the current tax with a 10% flat tax? here are the current Federal tax rates per quintile: bottom = 2.1% second = 6.7% third = 12.2% fourth = 14.6% the first $36k is exempt, so the bottom two quintiles would pay ZERO taxes, and everyone else would have their taxes reduced. that sounds like a recipe for ballooning the deficit astronomically. even worse than you know who's plan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2015 17:36:09 GMT -5
the math on this is actually pretty simple. US personal income is about $15T in 2014. we had $3.2T in outlays. if we have ZERO deductions (no flat taxer thinks this is a good idea), we would need a flat tax rate of 21.3% to not produce any deficits. if we assume that everyone gets a $36k deduction (which, personally, i think is stupid), that will take between $3T and $5T out of the taxable revenue stream, which means that income taxes would be on $10-12T, which means the flat tax rate would have to go to 27-32%.
so, EITHER:
Cruz's "budget" would create deficits that would make us beg for the glory days of Obama, when $1T was considered a bad year. OR The FLAT TAX rate would have to be raised to around 30% OR we would have to eliminate all deductions, and tax everyone, including the poor sot making $1k/month, at 21.3%
i am actually fine with option B, but i have YET to see a single flat taxer that thinks the rate should be that high.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Oct 29, 2015 17:40:42 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. I think you are right...still, intelligence, risk and dedication have always taken people far...whatever that means: monetarily I suppose. To me middle class is $90-200K The point is, it is much more difficult these days to rise to a middle class level (one single family detached house, one vacaction property...two vacations a year for the family) two cars, out for dinner twice a week, etc... Actually I live that life and I don't really like it.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,999
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 29, 2015 18:10:11 GMT -5
the math on this is actually pretty simple. US personal income is about $15T in 2014. we had $3.2T in outlays. if we have ZERO deductions (no flat taxer thinks this is a good idea), we would need a flat tax rate of 21.3% to not produce any deficits. if we assume that everyone gets a $36k deduction (which, personally, i think is stupid), that will take between $3T and $5T out of the taxable revenue stream, which means that income taxes would be on $10-12T, which means the flat tax rate would have to go to 27-32%. so, EITHER: Cruz's "budget" would create deficits that would make us beg for the glory days of Obama, when $1T was considered a bad year. OR The FLAT TAX rate would have to be raised to around 30% OR we would have to eliminate all deductions, and tax everyone, including the poor sot making $1k/month, at 21.3% i am actually fine with option B, but i have YET to see a single flat taxer that thinks the rate should be that high. Maybe he could solve the math by getting rid of those entitlement programs and transferring a little more money to the military contractors.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 29, 2015 18:50:53 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. I think you are right...still, intelligence, risk and dedication have always taken people far...whatever that means: monetarily I suppose. To me middle class is $90-200K The point is, it is much more difficult these days to rise to a middle class level (one single family detached house, one vacaction property...two vacations a year for the family) two cars, out for dinner twice a week, etc... Actually I live that life and I don't really like it. People in sub-Sahara Africa who are intelligent, take risks, and are dedicated get much farther than those who aren't...whatever that means: daily food availability, I suppose. What is "middle class" for them? Statistically it is harder to achieve that middle class level. One major issue is the need to go to college or get advanced vocational training rather than just skate through high school and go to work at the same factory as your old man. My posting was more about: What level of material existence is it acceptable for an American who does not complete high school to have. Should they go hungry, subsisting on what soup kitchens provide? Live on the street or in studio apartments? What level of physical existence for someone who does make it through the general education curriculum of the typical American high school but without distinction and/or don't get a more advanced piece of paper? How much can we afford to protect people from a consequence of their choices?
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 29, 2015 20:06:16 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. I think you are right...still, intelligence, risk and dedication have always taken people far...whatever that means: monetarily I suppose. To me middle class is $90-200K The point is, it is much more difficult these days to rise to a middle class level (one single family detached house, one vacaction property...two vacations a year for the family) two cars, out for dinner twice a week, etc... Actually I live that life and I don't really like it. 90-200K is not middle class if you are sticking to the term 'middle' in any way at all. 90K household income puts one in the top 25%, 200K puts one in the top 10% Of course depending on where you live has a large influence on whether someone feels middle class or not- 90K might be sufficent to buy a mcmansion in some places and barely a studio apartment in another. * A vacation property is not a middle class purchase unless maybe it is a timeshare
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 21:05:25 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. I think it's time to re-think welfare. With over 100,000,000 able-bodied, working-age adults not in the workforce-- but still eating, we are subsidizing sloth. Now that the credit card is approaching $20 trillion, and that's at an interest rate of practically 0%-- it's time to turn up the lights, ask everyone to finish their drinks, and get out there and GO TO WORK.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 21:07:02 GMT -5
I think we are due for a rethinking of what the minimum level of material existence for Americans is acceptable. this is PRECISELY the conversation we need to have. it is the elephant in the room. It's time to re-think "we". Admit there's no such person. Take away the freebies, get OUT OF THE WAY of the productive people in this country, and tell everyone else that if you want to eat, you need to go to work.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 21:28:11 GMT -5
I think you are right...still, intelligence, risk and dedication have always taken people far...whatever that means: monetarily I suppose. To me middle class is $90-200K The point is, it is much more difficult these days to rise to a middle class level (one single family detached house, one vacaction property...two vacations a year for the family) two cars, out for dinner twice a week, etc... Actually I live that life and I don't really like it. 90-200K is not middle class if you are sticking to the term 'middle' in any way at all. 90K household income puts one in the top 25%, 200K puts one in the top 10% Of course depending on where you live has a large influence on whether someone feels middle class or not- 90K might be sufficent to buy a mcmansion in some places and barely a studio apartment in another. * A vacation property is not a middle class purchase unless maybe it is a timeshare We didn't "feel" middle class (mind you that we never leveraged ourselves up the wazoo in a house we couldn't afford, and we've always saved and invested) until we hit about $70K. At $120K - $130K we finally felt SOLIDLY middle class. As an entrepreneur, investor, and functionally self-employed contractor- my income fluctuates. I will admit that we felt "rich" the first time we hit $360K. We don't do that every year-- and it seems about where we top out just based on what we're willing to do (I'm talking go out and EARN IT income-- we have income from rental properties which is fairly systematically re-invested in new projects and properties)-- but we've done it about 3 times in the last 7 years. We're close this year, but barring a US-landfall (Sandy hit today in 2012, btw) hurricane or other catastrophic event-- we're not going over $300K this year. When I first started posting on these boards, I was working in a cubicle in corporate America and just getting started in what is sometimes referred to as "creative real estate investing", reading Rich Dad and playing Cashflow 101 at Panera Bread every Saturday and building up the real estate investor's club in Chicago. I was a helluva lot hungrier then than I am now. The thing I learned from Rich Dad, Poor Dad-- which I suppose I could have learned from any number of books-- was that it doesn't matter how much income you earn, what matters is how much you keep. When we bought our first rental property "subject to" (and we didn't even go to "due on sale jail") and WE started getting all the tax breaks-- believe me, the light came on. What we learned is that you earn money, and then you invest it in such a way that your investments offset your taxable income. The real estate investor's club hardly made any money at all to speak of (though I made a good bit- and still make money-- from information products and internet marketing of my own) but it, too, became a giant lifestyle business- allowing tax write-offs out the wazoo. We learned that it's not so much what you do, as it is HOW you do it. We own two jet skis-- Yamaha Wave Runners. They are owned inside of a business that rents them out-- a guy that has a jet ski biz actually uses them as his back-up craft if any of his are down. He rarely uses them, but he pays us $200 a day EACH just to have them at his disposal. For liability / insurance purposes-- they're his. I financed them both at 2.9%, we take depreciation on them, and because it's a business purpose-- the interest is deductible as an expense. When we want to use them? We rent them. Of course. I'm putting a pontoon boat into the same business early next year. The other thing I learned-- actually, probably the main thing I learned from Rich Dad, Poor Dad is that money is just an idea. The same tax code, the same laws, and the same opportunities are available to anyone and everyone. You change the way you THINK, you then change the way you ACT, and how you do things-- and all of the sudden, you find yourself moving from secure, to comfortable, to rich. We are not as rich as some people, but there's no denying that in the last several years we definitely feel "rich". We're still paupers down in Palm Beach County, but up here-- we're living the high life. And compared to where we started- contract assignments for $15K being like hitting the lotto-- we're "rich". My definition of rich was hit several years ago: we could stop working and maintain our lifestyle indefinitely. Maybe not exactly-- we'd travel less, eat out less expensively, and almost certainly take fewer risks-- but we could grind to a halt right now and be just fine.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 21:32:03 GMT -5
so, Cruz proposes replacing the current tax with a 10% flat tax? here are the current Federal tax rates per quintile: bottom = 2.1% second = 6.7% third = 12.2% fourth = 14.6% the first $36k is exempt, so the bottom two quintiles would pay ZERO taxes, and everyone else would have their taxes reduced. that sounds like a recipe for ballooning the deficit astronomically. even worse than you know who's plan. Well, like a typical modern day liberal you ASSume a zero effect on economic growth, and you assume current spending levels. The federal budget is going to have to be cut-- and the longer we wait to do it, the more drastic and immediate the cuts will be. It's called "We The People" deciding how much of our income we will permit the government to have, and then government having to live within its income. Every time I read this stupid bullshit statement about a reduction in taxes "ballooning" the deficit, I ask the same simple as fuck question: ever had a reduction in income? Did you borrow in perpetuity, or did you make adjustments? Right. The government will simply have to do the same.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Oct 29, 2015 22:12:44 GMT -5
So in yor opinion Paul, where could these adjustments that you speak of could be made. Concrete examples please.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 29, 2015 23:05:37 GMT -5
90-200K is not middle class if you are sticking to the term 'middle' in any way at all. 90K household income puts one in the top 25%, 200K puts one in the top 10% Of course depending on where you live has a large influence on whether someone feels middle class or not- 90K might be sufficent to buy a mcmansion in some places and barely a studio apartment in another. * A vacation property is not a middle class purchase unless maybe it is a timeshare We didn't "feel" middle class (mind you that we never leveraged ourselves up the wazoo in a house we couldn't afford, and we've always saved and invested) until we hit about $70K. At $120K - $130K we finally felt SOLIDLY middle class. As an entrepreneur, investor, and functionally self-employed contractor- my income fluctuates. I will admit that we felt "rich" the first time we hit $360K. We don't do that every year-- and it seems about where we top out just based on what we're willing to do (I'm talking go out and EARN IT income-- we have income from rental properties which is fairly systematically re-invested in new projects and properties)-- but we've done it about 3 times in the last 7 years. We're close this year, but barring a US-landfall (Sandy hit today in 2012, btw) hurricane or other catastrophic event-- we're not going over $300K this year. When I first started posting on these boards, I was working in a cubicle in corporate America and just getting started in what is sometimes referred to as "creative real estate investing", reading Rich Dad and playing Cashflow 101 at Panera Bread every Saturday and building up the real estate investor's club in Chicago. I was a helluva lot hungrier then than I am now. The thing I learned from Rich Dad, Poor Dad-- which I suppose I could have learned from any number of books-- was that it doesn't matter how much income you earn, what matters is how much you keep. When we bought our first rental property "subject to" (and we didn't even go to "due on sale jail") and WE started getting all the tax breaks-- believe me, the light came on. What we learned is that you earn money, and then you invest it in such a way that your investments offset your taxable income. The real estate investor's club hardly made any money at all to speak of (though I made a good bit- and still make money-- from information products and internet marketing of my own) but it, too, became a giant lifestyle business- allowing tax write-offs out the wazoo. We learned that it's not so much what you do, as it is HOW you do it. We own two jet skis-- Yamaha Wave Runners. They are owned inside of a business that rents them out-- a guy that has a jet ski biz actually uses them as his back-up craft if any of his are down. He rarely uses them, but he pays us $200 a day EACH just to have them at his disposal. For liability / insurance purposes-- they're his. I financed them both at 2.9%, we take depreciation on them, and because it's a business purpose-- the interest is deductible as an expense. When we want to use them? We rent them. Of course. I'm putting a pontoon boat into the same business early next year. The other thing I learned-- actually, probably the main thing I learned from Rich Dad, Poor Dad is that money is just an idea. The same tax code, the same laws, and the same opportunities are available to anyone and everyone. You change the way you THINK, you then change the way you ACT, and how you do things-- and all of the sudden, you find yourself moving from secure, to comfortable, to rich. We are not as rich as some people, but there's no denying that in the last several years we definitely feel "rich". We're still paupers down in Palm Beach County, but up here-- we're living the high life. And compared to where we started- contract assignments for $15K being like hitting the lotto-- we're "rich". My definition of rich was hit several years ago: we could stop working and maintain our lifestyle indefinitely. Maybe not exactly-- we'd travel less, eat out less expensively, and almost certainly take fewer risks-- but we could grind to a halt right now and be just fine. I was just making the point based on what middle means. It is very subjective. I consider my family middle class- paid off house, no debt, no new cars, a few vacations a year, retirement savings, etc. No mcmansion and the cars are paid for in cash used Fords. Some people do not feel middle class unless they have a new BMW and a 4000 square foot home- I say they are wrong. I could do more- but have no desire- keeping up with the Joneses or trying to win the game has never interested me. And you are right on the watercraft- a boat is a money pit- been there done that- if I want to go out on the lake I'd rather just rent one- and of course I am older now so the ski boats are out anyway- will take a pontoon with a barbecue and a toilet My money is going to be spent on travel- have a 3 week trip planned several years down the road- going to pay cash- going to hit London, Paris, Amsterdam, and several more. After that I want to go back and hit the Mediterranean side- will save up for that one too- assuming our politician jerks haven't made Americans more of a target by then- I really want to go to Egypt and Turkey.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2015 1:44:54 GMT -5
so, Cruz proposes replacing the current tax with a 10% flat tax? here are the current Federal tax rates per quintile: bottom = 2.1% second = 6.7% third = 12.2% fourth = 14.6% the first $36k is exempt, so the bottom two quintiles would pay ZERO taxes, and everyone else would have their taxes reduced. that sounds like a recipe for ballooning the deficit astronomically. even worse than you know who's plan. Well, like a typical modern day liberal you ASSume a zero effect on economic growth, and you assume current spending levels. The federal budget is going to have to be cut-- and the longer we wait to do it, the more drastic and immediate the cuts will be. It's called "We The People" deciding how much of our income we will permit the government to have, and then government having to live within its income. first of all, tax cuts don't stimulate growth. secondly, "we the people" don't run things, our representatives do. that is what it means to live in a REPUBLIC, as you are fond of pointing out.
www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9Every time I read this stupid bullshit statement about a reduction in taxes "ballooning" the deficit, I ask the same simple as fuck question: ever had a reduction in income? Did you borrow in perpetuity, or did you make adjustments? Right. The government will simply have to do the same. you are a very poor observer of history, Paul. that is all i have to say on the subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2015 1:51:57 GMT -5
90-200K is not middle class if you are sticking to the term 'middle' in any way at all. 90K household income puts one in the top 25%, 200K puts one in the top 10% Of course depending on where you live has a large influence on whether someone feels middle class or not- 90K might be sufficent to buy a mcmansion in some places and barely a studio apartment in another. * A vacation property is not a middle class purchase unless maybe it is a timeshare We didn't "feel" middle class (mind you that we never leveraged ourselves up the wazoo in a house we couldn't afford, and we've always saved and invested) until we hit about $70K. At $120K - $130K we finally felt SOLIDLY middle class. As an entrepreneur, investor, and functionally self-employed contractor- my income fluctuates. I will admit that we felt "rich" the first time we hit $360K. We don't do that every year-- and it seems about where we top out just based on what we're willing to do (I'm talking go out and EARN IT income-- we have income from rental properties which is fairly systematically re-invested in new projects and properties)-- but we've done it about 3 times in the last 7 years. We're close this year, but barring a US-landfall (Sandy hit today in 2012, btw) hurricane or other catastrophic event-- we're not going over $300K this year. . Americans have very poor class consciousness. the majority of people with incomes between $30k and $300k think they are middle class. middle class kinda stops at about $80k. if you are making more than that, you are doing well. $180k puts you at about the top 10%. that is way beyond middle class. $300k is more like the top 2.5% or so. silly rich. if you are making $30k you are NOT middle class. if you and your wife BOTH are, your household MIGHT be, depending on where you live. but whatever. call yourself poor if you like.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2015 2:08:22 GMT -5
the math on this is actually pretty simple. US personal income is about $15T in 2014. we had $3.2T in outlays. if we have ZERO deductions (no flat taxer thinks this is a good idea), we would need a flat tax rate of 21.3% to not produce any deficits. if we assume that everyone gets a $36k deduction (which, personally, i think is stupid), that will take between $3T and $5T out of the taxable revenue stream, which means that income taxes would be on $10-12T, which means the flat tax rate would have to go to 27-32%. so, EITHER: Cruz's "budget" would create deficits that would make us beg for the glory days of Obama, when $1T was considered a bad year. OR The FLAT TAX rate would have to be raised to around 30% OR we would have to eliminate all deductions, and tax everyone, including the poor sot making $1k/month, at 21.3% i am actually fine with option B, but i have YET to see a single flat taxer that thinks the rate should be that high. Maybe he could solve the math by getting rid of those entitlement programs and transferring a little more money to the military contractors. so far, nobody is getting even CLOSE to reasonable about "solving" this problem. nobody. not a single person. zip. the Cruz proposal is not serious. the Mr. T proposal isn't either. they are jokes. bad ones.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2015 3:16:04 GMT -5
note to the board: i have no objection to the idea of a flat tax. my reasoning is that those making over $100k are essentially paying a flat tax right now, so why not have everyone? if it simplifies the tax code and maintains revenue, then why not?
what the GOP is basically proposing to do is threaten the government with bankruptcy by cutting revenues, and this is a dishonest way to go about shrinking the size of government, imo.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Oct 30, 2015 5:22:42 GMT -5
The homeless are becoming a major issue in many cities. Seattle has an average rent of $1,200 so hard for some people to afford to live indoors. Part time jobs are more the problem than the wages, here anyone who can sweep a floor can make $10-$12 an hour but when you only work 20 hours a week and not steady you only bring home 200 a week or less. After transportation and food there isn't rent money. I think we need to allow slum lords to build cheaper housing and evict easier so they can take a chance on someone with not much income. Either that or guarantee hours, find a way to make employers want to hire full time like making part time minimum wage $15 and full time $10 and not force them to pay for benefits. Drug use is also very bad here so some won't get to live indoors but they used to have flop houses for the drunks, it gets them off the street. Housing first gives chronic homeless housing so they can drink and drug indoors but we can't give everyone free housing or nobody would pay rent.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 30, 2015 7:23:37 GMT -5
The biggest problem to income I see are part time temporary jobs working inconsistant shifts. I do a second job to make a few bucks. So I am fine if I make $50 less bucks a week. The others who work there not so much. The hours totally change from week to week. So one week a person will work 30 hours and the next 20. Kind of hard to budget when you don't know how much you are going to make even to the closest hundred.
The other problem is the jobs that people without higher education get have hours that are more like rotating shift work than a regular 9-5. The popular advice, even from me, would have always been to get a second job if you need more money. It is real hard to get a second job when you can't tell them what hours you can work from week to week.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 30, 2015 22:17:30 GMT -5
I always have a problem with headlines like this though, because they are talking about income for individual workers and then they talk about poverty level for a "family". My family has 4 individuals. All of us had income last year. Mom, Dad and 2 college kids. So, if you have a Mom + Dad each earning 20,000 a year = $40,000 in income so they are above the poverty level. How many low income families do you know where one spouse earns $20,000 and the second one has no income? Even if 2nd spouse retired or disabled they would have income. If it is a single mother + 4 kids to = family of 5 well you thought having multiple kids and no 2nd parent in the picture would result in something other than poverty?
Even if DH and I had divorced, I would have collected child support and poverty would have been unlikely.
Yeah, I noticed that too. While the headline is startling, the income for a family averages over 50k. Having a breadwinner and a stay at home spouse is a luxury, not a right. Two people earning 20-30k can make it.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Oct 31, 2015 10:36:32 GMT -5
the math on this is actually pretty simple. US personal income is about $15T in 2014. we had $3.2T in outlays. if we have ZERO deductions (no flat taxer thinks this is a good idea), we would need a flat tax rate of 21.3% to not produce any deficits. if we assume that everyone gets a $36k deduction (which, personally, i think is stupid), that will take between $3T and $5T out of the taxable revenue stream, which means that income taxes would be on $10-12T, which means the flat tax rate would have to go to 27-32%. so, EITHER: Cruz's "budget" would create deficits that would make us beg for the glory days of Obama, when $1T was considered a bad year. OR The FLAT TAX rate would have to be raised to around 30% OR we would have to eliminate all deductions, and tax everyone, including the poor sot making $1k/month, at 21.3% i am actually fine with option B, but i have YET to see a single flat taxer that thinks the rate should be that high. Also total government outlays (federal/state/local) for 2014 was about $6T which comes to about %40, which I think is terrible. Even as a percent of GDP of about 35% I think is way to high
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2015 11:46:38 GMT -5
the math on this is actually pretty simple. US personal income is about $15T in 2014. we had $3.2T in outlays. if we have ZERO deductions (no flat taxer thinks this is a good idea), we would need a flat tax rate of 21.3% to not produce any deficits. if we assume that everyone gets a $36k deduction (which, personally, i think is stupid), that will take between $3T and $5T out of the taxable revenue stream, which means that income taxes would be on $10-12T, which means the flat tax rate would have to go to 27-32%. so, EITHER: Cruz's "budget" would create deficits that would make us beg for the glory days of Obama, when $1T was considered a bad year. OR The FLAT TAX rate would have to be raised to around 30% OR we would have to eliminate all deductions, and tax everyone, including the poor sot making $1k/month, at 21.3% i am actually fine with option B, but i have YET to see a single flat taxer that thinks the rate should be that high. Also total government outlays (federal/state/local) for 2014 was about $6T which comes to about %40, which I think is terrible. Even as a percent of GDP of about 35% I think is way to high you're right. we should get that number down to 30% max. edit: we are not at 40%. we are at 35%. edit: note that government receipts are at a FOURTY YEAR LOW. gotta fix that, too. unless we want deficits from now until the end of time.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Oct 31, 2015 12:06:48 GMT -5
time to raise FMW to at least $10/hr. that will put anyone full time above $20k. I would say $15...and people freak out and tell me that they would have to pay more for their hamburger and fries. In many ways the global economy has enriched us (Apple makes almost all of its products in China, for what I would consider slave labor) and we get our iPhones at rock bottom prices...but still? Where have all the solid, unionized $40-60k jobs gone? Are we on a race to the bottom?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2015 12:15:17 GMT -5
time to raise FMW to at least $10/hr. that will put anyone full time above $20k. I would say $15...and people freak out and tell me that they would have to pay more for their hamburger and fries. In many ways the global economy has enriched us (Apple makes almost all of its products in China, for what I would consider slave labor) and we get our iPhones at rock bottom prices...but still? Where have all the solid, unionized $40-60k jobs gone? Are we on a race to the bottom? simply put- yes. the question now is- who is to stop it? certainly not unions. they have been decimated by a half century of destructive policies.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Oct 31, 2015 12:32:52 GMT -5
No, not unions...and we know that many were corrupt and self serving.
I think the dichotomy between the haves and the have nots has to get so real and stark that the people..."we the people"...stand up and say:
"Hey, this isn't fair. I'm working my ass off and I am standing still and maybe going backwards...reward my efforts"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2015 12:43:44 GMT -5
No, not unions...and we know that many were corrupt and self serving. I think the dichotomy between the haves and the have nots has to get so real and stark that the people..."we the people"...stand up and say: "Hey, this isn't fair. I'm working my ass off and I am standing still and maybe going backwards...reward my efforts" my question still stands, given the absolute grip on power corporations (and those that run them) have in the US.
|
|