Talk About GTA

[WizardStan]

if they choose to work.

Ok, I'm going to intervene here and point out that you probably don't mean what you just said. The vast majority of the unemployed and poorly employed are not failing to "choose to work", they are simply in unfortunate positions where they have no choice. They could be the hardest working people in the world and it doesn't help them advance at all. Wage disparity *is* a very real issue, especially in the USA, and suggesting that it is the workers at fault for not "choosing to work" is not only dangerous, it is provably wrong.

 

[hailrazer]

LOL.  Umm I live in the South and I literally know hundreds if not thousands of people who CHOOSE not to work. 

Their words exactly, "I make more living off the Government, better healthcare, better living arrangements" , etc. 

Maybe it's because the jobs here are not great, maybe the pay is terrible. But the fact is a LOT of people now choose not to work. 

I've lived in the South for 40 years in small towns and see it time and time again. A lot of time businesses can't even get someone to work for them.

But that is a side topic that need not pollute this educational thread.  

 

[WizardStan]

LOL.  Umm I live in the South and I literally know hundreds if not thousands of people who CHOOSE not to work.

Hundreds, if not thousands, out of millions you say? Your anecdote doesn't even fall into the realm of statistical anomaly. And even if it did prove something, it only detracts from your point. You said that they'd do just fine if they chose to work, and then say they claim to do better by choosing to not work. It cannot be both ways: either they choose to work, and the job pays well enough to survive, or jobs do not pay very well and choosing to not work is the only way to survive.

maybe the pay is terrible

That's what I said, there is a major wage disparity. Just google for "wage inequality USA" to find study after study demonstrating that, since the 1970s, the rich have consistently gotten richer relative to inflation while the poor have consistently grown poorer in relation to inflation. The USA is at the top of the charts in changes to wage disparity in the last 40 years.
edit: I also highly doubt you've polled thousands of people to hear them claim they make more off government assistance than working. Most people don't even KNOW hundreds of people, and you've got a personal sampling size large enough to include thousands of non-workers?

 

[Franko]

^ That's socialism and the welfare system that is taking even a deeper hold now.  That's what the people voted for I guess.  Tax the rich even more...businesses too...give to the poor.  Who employs the poor?  Not the poor....and not the government after they've run out of people to tax.  Enjoy that inner debate.

Edit 1 : That was intended for Hailrazer.

 

[WizardStan]

Franko, no. Taxes on the rich are at their all time lowest since the 1970s. Many large businesses don't pay ANY taxes at all. The current standards are not a result of "taxing the rich to give to the poor", it's a result of "reducing taxes on the rich because the rich promise to hire more people and pass down the savings", except they haven't.

 

[hailrazer]

Oh no it's not about survival. These people that I know would be able to live the exact same working as they would living off the Government. They say what's the point I can work 40 hours a week and have the same lifestyle that I have now not working. They CHOOSE not to work.

And yes I realize that even knowing hundreds of people like that is not enough to prove a point, but it does show a pattern.

LOL.  Umm I live in the South and I literally know hundreds if not thousands of people who CHOOSE not to work.

Hundreds, if not thousands, out of millions you say? Your anecdote doesn't even fall into the realm of statistical anomaly. And even if it did prove something, it only detracts from your point. You said that they'd do just fine if they chose to work, and then say they claim to do better by choosing to not work. It cannot be both ways: either they choose to work, and the job pays well enough to survive, or jobs do not pay very well and choosing to not work is the only way to survive

Franko, no. Taxes on the rich are at their all time lowest since the 1970s. Many large businesses don't pay ANY taxes at all. The current standards are not a result of "taxing the rich to give to the poor", it's a result of "reducing taxes on the rich because the rich promise to hire more people and pass down the savings", except they haven't.

And yet the rich pay over 70% of the total taxes in the US.  You want them to pay it all ?  

 

[Kumaki]

if they choose to work.

Ok, I'm going to intervene here and point out that you probably don't mean what you just said. The vast majority of the unemployed and poorly employed are not failing to "choose to work", they are simply in unfortunate positions where they have no choice. They could be the hardest working people in the world and it doesn't help them advance at all. Wage disparity *is* a very real issue, especially in the USA, and suggesting that it is the workers at fault for not "choosing to work" is not only dangerous, it is provably wrong.

Bingo.

Thank you.

Someone who actually understand the situation here in the good old U S of A.

 

[Franko]

Be wary though.  Most governments like to grow and expand their own bureaucracy.  Waste.  We need oversight but not a government that shackles and feeds us.  Business and entrepreneurship and self-determination.  That's what made America great...not relying upon the government.  It's a big-bloated mess of fatcats that are taking kick-backs from all four corners.  Each and every one of us needs to wake up in the morning and look ourselves in the mirror and say, that we're doing our part for ourselves and our families and our communities and it spreads outwards.  Government does nothing well, and it's always shoddy.  Let them govern, but generations of the poor are living off of welfare.  The Japanese make jokes about us (actually every country does)...with good reason.  We're fat and lazy.  Somewhere down the line we lost that mojo.  This is probably not the proper Forum for this whole rhetoric, but damnit...you all got me to thinking again...

Don't mind me.  

 

[Kumaki]

LOL.  Umm I live in the South and I literally know hundreds if not thousands of people who CHOOSE not to work. 

Their words exactly, "I make more living off the Government, better healthcare, better living arrangements" , etc. 

Maybe it's because the jobs here are not great, maybe the pay is terrible. But the fact is a LOT of people now choose not to work. 

I've lived in the South for 40 years in small towns and see it time and time again. A lot of time businesses can't even get someone to work for them.

But that is a side topic that need not pollute this educational thread.  

They choose not to work...because work does not pay.

As I said previously...why would you bust your butt and work 40 hours a week, if you will get $800 for doing it...and you can get $1400 sitting on your ass not lifting a finger.  Nobody would do that.

Work does not generally pay in America...unless you have some sort of specialized skill.

And a lot of people don't.  They did not have the same opportiunities come their way that others did.

Take me for example.

I was a lowly schmuck working dead-end thankless jobs for years...when I could find them...and making crap for pay.

I just happened to luck into the situation I am now in...owning my own business, and making some decent money.

I fell into the situation.  The opportunity presented itself.  I grabbed it, rode it, and proved equal to the challenge.

But, had the opportunity not presented itself...I'd still be in shit circumstances.

Sometimes, people just plain flat are not lucky, do not get the opportunities to come their way.

And for those people...often...welfare IS a better deal than working.  You get more money...and you don't actually have to work.

Now if they made the kind of work these people can do actually PAY...then they proably would work.

It's simple.  If they sit around and do nothing, they get $1400.  If they work, they get $800.  which would you choose?

SO...if you make it so that, with welfare and work...they could make $1600 - $1800...versus...not working and getting only $1200...most of them would probably work.

Assuming work was even available.

LOL.  Umm I live in the South and I literally know hundreds if not thousands of people who CHOOSE not to work.

Hundreds, if not thousands, out of millions you say? Your anecdote doesn't even fall into the realm of statistical anomaly. And even if it did prove something, it only detracts from your point. You said that they'd do just fine if they chose to work, and then say they claim to do better by choosing to not work. It cannot be both ways: either they choose to work, and the job pays well enough to survive, or jobs do not pay very well and choosing to not work is the only way to survive.

>maybe the pay is terrible

That's what I said, there is a major wage disparity. Just google for "wage inequality USA" to find study after study demonstrating that, since the 1970s, the rich have consistently gotten richer relative to inflation while the poor have consistently grown poorer in relation to inflation. The USA is at the top of the charts in changes to wage disparity in the last 40 years.

edit: I also highly doubt you've polled thousands of people to hear them claim they make more off government assistance than working. Most people don't even KNOW hundreds of people, and you've got a personal sampling size large enough to include thousands of non-workers?

Exactly.

Ever since Reagan, basically...the wealthy have gotten fat on the backs of the poor working folk.

Almost all the wealth has moved up the ladder...and little "trickles" down...and what does usually is not even fit to consume.

The new motto of America should be "Let Them Eat Cake."

 

[hailrazer]

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

It's called Pride.  I'm a man and I will take care of my family, I WILL NOT rely on anyone or any government to take care of me and my family.

Unless someone is handicapped in some way, or has extenuating circumstances, they should feel the same. Seems like a lot of people don't feel this way anymore.

 

[WizardStan]

And yet the rich pay over 70% of the total taxes in the US.  You want them to pay it all ?  

The top 1% makes over 10 million per year each. Let's just round to the low end at 10 million. About 150 million eligible workers in the USA, 1% is 1.5 million people making more than 10 million dollars. They accounted for 33% of the taxes collected last year. 1.4 trillion income tax over 1.5 million people is just under 1 million dollars. If the top 1% paid 10% of their income to taxes not a single one of the lower 99% would have to pay anything to income tax. Instead, they accounted for 33%. They paid 3.33% of their income to taxes last year. How much do you pay in taxes this year? Was it more than 10%? I paid 30% (of course I'm a Canadian, our taxes are different, but I can't imagine they'd be that different)So I guess while I cannot say that I *want* the rich to pay 100% of the taxes, I can't imagine a single logical reason someone could give that they shouldn't. Imagine if the top 1% paid the same 30% taxes that those around the 50% earnings range pay. 4.5 trillion dollars. Deficit eliminated with 3 trillion to spare.

 

[Kumaki]

Franko, no. Taxes on the rich are at their all time lowest since the 1970s. Many large businesses don't pay ANY taxes at all. The current standards are not a result of "taxing the rich to give to the poor", it's a result of "reducing taxes on the rich because the rich promise to hire more people and pass down the savings", except they haven't.

Bingo.

That is called "Trickle-Down Economics" or "Supply-Side Economics"  Reagan started it.

America has slid down the toilet for the vast majority of Americans...over the last 30 years...as a result of our leaders continuing to belive this philosophy.

Simply...trickle-down assumed that the wealthy...out of the goodness of their hearts...would help the rest of us, by creating jobs for us.

They didn't.

They pocketed the extra money, bought each other up, downsized, and shipped other jobs overseas.

Back in the days of higher marginal taxes...businesses invested in their plants, their workers, and R&D in oreder to avoid taxes.  These things all helped the economy.  This is why the 50's and 60's saw America's working class doing well.

America's workers have done progressively worse, ever since 1980...in terms of real buying power.

 

[Kumaki]

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

It's called Pride.  I'm a man and I will take care of my family, I WILL NOT rely on anyone or any government to take care of me and my family.

Unless someone is handicapped in some way, or has extenuating circumstances, they should feel the same. Seems like a lot of people don't feel this way anymore.

you'd take $800 - which is not enough to support your family...and work...

rather than take $1400 from Uncle Sam and not work?

Please...I seriously doubt it.

The problem is that work does not pay.  For many people at that level, work simply does not pay.

If the situation were such that work paid more than welfare does...these people would proabably choose to work.

 

[hailrazer]

And yet the rich pay over 70% of the total taxes in the US.  You want them to pay it all ?  

The top 1% makes over 10 million per year each. Let's just round to the low end at 10 million. About 150 million eligible workers in the USA, 1% is 1.5 million people making more than 10 million dollars. They accounted for 33% of the taxes collected last year. 1.4 trillion income tax over 1.5 million people is just under 1 million dollars. If the top 1% paid 10% of their income to taxes not a single one of the lower 99% would have to pay anything to income tax. Instead, they accounted for 33%. They paid 3.33% of their income to taxes last year. How much do you pay in taxes this year? Was it more than 10%? I paid 30% (of course I'm a Canadian, our taxes are different, but I can't imagine they'd be that different)
So I guess while I cannot say that I *want* the rich to pay 100% of the taxes, I can't imagine a single logical reason someone could give that they shouldn't. Imagine if the top 1% paid the same 30% taxes that those around the 50% earnings range pay. 4.5 trillion dollars. Deficit eliminated with 3 trillion to spare.

47$ didn't pay a penny, not 1%

That's not fair.  We all should pay a %. 

It's far to simplistic to say that the rich should pay everything because they make more.  If everyone paid something the deficit is gone. 

See there's always 2 sides to a story. 

 

[Kumaki]

And yet the rich pay over 70% of the total taxes in the US.  You want them to pay it all ?  

The top 1% makes over 10 million per year each. Let's just round to the low end at 10 million. About 150 million eligible workers in the USA, 1% is 1.5 million people making more than 10 million dollars. They accounted for 33% of the taxes collected last year. 1.4 trillion income tax over 1.5 million people is just under 1 million dollars. If the top 1% paid 10% of their income to taxes not a single one of the lower 99% would have to pay anything to income tax. Instead, they accounted for 33%. They paid 3.33% of their income to taxes last year. How much do you pay in taxes this year? Was it more than 10%? I paid 30% (of course I'm a Canadian, our taxes are different, but I can't imagine they'd be that different)
So I guess while I cannot say that I *want* the rich to pay 100% of the taxes, I can't imagine a single logical reason someone could give that they shouldn't. Imagine if the top 1% paid the same 30% taxes that those around the 50% earnings range pay. 4.5 trillion dollars. Deficit eliminated with 3 trillion to spare.

Exactly.

Warren Buffet paid a lower tax rate than his own secretary.

Now something's wrong when this is truth.

 

[hailrazer]

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

It's called Pride.  I'm a man and I will take care of my family, I WILL NOT rely on anyone or any government to take care of me and my family.

Unless someone is handicapped in some way, or has extenuating circumstances, they should feel the same. Seems like a lot of people don't feel this way anymore.

you'd take $800 - which is not enough to support your family...and work...

rather than take $1400 from Uncle Sam and not work?

Please...I seriously doubt it.

The problem is that work does not pay.  For many people at that level, work simply does not pay.

If the situation were such that work paid more than welfare does...these people would proabably choose to work.

I have before and I would again.

Not enough to support my family? 

Ha, I didn't have cable, no cell phone, no new car.

Had a garden, grew food. Did odd jobs whenever I could to make a little more. 

But I went to sleep happy , I slept good.  I had provided for my family, not someone else.

Pride, and self worth.  Wish it meant something to more people.

And that last line you said is the point.  Welfare has not helped but made the situation much worse. For those who really need it and for those who really don't need it.

 

[WizardStan]

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

You can't regulate pride. What you find unacceptable others have no problem with and there is nothing you can do about that. Would you eliminate the welfare program entirely? There are people that legitimately need it: for every person cheating the system, there are many more that are genuinely in a bad place and just need a little help. Would you increase the regulation on who can get assistance? I've lost the study, but when I read it in 2008 it was found that it would cost more to do this than it would to just let the people have the money. It's a losing battle. You can't stop people from trying to take advantage of a system designed to help people, all you can do is make it so that they have incentive to get off the system: better wages, better health care, better living in general.

 

[Kumaki]

And yet the rich pay over 70% of the total taxes in the US.  You want them to pay it all ?  

The top 1% makes over 10 million per year each. Let's just round to the low end at 10 million. About 150 million eligible workers in the USA, 1% is 1.5 million people making more than 10 million dollars. They accounted for 33% of the taxes collected last year. 1.4 trillion income tax over 1.5 million people is just under 1 million dollars. If the top 1% paid 10% of their income to taxes not a single one of the lower 99% would have to pay anything to income tax. Instead, they accounted for 33%. They paid 3.33% of their income to taxes last year. How much do you pay in taxes this year? Was it more than 10%? I paid 30% (of course I'm a Canadian, our taxes are different, but I can't imagine they'd be that different)
So I guess while I cannot say that I *want* the rich to pay 100% of the taxes, I can't imagine a single logical reason someone could give that they shouldn't. Imagine if the top 1% paid the same 30% taxes that those around the 50% earnings range pay. 4.5 trillion dollars. Deficit eliminated with 3 trillion to spare.

47$ didn't pay a penny, not 1%

That's not fair.  We all should pay a %. 

It's far to simplistic to say that the rich should pay everything because they make more.  If everyone paid something the deficit is gone. 

See there's always 2 sides to a story. 

Let me guess, you joined the 47 percenters who voted for Romney, didn't you?

Glad you guys didn't win.

Conditions would be even WORSE...for the working classes here if you guys got your way about it.

fortunately for me...and I do mean fortunately...because I truly did luck into the position I now enjoy...I will never have to participate in the game Corporate America plays anymore.

Never again will I have to work more and more and more...and harder and harder...only to make ever-less money.

Corporate america is a death-trap hell that, unfortunately, most Americans must exist in.

As a small business owner, I get to exist outside of that hell.

I'd slit my wrists before I'd go back to Corporate America.

Owning your own business is so much better.

I work more hours, longer and harder than I ever have in my life...but I would not trade it for the world...because I...and not THE MAN...reap the rewards of my labors.

 

[Franko]

Occupy this...(pulls pants down).

Binky may object, but he's also not aware that I'm wearing a picture of Wall Street on my boxers.  I'm protesting about that.  I had them custom made.  Sure....we're a decadent society at times...I get that.  I'm at "fault" too I guess...sometimes I wonder if people in other countries can get the "quality" of programming that I get.  Who doesn't love fake "reality" TV shows on major networks?  When is it enough though?  I wake up and go to work and all of that crap and I don't want a purple heart....I just want other Americans and actually ALL people in the world to have everything that I have.  That also includes stress, maybe an ulcer...I'm not sure...I'll just label it as "internet-induced ulcer by internet moderator(s) syndrom"...just because I don't want to be left out of this whole new "victimization" vibe that's going on in this country right now...

 

[Kumaki]

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

It's called Pride.  I'm a man and I will take care of my family, I WILL NOT rely on anyone or any government to take care of me and my family.

Unless someone is handicapped in some way, or has extenuating circumstances, they should feel the same. Seems like a lot of people don't feel this way anymore.

you'd take $800 - which is not enough to support your family...and work...

rather than take $1400 from Uncle Sam and not work?

Please...I seriously doubt it.

The problem is that work does not pay.  For many people at that level, work simply does not pay.

If the situation were such that work paid more than welfare does...these people would proabably choose to work.

I have before and I would again.

Not enough to support my family? 

Ha, I didn't have cable, no cell phone, no new car.

Had a garden, grew food. Did odd jobs whenever I could to make a little more. 

But I went to sleep happy , I slept good.  I had provided for my family, not someone else.

Pride, and self worth.  Wish it meant something to more people.

And that last line you said is the point.  Welfare has not helped but made the situation much worse. For those who really need it and for those who really don't need it.

I sincerely doubt your words.

I have and would work before I'll accept welfare.

You can't regulate pride. What you find unacceptable others have no problem with and there is nothing you can do about that. Would you eliminate the welfare program entirely? There are people that legitimately need it: for every person cheating the system, there are many more that are genuinely in a bad place and just need a little help. Would you increase the regulation on who can get assistance? I've lost the study, but when I read it in 2008 it was found that it would cost more to do this than it would to just let the people have the money. It's a losing battle. You can't stop people from trying to take advantage of a system designed to help people, all you can do is make it so that they have incentive to get off the system: better wages, better health care, better living in general.

Give this man a cigar...he is the one with the right answer!