Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...

[SereneHome]

OK, whoever was asking about article on US spending more on social welfare than other countries, I *think* this was the article I read before...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/09/how-the-u-s-spends-more-helping-its-citizens-than-other-rich-countries-but-gets-way-less/?utm_term=.a147a79cf19b

 

And this is another one, but it's from conservative source, so I am not sure if people will take it seriously

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/19/us-spends-far-more-on-social-welfare-than-most-european-nations/

 

There were other articles as well, I think Forbes did a story on it too.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I think more good is done than waste. Nothing will ever be completely efficient.

 

And no, I don't think people should be allowed to have millions of dollars while others go without health care (or other necessities).

 

Wealth is so much more dictated by birth lottery and connections than anything else. Just because someone drew a good number doesn't mean they should be allowed to be completely selfish if they choose to do so. No one is taking away their wealth (as was pointed out many times before). It is merely taxing excess income. They'll still have more toys and a better financial life overall if you're worried about that.

 

Think about it.

 

Person A earns 50K per year and theoretically pays no taxes - for ease of calculations.

 

Person B earns 2 million per year and would have the first 50K free of taxes just as Person A does, then for ease of calculations will be taxed at 30% on the next 950K and 75% of the second million. This leaves them $965,000 - all for one year. Exactly who is struggling financially? And who can afford more toys?

 

Why does Person B need so much more? Full pay college and pricey houses can pretty easily come out of that income if I were doing the budgeting.

 

Of course there are oodles of people between that 50K and 2 million (and outside of that range), but the numbers still work out that those who earn more, make more - esp since the first part of their earnings are taxed the same. Most people don't realize that.

"Excess income" and "should be allowed to have"

 

That's alarming. According to whom? In other countries those questions get answered by crazy people at worst or at best at the slight of other demographics. I want to keep what our family makes as much as possible to do what we want with it....which incidentally IS giving it away to starving kids in other nations, to give them education and hygiene products/lessons. We are living with less than we could so others can have more. It's a rub when people want to dictate what we do with money.

 

When you take something, in this case, money, from people who are unwilling to give it, all you do is force people into compliance with your fake rule. Is that okay? As it turns out, Americans may be some of the most generous and monetarily helpful people in the world with the billions of dollars private citizens give to charity. If you want others with less to have more, then set up successful programs that work and can take funding from donors giving willingly.

 

Right now all the existing programs have so much red tape and troubles....there's waste, misuse, illegal activity, etc.. but people want to keep feeding that broken system. It's dumping money into pits and burying it. I don't want to be part of that any more than I have to.

 

BUT if you can craft programs that DO work at local, boots on the ground, levels and not some D.C. Based bureau-lith which is out of touch with people, then I'd back that happily.

[SereneHome]

Having heard multiple stories from my grandparents, things most definitely aren't worse now post safety net intervention, but there is more that could be done - esp with health care.

 

And no, I don't think we'll eliminate poverty (ever), but I want to see to it that no one has to worry about getting basic health care or eating or an education - the necessities.  I don't think having those things should only go to the wealthy, esp knowing how much wealth depends upon the birth lottery or connections.  The same person who makes that 2 million could have drawn a different number and been born with autism or get cancer young or oodles of other things and they are no less worthy of a decent (albeit not wealthy) life.

 

Delving more deeply into how "I" would do taxation... deductions would be removed (thereby making rates lower, but income from taxes adequate and IMO more fair).  Everyone would have a certain amount tax free (as in my 50K example).  Then it would be progressive with stages and rates figured out by calculations of what is needed.

 

That would be great, and I've never met a person who said otherwise.

 

But here where it gets tricky.  All those things are highly subjective and debatable.  You can do a poll any number of people and I would be surprised if any of them agree on what constitutes "basic health care" or necessities.  And once again we already have that in place.  We have medicaid and food stamps and food banks and housing assistance and financial aid.  Paid by those "wealthy" everyone wants to keep taxing.

 

And it has NOTHING to do with anyone being less worthy!  It's simply has to do with not forcing people to give up their money.

[Scarlett]

Why do you assume that just because I'm a SAHM who also homeschools that the work I do has no value? Or that my husband just works 40 hours?

 

My dh is an LEO who very rarely works *just* 40 hours because he also has a second job that depending on the week is 20+ hours. And that doesn't include all the times he doesn't come home on time either because he gets mandated to work another four hours or because he signs up to work another 4 hours on his work day or comes in on his "off" days to work some more. Or the days you get a late complaint or deal with a drunk driver, or a domestic issue and then next thing you know, it's been another four hours past your shift end time. Sometimes he works until 3 am, goes to bed for three or four hours, gets up and goes to work some more.

 

And me? Honey, I ain't sitting on my butt all day doing nothing because if it's related to the kids or the house or anything not work related? Yup, that's me. You know why I don't volunteer? In the younger years, who would watch my kids? Now that they're older whose got time for that? The work goes up for me as they get older and have to get places. It's a good thing I rock a mean spreadsheet because keeping this all on track and stretching our money to cover needs plus some portion of wants requires some talent and planning.

 

And maybe it would be better if I went back to work? We toss that ball around off and on. The thing is, he can afford to be a good employee because I'm home with the kids. We never have to scramble to try and cover childcare because he got called in early or mandated to stay late. He can volunteer for extra shifts and be always available to his employer because I've got the kids and family life covered. He doesn't have to use his sick days to take care of sick kids because, again, I have it covered. And if I went back to work? What happens when he can't pick up the slack? Who takes care of the kids then? Will my employer be understanding when I have to take off work because dh can't just leave in the middle of a call?

 

And I've been out of the workforce for more than a decade so even if I want to go back to work can I make enough to replace what he makes at his second job? Without going back to school? And should I go back to school when we really need to be saving to send the kids to college? How likely is it that an employer wants to pick the 35+ year old woman when they can hire someone younger? Will that risk in investing in yet more education for me (so I can get a second bachelors) pay off? And if it doesn't, can we recover and not negatively impact the kids' future?

 

And always in the back of my mind I worry - what if he gets shot? What if he's killed? What if his squad car gets in an accident and he's seriously injured? Then what? With all do respect to Mr. Banker and Ms. Charity lady, I imagine in their 80 hour work weeks ever once take any of those things into consideration.

 

Seriously, you either live in some alternate world separate from the reality of the 2017 I live in, or you wear blinders based on your assumptions. I may not get a paycheck and dh and I may not be rich, but no one here's sitting around on their as*es all day, working m-f 9-5 and expecting subsidies because they're too "lazy" to work. As if 40 hours a week isn't "enough." FFS

Your last sentence is my point too. I don't care if some people choose to work 80 hours a week to have the most of everything, but people who want to work reasonable hours shouldn't have to live in abject poverty.

 

And sure we live in a fallen world, full of imperfect people and no government has figured out how to fix this problem. I completely believe this problem is beyond the abilities of humans to fix. In the meantime, I can offer acknowledgment of the disparity without suggesting or encouraging anyone to give up on doing their best.

[Bootsie]

It truly is, in so many ways, more expensive to be poor. I see and point examples out to my kids all the time.

 

Yesterday my dd had to get braces. My financing options were to pay in full and get 5% discount, pay a down payment and spread interest free financing in office over 14 months or third party financing (obviously with interest) spread out over up to 60 months.

 

I immediately opted for the in house payment plan. Dh has an HSA plan through work that we put the max in so we have a bit of a surplus plus we can take the monthly payments out of that.

 

So we will absorb the hit of braces ok and pay for them with pre-tax dollars. Ten years ago we would have had to do the outside financing. So our pre-tax, interest free braces are going to cost us less precisely because we can better afford them. We've worked hard and saved and I am glad we can handle it. I do think it has been earned...but we don't deserve cheaper braces.

 

I have never been called a liberal but it drives me nuts that people won't acknowledge the whole "rich get richer." Being poor is expensive in many many ways.

The more progressive the tax structure, the more of a wedge that is placed between the person paying pre-tax and post-tax dollars for braces.  This is support for greatly simplifying our tax code.   

[SKL]

For the sake of this discussion, suppose taxes were levied based on how much free time one had. Those who did not work were taxed the highest, followed by part-timers, then full-timers, then those who worked longer hours, and finally the workaholics were taxed the least. After all, they are contributing the most to society's economics. Those not working at all are contributing the least to a solid economic society.

 

Would all of you guys think that was fair? Probably not as you would not have time to chit chat on this board all day. You would have to go get a job, or even do public volunteer work, to avoid high taxes. You would probably be jealous at those who could afford to sit around and chit chat all day.

 

If for one second, we envision a tax rate based on contribution to society rather than the amount of the paycheck, it is easy to see why those who work their butts off are not really interested in equalizing a housewife and her 40 hour a week husband's paycheck. Now the single mom with two full time jobs and a 12 hour college load is a different story. Those people most are happy to subsidize. We awe at their capabilities and endurance. We feel they deserve what they achieve. But, now tell that mom she has to start subsidizing the housewife and her 40 hour a week husband. She may then feel defeated. What really was the point of getting ahead if one is only going to strip it away?

 

I live on a street with upper middle class people. Some people call us rich, but, we are nowhere close. There are 4 physicians on the street. All have working spouses. All work greater than 80 hours a week. There is a banker who travels. He is home 1 or 2 days a week at most. He goes into the local office on those days. We have a retired pilot who heads up some retired servicemen program. He has the most time of all my neighbors. At least I see him walk to the mailbox each day. We have one set of neighbors who are rich and do not have jobs. Both are so busy heading up charity events that they are rarely home. When they are home it is because 20 of their charity worker friends are popping by to discuss the next charity event. Her time off is the minute she gets to pose for her photo in the paper at each event. I bet she puts in easily 80 hours a week and her husband is a close second.

 

I am astounded at how many people on this board, who do not bring in an income, think there should be more economic equity. Personally, I think there should be more get up and go to work and school equity. When I was poor, I knew a lot of people with 40 hour a week jobs and some with another part time one on top of that. Now that I am not poor, I know a lot of people who are putting in 80+ hours a week. It is ironic because all the "grandeur" they can buy, doesn't really get enjoyed. But, why on earth does anyone think he deserves part of their hard labor, when he hasn't worked nearly as hard?

 

Why is it that people assume rich people do not work? Now I do not hang with the likes of the Kardashians. Maybe people like that do not work. But, I highly doubt it. I would guess they mostly work hard, too.

 

I too am wondering why people assume high income means easy work hours.  Maybe on average it tends that way, but there are many financially successful people who practically work in their sleep.  I know people who make themselves available literally 24/7 (actually I have been one and often am one, but not all year long nowadays).  Details aside, being that busy and hands-on in the business is the reason many people get successful in the first place.  And the other reason is that their motivation is usually altruistic, believe it or not.  "Spare time" is spent on volunteer work to the point of exhaustion.  Much cash is donated to good causes.  It's not what people see, and not what they want to imagine, but it is happening behind many doors.

 

Saying this does NOT mean we think low-income people don't work hard.  Some do, some don't, just like every other group.  My house cleaner just called today begging us to let her come biweekly instead of monthly, because one of her long-time clients died and she needs the money.  FTR we pay $40/hr for 2 cleaners, which I think is reasonable for the work.  We agreed - even though frankly she is not very reliable or punctual and she's caused us some headaches and I don't need or want that much cleaning - because we are not heartless.  Others will be all "well! it must be nice to have biweekly house cleaners, i.e. you must be so spoiled and selfish and you're gaining comfort off the backs of poor people."  Whatever.

Edited July 18, 2017 by SKL

[creekland]

"Excess income" and "should be allowed to have"

 

That's alarming. According to whom? In other countries those questions get answered by crazy people at worst or at best at the slight of other demographics. I want to keep what our family makes as much as possible to do what we want with it....which incidentally IS giving it away to starving kids in other nations, to give them education and hygiene products/lessons. We are living with less than we could so others can have more. It's a rub when people want to dictate what we do with money.

 

When you take something, in this case, money, from people who are unwilling to give it, all you do is force people into compliance with your fake rule. Is that okay? As it turns out, Americans may be some of the most generous and monetarily helpful people in the world with the billions of dollars private citizens give to charity. If you want others with less to have more, then set up successful programs that work and can take funding from donors giving willingly.

 

Right now all the existing programs have so much red tape and troubles....there's waste, misuse, illegal activity, etc.. but people want to keep feeding that broken system. It's dumping money into pits and burying it. I don't want to be part of that any more than I have to.

 

BUT if you can craft programs that DO work at local, boots on the ground, levels and not some D.C. Based bureau-lith which is out of touch with people, then I'd back that happily.

 

If you believe there's none of this in private charities...

 

But in general, private charities only work when enough people support them.  If everyone were to donate - and spread those donations out - then you're right.  There wouldn't be a problem.  We'd have roads, education, health care, and more.  That's what happens in an Ideal World.  The problem is... we live in the Real World.  Few donate that much (I believe the average is around 2% of their income) and when they do, certain causes hit their hearts - sometimes (like when televised, going viral, or maybe Christmas) - and others totally miss their radar leaving people in a lurch (what happened in the pre-safety net days or happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries).

 

And yes, I do think it's ok to take a certain amount of money from folks so that we ALL benefit - them included if they had needs.  It sure beats the alternative of hoping you drew that lucky number or get a lucky break via connections.

 

 

That would be great, and I've never met a person who said otherwise.

 

But here where it gets tricky.  All those things are highly subjective and debatable.  You can do a poll any number of people and I would be surprised if any of them agree on what constitutes "basic health care" or necessities.  And once again we already have that in place.  We have medicaid and food stamps and food banks and housing assistance and financial aid.  Paid by those "wealthy" everyone wants to keep taxing.

 

And it has NOTHING to do with anyone being less worthy!  It's simply has to do with not forcing people to give up their money.

 

If we do, why do we have oodles of people still choosing between health care and eating/housing/etc and wondering if they can afford to go to college (NOT meaning big name pricey schools)?

 

I suspect there's a large segment of society you don't know exists because you don't see them.  Working in a public school has showed me a wide variety of folks out there - plenty who fall through the cracks because they don't have supportive families or similar.

 

I simply do not believe any one person needs loads of money.  I never have.  I don't think all have to be equal either, but we certainly don't need as large of a wealth dispersal as we have in this country, plus, it's getting wider - and if you look closely, most of the wealthy don't really share all that much of what they have.  Those less wealthy share more - probably because they see the needs out there better - or understand just how close they are to potentially needing help themselves.

[Bootsie]

I think more good is done than waste.  Nothing will ever be completely efficient.

 

And no, I don't think people should be allowed to have millions of dollars while others go without health care (or other necessities).

 

Wealth is so much more dictated by birth lottery and connections than anything else.  Just because someone drew a good number doesn't mean they should be allowed to be completely selfish if they choose to do so.  No one is taking away their wealth (as was pointed out many times before).  It is merely taxing excess income.  They'll still have more toys and a better financial life overall if you're worried about that.

 

Think about it.  

 

Person A earns 50K per year and theoretically pays no taxes - for ease of calculations.

 

Person B earns 2 million per year and would have the first 50K free of taxes just as Person A does, then for ease of calculations will be taxed at 30% on the next 950K and 75% of the second million.  This leaves them $965,000 - all for one year.  Exactly who is struggling financially?  And who can afford more toys?

 

Why does Person B need so much more?  Full pay college and pricey houses can pretty easily come out of that income if I were doing the budgeting.

 

Of course there are oodles of people between that 50K and 2 million (and outside of that range), but the numbers still work out that those who earn more, make more - esp since the first part of their earnings are taxed the same.  Most people don't realize that.

About 240,000 people people in the US have an income over $1 million.  I doubt high tax rates on the $1 million + group will have much impact on tax revenues without greatly simplifying tax code to eliminate deductions and shelters. 

 

I would not say that Person B needs $965,000, but I also would not say that Person A needs $50,000.  

 

What if the example is Person A earns 50K a year working 40 hours per week.   Person B earns 100K a year working 80 hours per week.  How much more should Person B pay in taxes?  

 

Is it fair for others to decide how Person B spends "excess" income he doesn't "need"?  

Is it fair for others to decide how Person A spends "excess" time? 

[SereneHome]

If you believe there's none of this in private charities...

 

But in general, private charities only work when enough people support them.  If everyone were to donate - and spread those donations out - then you're right.  There wouldn't be a problem.  We'd have roads, education, health care, and more.  That's what happens in an Ideal World.  The problem is... we live in the Real World.  Few donate that much (I believe the average is around 2% of their income) and when they do, certain causes hit their hearts - sometimes (like when televised, going viral, or maybe Christmas) - and others totally miss their radar leaving people in a lurch (what happened in the pre-safety net days or happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries).

 

And yes, I do think it's ok to take a certain amount of money from folks so that we ALL benefit - them included if they had needs.  It sure beats the alternative of hoping you drew that lucky number or get a lucky break via connections.

 

 

 

If we do, why do we have oodles of people still choosing between health care and eating/housing/etc and wondering if they can afford to go to college (NOT meaning big name pricey schools)?

 

I suspect there's a large segment of society you don't know exists because you don't see them.  Working in a public school has showed me a wide variety of folks out there - plenty who fall through the cracks because they don't have supportive families or similar.

 

I simply do not believe any one person needs loads of money.  I never have.  I don't think all have to be equal either, but we certainly don't need as large of a wealth dispersal as we have in this country, plus, it's getting wider - and if you look closely, most of the wealthy don't really share all that much of what they have.  Those less wealthy share more - probably because they see the needs out there better - or understand just how close they are to potentially needing help themselves.

 

OK, so HOW do they fall through the cracks and do you really think by taking away money from what YOU consider rich people will make the poor people not fall through the cracks?

 

I really can not imagine how that would happen, if you have specific ides on how extra taxes will fill the cracks - it would be interesting to hear

 

 

[SKL]

I don't see how people can say there is no safety net in the USA.  If that's the case, let's shut down all the social programs and refund the money to the taxpayers.

[creekland]

About 240,000 people people in the US have an income over $1 million.  I doubt high tax rates on the $1 million + group will have much impact on tax revenues without greatly simplifying tax code to eliminate deductions and shelters. 

 

I would not say that Person B needs $965,000, but I also would not say that Person A needs $50,000.  

 

What if the example is Person A earns 50K a year working 40 hours per week.   Person B earns 100K a year working 80 hours per week.  How much more should Person B pay in taxes?  

 

Is it fair for others to decide how Person B spends "excess" income he doesn't "need"?  

Is it fair for others to decide how Person A spends "excess" time? 

 

As I said a couple of times in my posts, I used simple numbers to get the idea across...

 

And as I've said otherwise, I would also simplify the tax code getting rid of deductions (except probably for private charities).

 

Person A & B both get to choose how they want to spend their time - knowing full well what financial aspects there are to each choice - just as folks do now.  On this board alone we have plenty of Boardies calculating out whether more work is worth it or not.  Nothing would change.  We'd each come to our own conclusion.

[creekland]

OK, so HOW do they fall through the cracks and do you really think by taking away money from what YOU consider rich people will make the poor people not fall through the cracks?

 

I really can not imagine how that would happen, if you have specific ides on how extra taxes will fill the cracks - it would be interesting to hear

 

Usually because income levels are too high to qualify for needs, but not high enough to realistically pay for everything needed in their situation.  Sometimes because programs run out of money to support everyone who qualifies.

 

Take a look at pretty much any health insurance thread on this board and you'll get an idea.

 

But otherwise IRL, heating oil assistance, "good" food assistance, "good" housing assistance, and things like Pell Grants that are capped at just under 6K per year.  Even added to federal student loans, that's not enough to pay for a college education in many places - esp if one doesn't live close enough to commute or have a family they can stay with room & board free.

[SKL]

As for adopting policies that take from people who have "enough" and redistribute that to the poor (or rather, to the administrators of government programs), the earth is full of examples of that just making things worse.  Countries fighting to come back from such failed policies.

 

Why on earth would anyone work hard to make a contribution of any kind, if the social and government policy were to punish them for it?

 

I would rather live in a somewhat unequal society where the low-income lifestyle compares to the upper-middle lifestyle of the supposedly "equal" countries.  My friends from other countries are flabbergasted at what the US considers "poverty."

Edited July 18, 2017 by SKL

[hepatica]

Yes, many government programs have not been effective. Remember these are often programs designed to tackle some of the most difficult and intractable problems in our society. But that does not mean that no government programs work. I don't want to make this political so I will refrain from mentioning names, but one previous administration instituted an initiative to identify those federal programs that actually show evidence based results, with the hope of eventually having all or most federal discretionary spending directed only to those programs that can show results. There were some very effective programs. So it is not all or nothing. Yes red tape, yes bureaucracy, yes waste and inefficiency, but also real positive results. 

 

Take Medicaid, for example. It is a behemoth. The largest health insurance provider in the country. It is different in every state because it is administered by the states. It definitely has problems, but it also provides access to health care for countless numbers of people. It is also a workhorse program that has been expanded to deal with disasters. It was expanded after 911, after Katrina, in Flint Michigan, just to name a few. It is just not rational to say the federal government can't do anything right, so no more taxes for me. 

 

 

[Bootsie]

As I said a couple of times in my posts, I used simple numbers to get the idea across...

 

And as I've said otherwise, I would also simplify the tax code getting rid of deductions (except probably for private charities).

 

Person A & B both get to choose how they want to spend their time - knowing full well what financial aspects there are to each choice - just as folks do now.  On this board alone we have plenty of Boardies calculating out whether more work is worth it or not.  Nothing would change.  We'd each come to our own conclusion.

I know that you said you used simple numbers to get the idea across.  These simple numbers are much more likely to apply to people who are in the $50,000 to $100,000 range than people who are making $2 million +.  

 

Nothing would change as far as people making choices.  But, the choices of some people would change when faced with different constraints.  Some of these people would be the doctor I hope to take my child to.  He may decide to work only 40 hours per week meaning that it is too bad that I can't get an appointment.  I do not see how it would be especially helpful to change people's choice set to one that discourages them from working.  

[creekland]

I don't see how people can say there is no safety net in the USA.  If that's the case, let's shut down all the social programs and refund the money to the taxpayers.

 

Actually, most of us are saying there is a safety net and life is better now because of that safety net than it was previously.

 

Where the discrepancy lies is in whether that safety net goes far enough.  I think there are plenty of examples showing it doesn't - esp when it comes to health care and higher education - two things that would really benefit our whole country if we fixed them.  Not only would we have a safety net for others, some could more easily move up the economic ladder if they weren't saddled with the problems of not having one or the other - or both.

 

Those who don't have student loan debt and/or don't have health care financial worries have much better chances for a sustainable life for themselves.  This can come from family wealth or good health, of course, but for those who don't have that and don't get lucky breaks, then what?

[SKL]

FTR I agree with a safety net for health care, and I agree with helping low- and moderate-income people get an affordable education.

 

So far the proposals I've seen have low or negative bang for the buck.  They may help some of the targeted groups, but they also create a huge transfer of wealth to people outside those targeted groups.  We can do better and should not accept costly "fixes" just to shut people up.

Edited July 18, 2017 by SKL

[mamajag]

Demoralizing? How? I see it as something I aspire to. 

My entry wasn't cushioned. My mom helped where she could, but we were very poor. We took a LOT of risks to climb out, getting a job with a traveling construction company and then an entry level job in the oil field when that collapsed. We will be able to help our kids with college expenses, and we're strongly encouraging them to stay at home during college and build savings before just moving out just to do it. We'll be able to help more than my mom was. Hopefully my kids will be able to do more. This is generations of effort and ladder climbing. It's the American dream.

Take heart and do the best you can and encourage your kids to think long term about building a foundation to improve their condition. It can be done. <3

[creekland]

You and I have agreed on quite a bit in this thread.  But this line, just...yuck.  I don't believe anyone has the right to tell anyone else when they have "too much" money.  I absolutely believe that individuals in a society do need to all contribute some of their money to society as a whole for the support and improvement of that society.  I absolutely believe that we should do what we can to help those in need.  But the idea that anyone has the right to decide how much money is "too much" for any one individual to make is absolutely and completely abhorrent to me. 

 

Well, no one has suggested making the top tax rate 100%... and that's what it would take to have a "too much" definition (because at that level, no one could make more).  I think most agree that shouldn't happen.

 

As for adopting policies that take from people who have "enough" and redistribute that to the poor (or rather, to the administrators of government programs), the earth is full of examples of that just making things worse.  Countries fighting to come back from such failed policies.

 

Why on earth would anyone work hard to make a contribution of any kind, if the social and government policy were to punish them for it?

 

I would rather live in a somewhat unequal society where the low-income lifestyle compares to the upper-middle lifestyle of the supposedly "equal" countries.  My friends from other countries are flabbergasted at what the US considers "poverty."

 

The earth is full of examples that work too.   ;)  Note that the much aligned (in the US) health care system Canada has offers more hope to those with Cystic Fibrosis just as one example.  Then too, I know plenty of folks who simply like not having to worry about how much that broken arm, diaper rash, or flu visit is going to cost on the spot.  (I can look up the comparison of Cystic Fibrosis results when I have more time if folks aren't able to google it themselves - I don't have time now - MUST move on to other things after this post!).

 

Why do people work hard now?  We already have a progressive tax rate.  Has that stopped anyone?  Did it stop the Rockefellers or Morgans or Vanderbilts when the tax rate was MUCH higher?

 

Your friends from other countries - first world, or second/third?  If second/third then I'd agree with you, but I sorta like having the US as a first world country TBH...

 

I know that you said you used simple numbers to get the idea across.  These simple numbers are much more likely to apply to people who are in the $50,000 to $100,000 range than people who are making $2 million +.  

 

Nothing would change as far as people making choices.  But, the choices of some people would change when faced with different constraints.  Some of these people would be the doctor I hope to take my child to.  He may decide to work only 40 hours per week meaning that it is too bad that I can't get an appointment.  I do not see how it would be especially helpful to change people's choice set to one that discourages them from working.  

 

Well, my kid is heading off to be a doctor.  To him it's a calling, not a way to get rich.  If we get fewer doctors in who are only in it for the money, I'd argue we might be better off.  Then too, doctors who are more rested make fewer mistakes - not a bad trade off in my mind.

 

I honestly can't imagine one deciding not to work more simply because they pay more in taxes (because they still make more money). I bet the difference will be pretty negligible TBH - another scare tactic.  In the past it certainly hasn't been a problem.

Edited July 18, 2017 by creekland

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't see how people can say there is no safety net in the USA.  If that's the case, let's shut down all the social programs and refund the money to the taxpayers.

 

Well, let's take housing for example.

Out a decent one bedroom apartment or cottage in a non-prime but not crime-ridden area rents for around $2100/month.

That usually is for 1-3 people.  So bigger families are SOL if they apply, even if they are willing to cram two bunkbeds into the bedroom and have the parent or parents sleep in the living room.

 

So say there are two adults in the family, each working for the local minimum wage, which is $12/hour.  Chances are neither of them will have a 40 hour a week job because of the need to offer health insurance benefits at 30 hours, so it would be pretty normal for one to have two 25 hour per week jobs, and the other to have one.  That's 75 hours per week at $12/hour.  That's $46,800/year, which is far less than the local median income.  Housing is around $25,000/year for the one bedroom, more for a bigger place, then there are taxes, utilities, food, clothing, and transportation costs.  It's almost impossible to get by like this.

 

So then there are food stamps.  But they are above the federal poverty limit, so they can't get those.

 

Then there is Section 8, which allows them to rent a place for a set percentage (30%, I think) of their income--the government pays the rest.  This is a very helpful program, but you can't get onto the waiting list for it right now (the waiting list is closed to new applicants), and the wait for those actually on the waiting list to get a housing voucher is 8-10 years, according to the local housing authority website.  Plus the Section 8 inspections are notorious for being crazy tough, resulting in nice clean rental houses being deemed unhabitable for technical violations, so lots of landlords don't want to fool with it and won't accept the vouchers.  This concentrates the Section 8 recipients in a few areas with companies with business models of doing low income housing, so the goal of the program which is to provide good middle class affordable housing in an integrated fashion does not work out here.

 

So they turn to charity, and get food and clothes from a place like the one I'm on the board of.  (This is why our work is so important.  We keep people like this in housing by eliminating most of their other expenses--food, clothes, bedding, towels, Christmas gifts, small appliances--whatever we can get for them we give away.)  If they can't make rent or buy gas, they go to churches or other charities for help.  They make friends with others in the same boat who try to watch out for each other.

 

Probably they have medical insurance for the kids through a state program.  Unless they have 7 people in the family, though, they have too much income to qualify for MediCal, the local version of Medicaid.  So the adults probably don't have coverage.  If one of them gets sick and can't work, the whole thing falls apart, very quickly.  And then they are homeless.

 

Homeless families with kids can go to another charity, a really good one, that takes them in, gives them a room with a locking door, feeds and clothes them, and takes the kids to school and provides after school care and homework assistance.  This gives them a financial respite--they have 3-6 months there to save up first and last months' rent and get a cushion for emergencies.  Once they time out of this, 2/3 of the families go into permanent housing.  This is twice as good as most programs, but still there are 1/3 that are homeless again.  With kids.  And, as you might imagine, supply is much smaller than the demand.  The only way to get in is to call every day between 10 and 11AM and indicate that you still want a spot if one opens up.  That keeps you on a waiting list, and lets them let you know if you can have a room starting that day.  If you miss it, you go back to the bottom of the waiting list. 

 

All of the other local housing charities that I know of are for families are for parents with domestic violence or substance abuse issues. 

 

So is there a safety net?  I would say, no, not really.  The programs are too spotty to really constitute a safety net.

[mamajag]

Yes. And again, the reason we hear about them is exactly because they are not the norm. If they were, it wouldn't be news.

They aren't the norm because of generational and cultural factors common in impoverished communities. I can't tell you how many friends we lost because we kept struggling to get out. Every success cost me someone, and that's a high price to pay. Not everyone is willing to do it. My husband and I did because I had medical issues that had gone mostly untreated for years, and at the time our goal was a job that offered insurance. We made it to the low 6 figures. We're hoping to give our kids a better start than we had. This is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

 

How on Earth do you think you're entitled to the proceeds of generations of work on the part of other families? I don't mind funding a safety net for basic needs, and I'm active with local charities through my parish, but the idea that somehow our success means the government redistributing a large portion of our salary to people who are unwilling to take the chances and do the things we did makes my blood boil. The entitlement mentality is what holds people back, not other people's success.

[hepatica]

Why is it those who have made it think they did it all on their own with no government help? Sixty percent of the people who claim the mortgage interest deduction say they have never, ever used any government program. The mortgage interest deduction is a $71 billion dollar tax expenditure every single year. But if some poor person takes a subsidy for section 8 housing they are "takers." You get tax breaks for investments, for IRAs and health savings accounts, for college savings accounts. Only a small portion of the income of wealthy Americans is taxed for social security, yet all of the income of less affluent Americans is taxed. The wealthy benefit so much more from government handouts than the poor. I don't see anyone here (except creekland) offering to give up all those benefits.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by hepatica

[SereneHome]

Usually because income levels are too high to qualify for needs, but not high enough to realistically pay for everything needed in their situation.  Sometimes because programs run out of money to support everyone who qualifies.

 

Take a look at pretty much any health insurance thread on this board and you'll get an idea.

 

But otherwise IRL, heating oil assistance, "good" food assistance, "good" housing assistance, and things like Pell Grants that are capped at just under 6K per year.  Even added to federal student loans, that's not enough to pay for a college education in many places - esp if one doesn't live close enough to commute or have a family they can stay with room & board free.

 

Well, may  be that's the root of the problem - may be we shouldn't try to provide "everything needed".  RE: "good" food, housing and college assistance.  Again, subjective and relative and no two people would probably agree.

 

As I said back on page 1 or 2 - I won't address the health care topic bc 1) it's completely different from everything else and 2) even many of those "rich" people are one serious illness away from financial disaster.

[SKL]

It's interesting that you bring up Mr Rockefeller.  He is considered to be the richest American of all time and the richest person in modern history.  I am positive he is someone you would say doesn't need that much money.  Especially since he did some pretty awful things in acquiring his money. 

 

But he also gave away hundreds of millions of dollars, likely hundreds of billions in today's dollars, and more or less defined the process of modern charity. 

 

Restricting how much money he would have been allowed to "take home" or how much he would have been "required" to give, simply because he doesn't need all that money, would very likely have resulted in him being unable to give as much as he did.  He would have still given, he strongly believed in philanthropy, but if more had been taken from him early, that would have left him with less to use to make money with, decreasing his lifetime potential.

 

Obviously, none of this can be proven since history is already written the way it is. 

 

Speaking of Mr. Rockefeller, he reluctantly moved away from his home state, where he'd funded many charities, because of punitive taxes there.  Go figure.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

. Only a small portion of the income of wealthy Americans is taxed for social security, yet all of the income of less affluent Americans is taxed.

 

OK, I have to take this on a bit.  Social security benefits are capped commensurate with the cap in the income that is taxed for them.  Last year the maximum social security benefit someone could get who had 'pegged' the income limit every year was around $3500/month if he didn't start collecting it until age 70.  If the income limit for social security taxation was raised, so would be the maximum benefit.  It's designed to be a zero sum system, although it's running a surplus now because we are trying to collect more for a while to make up for not being likely to collect enough to fully self-fund down the road. 

 

I know people who live on social security almost entirely in their later years.  That and Medicare have kept the elderly alive for decades now.  These are very good programs.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[teachermom2834]

Why is it those who have made it think they did it all on their own with no government help? Sixty percent of the people who claim the mortgage interest deduction say they have never, ever used any government program. The mortgage interest deduction is a $71 billion dollar tax expenditure every single year. But if some poor person takes a subsidy for section 8 housing they are "takers." You get tax breaks for investments, for IRAs and health savings accounts, for college savings accounts. Only a small portion of the income of wealthy Americans is taxed for social security, yet all of the income of less affluent Americans is taxed. The wealthy benefit so much more from government handouts than the poor. I don't see anyone here (except creekland) offering to give up all those benefits.

While we are not remotely close to wealthy (lol), by our standards we are starting to making it to a middle class life after starting with nothing. Federal student loans and an FHA loan helped us get our start. We now take advantage of tax advantages for an HSA, retirement accounts, 529s, and higher education expenses. Those advantages are not available until one is actually in the position to use them and not needing every penny to scrape by. Many people do not even realize they are getting any benefit from government policies at all. They just think all their money is being seized to give to people who won't work.

[SKL]

Why is it those who have made it think they did it all on their own with no government help? Sixty percent of the people who claim the mortgage interest deduction say they have never, ever used any government program. The mortgage interest deduction is a $71 billion dollar tax expenditure every single year. But if some poor person takes a subsidy for section 8 housing they are "takers." You get tax breaks for investments, for IRAs and health savings accounts, for college savings accounts. Only a small portion of the income of wealthy Americans is taxed for social security, yet all of the income of less affluent Americans is taxed. The wealthy benefit so much more from government handouts than the poor. I don't see anyone here (except creekland) offering to give up all those benefits.

 

All of those tax breaks phase out long before a person would be considered "rich."

 

I didn't notice anyone saying they did it all with no government help.  Maybe some of the immigrants.  I admit I took student loans and even got maybe $1,000 in government grants when I was in undergrad.  The student loans were quite costly to me - with significant up-front fees, above-market interest rates, and the obvious fact that it all got paid back.  But I was and am glad that those were there.

 

That said, I am not sure we are structuring student aid the best way, since it seems to just increase costs overall somehow.  Just like health insurance policy seems to.  We need better thinkers to help the target groups without messing up everything else.

[Carol in Cal.]

All of those tax breaks phase out long before a person would be considered "rich."

 

 

 

This bears repeating. 

 

Many of the middle class tax breaks that people assume are for the 'wealthy' are not available to the wealthy or even to the high income, because the eligibility for them phases out before you get to the high income levels that some call 'wealthy'.

 

[SereneHome]

Why is it those who have made it think they did it all on their own with no government help? Sixty percent of the people who claim the mortgage interest deduction say they have never, ever used any government program. The mortgage interest deduction is a $71 billion dollar tax expenditure every single year. But if some poor person takes a subsidy for section 8 housing they are "takers." You get tax breaks for investments, for IRAs and health savings accounts, for college savings accounts. Only a small portion of the income of wealthy Americans is taxed for social security, yet all of the income of less affluent Americans is taxed. The wealthy benefit so much more from government handouts than the poor. I don't see anyone here (except creekland) offering to give up all those benefits.

 

 

As far as tax breaks - well......that is my money that I earned first.  I am simply not sharing that part of my earnings with the world.  So, how is that the same thing as someone getting govt assistance?

 

And no, not all income of less affluent gets taxed.  As a matter of fact, thanks to various refundable credits families can get money from the govt without paying any federal tax at all.  I'll say it again - they are not paying ANY federal tax.  At all!

[hepatica]

All of those tax breaks phase out long before a person would be considered "rich."

 

 

Well certainly not investment income tax breaks. And plenty of people I would consider well off are taking a mortgage interest deduction. 

 

Wealthy is probably not a good term because we seem to disagree on what it means. How about not poor? My point is many people are receiving government benefits that seem to come with no stigma and they don't even admit or realize that they are.

[regentrude]

I would rather live in a somewhat unequal society where the low-income lifestyle compares to the upper-middle lifestyle of the supposedly "equal" countries.  My friends from other countries are flabbergasted at what the US considers "poverty."

 

Just what kind of countries are you comparing with?

 

My friends back home are flabbergasted at what is considered acceptable in the US. They consider having to choose between food and medication, or not being able to afford medical care at all, disgraceful for a country that claims to be civilized and "first world". Visiting here and seeing the rural poverty is quite shocking to them.

 

I think you live on another planet if you believe the lifestyle of the poor in the US compares to the upper-middle lifestyle in other first world countries. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by regentrude

[hepatica]

OK, I have to take this on a bit.  Social security benefits are capped commensurate with the cap in the income that is taxed for them.  Last year the maximum social security benefit someone could get who had 'pegged' the income limit every year was around $3500/month if he didn't start collecting it until age 70.  If the income limit for social security taxation was raised, so would be the maximum benefit.  It's designed to be a zero sum system, although it's running a surplus now because we are trying to collect more for a while to make up for not being likely to collect enough to fully self-fund down the road. 

 

I know people who live on social security almost entirely in their later years.  That and Medicare have kept the elderly alive for decades now.  These are very good programs.

 

 

Good point. Although we could change the income limit to increase the solvency of the program and add in a bit of means testing. But, I realize SS is a sticky wicket. It's tricky because in order to keep people supporting the program we have to provide benefits to those who have no need for them. i think it relates to this discussion because it is again the sense that people would balk at supporting a program that only provided benefits to those who were less well off because... I don't know, they are undeserving, didn't do the right things, were unfortunate. It's such a Calvinistic view of society - your success is an indicator of your worth. I just find that disappointing. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Just what kind of countries are you comparing with?

 

My friends back home are flabbergasted at what is considered acceptable in the US. They consider having to choose between food and medication, or not being able to afford medical care at all, disgraceful for a country that claims to be civilized and "first world". Visiting here and seeing the rural poverty is quite shocking to them.

 

I think you live on another planet if you believe the lifestyle of the poor in the US compares to the upper-middle lifestyle in other first world countries.

My European relatives are shocked at our unequal schools, criminal justice abuses, inadequate maternity leave, and absolutely everything about healthcare. Some of them are expats who come home but frequently; they say the decline in some areas is more shocking if you only look at the USA from the inside on an every-ten-years basis.

 

I used to be as jingoistic as the next guy, here in the flyover states, but healthcare is threatening to sink my family. That's with *good* insurance. Once one is forced to stare down that barrel, one begins to notice other sectors that are under the gun. Too easy to lose it all, if you get sick of lose your job or make a mistake that gets you shot (or wrongly imprisoned). I don't think we are OK.

[SKL]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

[Carol in Cal.]

Good point. Although we could change the income limit to increase the solvency of the program and add in a bit of means testing. But, I realize SS is a sticky wicket. It's tricky because in order to keep people supporting the program we have to provide benefits to those who have no need for them. i think it relates to this discussion because it is again the sense that people would balk at supporting a program that only provided benefits to those who were less well off because... I don't know, they are undeserving, didn't do the right things, were unfortunate. It's such a Calvinistic view of society - your success is an indicator of your worth. I just find that disappointing. 

 

I would not want means testing for social security.  The operating assumption for it is that it's a savings program for everyone, with guarantees built in.  Now that so few have pensions, it's the only universal thing that is like that.  Actually, I wish that they would get rid of the penalty for working while collecting before 'full retirement age'.  Having more people working longer increases A)  Their personal savings or holdings, B)  Their payments into the social security and medicare systems, C)  The amount of income taxes flowing into government services and such.  So why would we penalize that?

 

ETA:  But I would favor increasing the income limit a bit faster.  And apparently that's what we are doing. 

2017  $127,200

2016  $118,500

2015  $118,500

2014  $117,000

2013  $113,700

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[hepatica]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

 

They are true. Enough said.

[SKL]

Visiting here and seeing the rural poverty is quite shocking to them.

 

You make it sound like there is no poverty in Germany / the first world outside of US.  I've certainly seen otherwise.

[regentrude]

My European relatives are shocked at our unequal schools, criminal justice abuses, inadequate maternity leave, and absolutely everything about healthcare. Some of them are expats who come home but frequently; they say the decline in some areas is more shocking if you only look at the USA from the inside on an every-ten-years basis.

 

Oh yeah, maternity leave. That is a disgrace. The US is the only country aside from Suriname and Papua New Guinea that does not have any guaranteed parental leave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

No, my European friends cannot understand this.  Born children don't seem to matter that much.

[Guest]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care. There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

You've been here long enough to remember Joanne and what her husband went through. Please.

 

And health insurance costs are the reason we still owe on our student loans and have no money for our kids college. Feels pretty horrible to me.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Moxie

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

Hello. My name is Tibbie. I have chosen between food and urgent medical care. I could introduce you to a thousand people, in the neighborhoods where I've lived and in the health care offices in which I've worked, who also know something about it.

 

I'd guess you've known people who are familiar with hard times but had no reason to share that information with you.

[regentrude]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

No. There isn't. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

SKL were you around when Joanne's husband had his health trouble?  He really truly couldn't get care.  He was permanently effected by this.

[goldberry]

, but the idea that somehow our success means the government redistributing a large portion of our salary to people who are unwilling to take the chances and do the things we did makes my blood boil. 

 

And here it is again, the idea that people are unwilling to do what it takes to succeed, and that is why they are poor.  That is not true for MOST of the poor, which is the whole point of this thread.  But it keeps showing up over and over again...

 

Does someone not deserve assistance because their grandparents and parents weren't smart enough?  No.  Not any more than we individually "deserve" or have "earned" being well off if our grandparents and parents were smart enough.

[SKL]

Good point. Although we could change the income limit to increase the solvency of the program and add in a bit of means testing. But, I realize SS is a sticky wicket. It's tricky because in order to keep people supporting the program we have to provide benefits to those who have no need for them. i think it relates to this discussion because it is again the sense that people would balk at supporting a program that only provided benefits to those who were less well off because... I don't know, they are undeserving, didn't do the right things, were unfortunate. It's such a Calvinistic view of society - your success is an indicator of your worth. I just find that disappointing. 

 

There's something to be said for living up to promises though.  If I've planned my retirement on the assumption that I'm getting Social Security (which I paid for), then I've probably made bigger donations, stopped work earlier (opening the job up for someone else), and otherwise made contributions to society instead of socking away that money for my retirement.

 

Personally I have very modest savings, if you consider that my kids will not be entitled to financial aid when they go to college.  I am counting on Social Security to pay for my basic needs if I ever make it to retirement.  I've given hundreds of thousands $$ away, which would have been less had I not counted on Social Security.  (I may turn out to be dumb for trusting that the government won't abandon old folks, but that's where I'm at right now.)

 

Also many well-off people make arrangements to donate their money in their old age or at death.  If you take that away, assuming it's not too late for them to change those donations, it will mean less for charities.

 

Best just keep the promise and pay the payments.

[goldberry]

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

 

 

You have been on this very board long enough to hear enough stories to know this is not true.  IT IS NOT TRUE.  Do you think the stories are lies?  Or are you selectively ignoring those stories?  Or are you playing with words between "urgent' and "needed"?  I would consider cancer care urgent, even if it is not "emergency care".  

[Bootsie]

 

 

 

Well, my kid is heading off to be a doctor.  To him it's a calling, not a way to get rich.  If we get fewer doctors in who are only in it for the money, I'd argue we might be better off.  Then too, doctors who are more rested make fewer mistakes - not a bad trade off in my mind.

 

I honestly can't imagine one deciding not to work more simply because they pay more in taxes (because they still make more money). I bet the difference will be pretty negligible TBH - another scare tactic.  In the past it certainly hasn't been a problem.

I did not suggest that someone would not work more simply because they pay more in taxes.  I suggested that someone would probably choose to work less if there choice set is $100 - 75% tax = $25 or $100 - 30% tax = $70.   The person is not choosing to work less because if they do they will pay $75 in taxes; the person will work less because the reward for work is only $25--it isn't worth it to work the extra hour.  That is not meant to be a scare tactic.  That is economic/consumer choice theory.  If the marginal tax rate goes up, the price of leisure goes down.   

[SKL]

People in other countries have different fears.

 

....

 

Again, I'm in favor of an effective, properly targeted health insurance safety net.

 

I'm in favor of an effective health insurance safety net.

 

I like people having access to medical care.

 

And education.  That too.

 

Just thought I'd better repeat this a few more times because you can't disagree on any point here without people assuming you don't care if children die.

[hepatica]

There's something to be said for living up to promises though.  If I've planned my retirement on the assumption that I'm getting Social Security (which I paid for), then I've probably made bigger donations, stopped work earlier (opening the job up for someone else), and otherwise made contributions to society instead of socking away that money for my retirement.

 

Personally I have very modest savings, if you consider that my kids will not be entitled to financial aid when they go to college.  I am counting on Social Security to pay for my basic needs if I ever make it to retirement.  I've given hundreds of thousands $$ away, which would have been less had I not counted on Social Security.  (I may turn out to be dumb for trusting that the government won't abandon old folks, but that's where I'm at right now.)

 

Also many well-off people make arrangements to donate their money in their old age or at death.  If you take that away, assuming it's not too late for them to change those donations, it will mean less for charities.

 

Best just keep the promise and pay the payments.

 

Not sure how this relates to my musings about SS (it's not like I said to get rid of it??)

 

And most wealthy people pass on their money to their children. Sure they donate some, but the children of the well off tend to do ok.

[Carol in Cal.]

St. Augustine wisely said:  "Hope has two daughters; their names are Anger and Courage.  Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are."

 

We here are all demonstrating Courage in areas of our lives.  We are choosing to give our children a unique and arguably better education than they could get for free from public schools.  We are choosing to educate ourselves so that we can do a great job of this.  Some of us are pursuing careers at the same time, for financial or personal reasons. 

 

That is a lot, and it is enough.  Enough to see that things do not remain as they are.  Enough to have questioned the status quo and denied it from determining our children's educational fates.

 

But for those who can, and who want to do something more, what now?  What are we going to do to make sure that our values are extended beyond our families?  Can we make sure that some other children, or maybe just one other child, can get better than normal/expected opportunities?  Can we feed and clothe people who cannot do so themselves?  We might not be able to 'fix' society, but we can certainly make it better.

 

I have Hope, and our group of homeschooling parents is one of the key reasons that that is so. 

[creekland]

It's interesting that you bring up Mr Rockefeller.  He is considered to be the richest American of all time and the richest person in modern history.  I am positive he is someone you would say doesn't need that much money.  Especially since he did some pretty awful things in acquiring his money. 

 

But he also gave away hundreds of millions of dollars, likely hundreds of billions in today's dollars, and more or less defined the process of modern charity. 

 

Restricting how much money he would have been allowed to "take home" or how much he would have been "required" to give, simply because he doesn't need all that money, would very likely have resulted in him being unable to give as much as he did.  He would have still given, he strongly believed in philanthropy, but if more had been taken from him early, that would have left him with less to use to make money with, decreasing his lifetime potential.

 

Obviously, none of this can be proven since history is already written the way it is. 

 

Also interesting to note that he did this with a 79% tax rate for his highest income, no?   ;)  It's rather amazing that he didn't need a lower rate to be wealthy and donate all his millions...

 

ETA:  Googling I found out I was incorrect.  Taxes in his era for his highest income were around 90% - and he still donated a fortune and left a bit to his family.

 

It does make one wonder just why it could happen then, but not now.

 

Well, may  be that's the root of the problem - may be we shouldn't try to provide "everything needed".  RE: "good" food, housing and college assistance.  Again, subjective and relative and no two people would probably agree.

 

As I said back on page 1 or 2 - I won't address the health care topic bc 1) it's completely different from everything else and 2) even many of those "rich" people are one serious illness away from financial disaster.

 

But we can't discount health care.  It's a MAJOR thing that needs to be fixed in this first world country.  We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that problem isn't there.  How to fix it?  Higher taxes (along with much fewer deductions) and distribute that cost out among as many as we can - along with dropping the "for profit" part of it all.

 

Speaking of Mr. Rockefeller, he reluctantly moved away from his home state, where he'd funded many charities, because of punitive taxes there.  Go figure.

 

State tax rates are completely different than what we're talking about... did he leave the country over our federal tax rate in his day?

 

As far as tax breaks - well......that is my money that I earned first.  I am simply not sharing that part of my earnings with the world.  So, how is that the same thing as someone getting govt assistance?

 

And no, not all income of less affluent gets taxed.  As a matter of fact, thanks to various refundable credits families can get money from the govt without paying any federal tax at all.  I'll say it again - they are not paying ANY federal tax.  At all!

 

You know, if you're so envious, you can change places with them.  That IS an option.

 

You might find yourself giving up a bit, but think of how much you get for free.  That should be incentive enough.

 

Well ... I've lived among poor, been poor, and have friends and relatives who are poor, and in 50 years I have never known any actual people who had to choose between food and urgent medical care.  There is always a way to get needed medical care regardless of income.

 

The horror stories people are hearing are not representative if they are even true.

 

I have always said we have room for improvement in the health safety net area, but it's not the horror the media makes it out to be.

 

So easily said until you've BTDT either yourself or with someone you know.  Obviously, those other stories can't be true.

 

I noticed a difference rather quickly when Johns Hopkins told me we had to pay up front for my type of radiation because even though it was considered the best for my tumor, many insurances wouldn't cover it and they weren't about to get burned.  They didn't trust health share would cover it.  We had to come up with mid five digits of cash for me to have what was deemed best (then we did get reimbursed 100% because health share did cover it).  What if we'd had no insurance or what if we'd had insurance that wouldn't cover it?  Then we might have qualified for a lesser type that did more brain/head damage, but absolutely no to what was considered best at keeping the most intact with fewest side effects and still being effective.  If no insurance, then we were SOL without cash unless we had a low enough income for charity - and that bar seemed to be pretty low TBH.

 

I have a distinct feeling that most can't come up with mid five digits in cash.  We wouldn't have been able to lose that amount either if health share wouldn't have reimbursed us.

Edited July 18, 2017 by creekland