RE: The sting of poverty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 7:08:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

I'd really like to see the stats reflect taxPAYERS and not taxFILERS. If half the filers have no income, that really skews the numbers.


For 2005 Tax Figures....released in April 2007.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Of tax-filers with a Positive AGI (Adjusted Gross Income), 32% did not pay any taxes whatsoever.  This figure still doesn't account for those who didn't have a positive AGI, but effectively it states that 1/3 of the "taxpayers" didn't pay any taxes at all, which would skew the "taxes the rich pay" even further.



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 7:25:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Look to the Scandinavian coutries. Look to France and Germany and a few others. By "look" I mean do some research and, if possible, physically go there and experience the differences. Yes, the countries I speak of tax citizens at the rate of about 50%. However, their citizens have universal health care, free education, to any level, for everyone who wants it and can pass the exams, benefits such as, subsidized rent /mortgage payments to new single mothers, free trade schools, loans to entrepeneurs and small business startups, etc. You won't find many homeless or starving people there. Nor old folks who have to chose between eating and buying life sustaining medications. You won't find much crime there either, certainly not on the scale we have it in the U.S.

Yes, let's look at France.  A country with approximately 20% of the residents of the good ol' USA residing in approximately 7% of our land space (a space the size of Texas). 
Okay, let's look at Germany... about 30% of the residents of the US in about 3% of our land space (about half the size of Texas).

Texas currently contains about 7% of the US population.

In case you haven't figured it out, European countries are slightly more urbanized than most US states.  The population densities in Europe are equivalent to the East Coast and the West Coast, but there are many miles in between that have 4-5 people per square mile.

However, comparing apples to oranges makes a really good fruit salad!



cjan -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 7:27:29 PM)

I'd like to recommend a book by Bill Bradley that addresses all of the issues in this thread and more. The problems in society that we are discussing here are very complex and will be hard to solve. Bradley presents practical suggestions for addressing these problems. Things all citizens can do to effect a change. Bradley takes a balanced view, neither liberal nor conservative, simply pragmatic. I realize that many folks across the political spectrum are attached to their opinions. I admit I'm one of them. But I urge all interested sincere folks to read this book. Make the effort, it's worth it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x_jtGQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Bill+inauthor:Bradley&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American_Story



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 7:38:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Yep, redistribution. The only intelligent way for the poor to get out of poverty is to demand redistribution and if it doesn't happen, take the law into their own hands, then those people with something to lose will want to compromise and redistribute at least some of their wealth and keep some. It is how we have got to where we are today. If there had been no violence or threat of violence the aristocracy and the ruling classes would still consider their serfs as lazy retards who can do no better than work on their land. Today we have the capitalists and many people who should know better saying the poor are poor because they refuse to work. If I was poor and was offered a minimum wage to work in a shit job with no prospects I would say no thank you, hand me a molatov cocktail. We have poor because the economic system we have requires poor people, it is the thought that you too can be as poor too that makes many people get up in the morning and waste most of their life doings something they hate doing. Of course, the system allows a couple of people to buck the system, that way they have someone to point to and say, see, you can be successful, they did it. Of course, they never mention that if everyone became successful middleclass professionals there would be no one to shovel shit for a minimum wage so we shouldn't believe the shit capitalists tell us.


Strange, my great-great grandfather worked for minimum wage.  My great grand-father did as well.  My grandfather worked as a coal-miner.  My father worked as a heavy-equipment maintenance operator.  I am a computer programmer.  I stand on the shoulders of two generations of minimum wagers, two generations of blue-collar workers, and hold my head proudly that I am white-collar....and realize how lucky I am that each succeeding generation in my family chose to use the push from the preceding generation.  None of them quit.  They worked.  Some died from working. None of them chose the route you are suggesting (molotov cocktails) and because of their sacrifices, I am "successful".

"Everyone" will never become a middle-class professional.  That is equivalent to saying that minimum wage should be an "average wage".  The moment one person moves up (or down), the middle-class or "average wage" changes.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 8:19:11 PM)

So, in your world view there should be no middle-class?

Yeah, that's not overly myopic or anything...

[8|]



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 8:39:59 PM)

If you are referring to my reply to meatcleaver...
I fail to see any assertion that says that I believe we should (or could) eliminate the middle class.

In my world view,
-- no matter how you shift an average....half the people are going to fall below it. 
-- groupings tend to be exclusionary in some way; the term "everyone" is arbitrarily large and should be grouped with "never" and "always"
-- there is no such thing as a "living wage" because people's standards of living are different and therefore the term is a "politically-loaded" term.
-- there is no way to raise minimum wage to be a "living wage" because it is an economic impossibility; as the cost of doing business in the lowest jobs increases, the price is passed to the consumer....eventually.  Each time that "wage increase" is passed, it is marked up, thus rendering each minimum wage "increase" a net loss.
-- the US middle class will persistently exist, no matter how small it becomes, because there are people in the US who still believe (however, naive we may be) that the "American Dream" is possible.

Edited for punctuation.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 8:56:45 PM)

So even though we have evidence that European nations successfully maintain hybrid economic systems, we in the U.S. should give up our dream of a better future and just stick to the failed status quo?



subtee -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 9:14:49 PM)

None of this is really about the "sting" of poverty. The person who is deciding if he/she should give the kid a birthday party for once or instead fix the furnace feels the sting. The person whose "treat" is to take the fam to the Pizza Hut buffet for quality family time feels the sting when later they keep driving on the spare tire because of their "splurge." The person that you see with hotdogs and Oreos in the cart and then pays with food stamps and feels the attendant judgment feels the sting.

But really, we are most of us doing the best we can.

We can all look at others and take on the Horatio Alger attitude that everyone ELSE should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and change what we perceive they can change, but honestly, most of us don't stray too far from our socio-economic comfort zone...so why do we insist that "they" should?



Vampz -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 9:39:32 PM)

Wondering-
All the $ Bush spent bombing Iraq and basically destroying the US ecomony while saying he is rebuilding Iraq... has added to the poverty in US? We import more than export... Poverty has to be on increase-on news more bank robberies and of late people going right into aptment buildings and doing armed robbery door to door style.
 
I hear several have at the poor but the poor are poor due to disabilities, mental issues, not just cos they do not dig toiling at some unfilling poverty level job 40hrs w/ no health care/retirement funds/etc... Figure these people grew up undernourished, around paint that is filled w/ lead, w/ no adequate parenting....no role models... and if they can't finish school how can they be expected to follow thru at the low paid service jobs? Blows my mind people work full time, min wage and still need food cards...
 
Hello? This is the USA? WTF?



Real0ne -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 9:55:59 PM)

Well thats a tough question frankly because its like asking me which stinks less when you stir it; horse shit or cow shit you see...

The problem is that with present laws unless there is a whole package passed at once nibbling as we do will have no positive effect fo rthe people as a whole.

The way the system is now there is always a work around.  Th emore we slice and dice the more workarounds there are.  We have governmant and the corps working together since around 1860ish roughly when things started to really turn away from the republic to the criminal syndicate it is now.

I agree simply raising taxes with no legislation to prevent them from simply packing up and moving out, (hallyburton), wont work.

Rather than make an itemized unending list of "what if" solutions I think its easier simply to illustrate what the founders had in mind.

The idea or goal, or thinking, was that corps have considerably greater power than the ma and pa shops.  Ideally everyone in america could be property owners and have a shop of their own, make a good living and many would become wealthy as well.

Corporations have considerably greater buying power and leverage right out of the gate than a ma and pa shop because they have the ability to do business on a much larger scale and drive prices (theirs), lower as a result.

With that in mind corps have the ability, that is the privilege, that is the "luxury" granted to them by the people to operate in this manner and they were expected to pay a greater portion of the taxes as an equalizer of having that luxury.

This was because they did not want the ma and pa businesses wiped out by corps.  ("like we have today")

So with this in mind the corps would get charged higher taxes, they would then increase their prices and people would support the ma and pa shops.

In the beginning days there were many rules for corps that have been dissolved through bribes and legislation.

Then if the corps prices went out of bounds there would be a void in the market and this would inspire more man and pa shops to open to fill that void.

Its not even close to that.  We have adopted the failed europeon models of corrupt government that allowed corps to pay less taxes.

Now here is what happens.  The corps can now undercut the ma and pa shops because they have a near monopoly on the market.  People go yay!! wally world and cheap prices!!!

Sure for a few years.

Then slowly they ratchet those prices up where by comparison had there been any ma and pa shops around the price is now higher.

Ma and pa cant get in to compete because the anti for a discount on goods is so high as a result of bulk corp buying.

This stifles future entrepenuers and instead of having a land of many proprietors we have a land of corporations who buy each other out and become conglamorates. (monopolies)

Meanwhile ma and pa long since been driven out of business are now part of a socialist engine that powers and fuels the few at the top.

So under present legislation if we simply raise taxes on corps without passing legislation to force them to remain in this country and allow then to set up external bank accounts etc etc that is right we will have no real effect and it will come back to bite us in the ass because nothing else will have changed. (such as getting more ma and pa shops in biz)  (a corp monopoly)

It really does not matter if we work for the large corps or the gov its no different really, its all a form of socialism, while proprietorship on the other hand is what america "was" about until th eshift from protecting proprietors to corps took place.  Now we get the scraps that are left over.

I think its pointless to itemize all the issues line item by line item when it comes down to that we no longer support the people and the only thing that can fix it is government reform (when we start throwing them in jail), then get full legislation to once again protect proprietors and taxing those with ludicrous earning potential with ludicrous taxes for having the privelge luxury to make that kind of money in the first place.

I dont know how long, lets just say I cant comment on it further.



subfever -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/14/2008 10:39:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

It would seem to prove that it's very difficult to get out of the poverty trap, however much do-gooders try to help you with 'poverty initiatives' and other 'charitable' actions. So, what's the solution?

Redistribution of wealth.



Most likely wrong, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

How would you redistribute the wealth?



seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 2:24:45 AM)

I carnt help noticing in this thread that......
those of a Right Wing view appear not to accept the idea of the undeserving poor. ie they believe that its all down to application and effort and everyone will prosper.IMO thats just not true.

For example at a time of general recession, if a community has basically survived around say a coal mine or a component manufacture and those enterprises close poverty will be introduced into that community no matter how hard those that become poor have worked. The general recession ensures that for the most there is no exit path.

those of a Left Wing view are at heart authoritarians tho' they certainly dont realise it. For example we must pay a fair days pay for a fair days work, things like that. That situation can only be brought about in practice by massive costly wasteful central government expenditure.
Alternatively what will be produced will have to be decided by a Ministry of Production, which actually happens in wartime, but in a peacetime economy it requires too much interference in peoples lives.

FWIW I think the US should swing more towards European attitudes to  Social Democracy
and
Europe should swing more towards the US model of economic freedom with the possibility of failure.
ie we should meet somewhere in the middle.



meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 2:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Yep, redistribution. The only intelligent way for the poor to get out of poverty is to demand redistribution and if it doesn't happen, take the law into their own hands, then those people with something to lose will want to compromise and redistribute at least some of their wealth and keep some. It is how we have got to where we are today. If there had been no violence or threat of violence the aristocracy and the ruling classes would still consider their serfs as lazy retards who can do no better than work on their land. Today we have the capitalists and many people who should know better saying the poor are poor because they refuse to work. If I was poor and was offered a minimum wage to work in a shit job with no prospects I would say no thank you, hand me a molatov cocktail. We have poor because the economic system we have requires poor people, it is the thought that you too can be as poor too that makes many people get up in the morning and waste most of their life doings something they hate doing. Of course, the system allows a couple of people to buck the system, that way they have someone to point to and say, see, you can be successful, they did it. Of course, they never mention that if everyone became successful middleclass professionals there would be no one to shovel shit for a minimum wage so we shouldn't believe the shit capitalists tell us.


Strange, my great-great grandfather worked for minimum wage.  My great grand-father did as well.  My grandfather worked as a coal-miner.  My father worked as a heavy-equipment maintenance operator.  I am a computer programmer.  I stand on the shoulders of two generations of minimum wagers, two generations of blue-collar workers, and hold my head proudly that I am white-collar....and realize how lucky I am that each succeeding generation in my family chose to use the push from the preceding generation.  None of them quit.  They worked.  Some died from working. None of them chose the route you are suggesting (molotov cocktails) and because of their sacrifices, I am "successful".

"Everyone" will never become a middle-class professional.  That is equivalent to saying that minimum wage should be an "average wage".  The moment one person moves up (or down), the middle-class or "average wage" changes.


QuietlySeeking, capitalism requires people like you who don't think. Every time someone says 'I did it so can you.' a white van should arrive and take the said person away. If it wasn't for the workingclass struggle for improved conditions, health and education you too would be down a hole with a pick and shovel. Capitalists love people like you, they don't even have to brainwash you.

Get your handerchief out, my father was a miner too and I started work at the local mine at 15. I now work for myself and only need to work around 20 hours per week to live comfortably but I'm not stupid enough to think everyone can get into the comfortable niche I have managed to get into. Capitalism requires losers, it requires people in poverty, poverty is punishment for not living the capitalist way and refusing to accept that exploiting people is a positive virtue. Communism had gulags for desenters, capitalism has ghettoes for desenters or people who are not ideologically pure enough to succeed.



Level -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 3:26:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

I'd like to recommend a book by Bill Bradley that addresses all of the issues in this thread and more. The problems in society that we are discussing here are very complex and will be hard to solve. Bradley presents practical suggestions for addressing these problems. Things all citizens can do to effect a change. Bradley takes a balanced view, neither liberal nor conservative, simply pragmatic. I realize that many folks across the political spectrum are attached to their opinions. I admit I'm one of them. But I urge all interested sincere folks to read this book. Make the effort, it's worth it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x_jtGQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Bill+inauthor:Bradley&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American_Story



Thanks for the link, Cjan, I'm a big fan of Bradley.



blissy -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 3:33:43 AM)

i watched part of a program on tv last night (in the uk). Last year alone it said that 75,000 families lost their homes to repossession, everything seems to go up except the rates of pay (wages). a family moved here from South Africa, bought a house, both in full time employment yet struggle to make ends meet, they thought England could offer them & their son a better way of life.
While i am in no way errm..whats the word, im not sure, but it bugs me when people in this country suffer & are living on the bread line & all the commercials on tv are asking for donations of money for Africa and other countries & animals, well i guess im one of the few people that still believes that 'charity begins at home!'
well, that is just my 2 cents worth....



MmeGigs -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 4:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

those of a Left Wing view are at heart authoritarians tho' they certainly dont realise it. For example we must pay a fair days pay for a fair days work, things like that. That situation can only be brought about in practice by massive costly wasteful central government expenditure.



I don't understand how paying a fair wage is authoritarian, or where massive government expenditure would come into it.  A fair day's pay for a fair day's work means that taxpayers don't have to keep subsidizing crappy wages.  The only government expenditure would be to pass and enforce the laws establishing a fair wage.  Huge chunks of county social service agencies would be unneeded.  Government would shrink.  I thought that's what folks wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Alternatively what will be produced will have to be decided by a Ministry of Production, which actually happens in wartime, but in a peacetime economy it requires too much interference in peoples lives.



Why?  No one is suggesting that government run the economy and decide what is produced.  I would think that the effect would be the opposite - that govt. would have less reason to be involved in labor issues. 



meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:12:21 AM)

Mmegigs. You're wasting your time trying to get seeks to see sense, he has already seen the light. He thinks the whole point of life is to work and consume. Every night he gets out his prayer mat and points it towards the City of London finance houses and prayers to the godess Margeret Thatcher.



bipolarber -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:31:49 AM)

Vampz,

Bush needs to maintain a pool of poor people whom he can force into the military, but still call them volunteers... simply because they don't have any other options. Of course, once they are in the military, they get their benefits cut. Iraq needs IED fodder. Most of them come from trailer parks and backwoods areas where the local factory just got shut down and moved to India, so the stockholders can buy another facy ass car.

We're literally tearing America apart at the seams, just to stoke the fire.

The sting of poverty: having to go to the cities food bank, because you ran out of Top Ramen noodles.

The sting of poverty: taking a job on a gay sex phone line, just to keep a shitty little apartment.

The sting of poverty: going to the ER for treatment of walking pneumonia, and being asked to leave because you are unable to pay. (but being given minimal treatment, in order for them eo avoid being sued for negligence.)



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:59:07 AM)

FYI: Treating a patient before asking about payment is federal law.

The company for whom I work has a reduced/free care program for people who make 200% below the federal poverty line (or about $45,000 per year for a family of 4).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber
The sting of poverty: going to the ER for treatment of walking pneumonia, and being asked to leave because you are unable to pay. (but being given minimal treatment, in order for them eo avoid being sued for negligence.)



lalbobbilynn -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:06:27 AM)

i have extreme veneration for every post here. That is NOT to say i agree with each and every idea, i simply wish to state a humble thanks for the higher level of enlightenment this topic, and the ensuing input has afforded me.
b.~



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875