Do you think incomes......

[Murphy101]

That aside, you'd be dang right we'd take food stamps before doing with out smart phones and Internet.

 

Because there is no way my dh would have gotten even the 3 short term contracts he has managed to scrounge up without them.

 

It is not only presumed that if you are applying for a professional job that you have smart phones and Internet, but that you can use them frequently. As in, "Soandso has a job opening, can I send them your resume?"

 

They don't want just a yes.

 

They expect you to have it on your phone ready to send them via email. Right then. You getting it to them right that moment, means you get to talk to them about it right then and make an impression.

 

Whereas guy without smart phone, has to go home and send an email later and hoe they remember him during a follow up call.

 

Or when they ask what kind of work you can do, you don't just tell them, you ask if they would like to see a sample via their phone and send them a demo.

 

These are at least two examples of why we most certainly had unemployment, food stamps, Internet and smart phones. My dh negotiated an awesome cell phone package right before he was laid off knowing it was coming and planning ahead. It has 100% been the smart thing to do and may have helped make the difference in finding paid work of any kind.

 

The hardest thing about being low income is a flat out inability to compete on the financial level without going into debt. Sometimes the simplest things make it amazingly hard in a world where people assume a heck of a lot without giving much thought to how low income people manage to make it happen. Every freaking thing about it is harder. From just getting dressed right, to having technology, to transportation, to childcare, to business lunches... But only those who can play the game in these areas have a chance to get the job. All others can apply, but it sure isn't likely they will get the job or keep it.

 

Anyone who thinks internet and cell phones are optional in this job market are delusional.

[Murphy101]

If I needed a job I would work for whomsoever offered one.

 

 

Really? Well then, dressing sexy and finding a nice corner at 2am should do the trick?:D:001_huh:

 

OTOH, I agree and my dh most certainly has. We will not forget for a very long time the family video ($8) around the corner opening up for hire. He couldn't even park to apply! The lot was full and people were driving in circles waiting for a parking spot to apply for two days.

 

OTOH, I think that attitude, that you should suck it up, bend over and do anything for a dollar is not necessarily always a sign of good character.

 

Yet again though, there is truth to the old saying that having a conscious is something only the well off can afford to indulge in.

[Sahamamama]

I completely understand that pay is different in different areas as are costs. One reason many of us don't understand how making 40k is not enough for a family of four is because in this area it really isn't and that is the same in many areas. I see on various sites about how one can buy a home in X location for under a 1K a month. Not here. Not in NY, or LA or Boston or many other areas.

 

Not in New Jersey. :tongue_smilie: But we do have jobs. At least some of us do, thank God. And, no, $40,000 per year for a family of four is not going to cover basic necessities (outside of public housing), not in New Jersey.

[pqr]

Really? Well then, dressing sexy and finding a nice corner at 2am should do the trick?:D:001_huh:

.

 

Mocking those poor creatures on street corners is not really funny.

[Sophia]

Really? Well then, dressing sexy and finding a nice corner at 2am should do the trick?:D:001_huh:

 

OTOH, I agree and my dh most certainly has. We will not forget for a very long time the family video ($8) around the corner opening up for hire. He couldn't even park to apply! The lot was full and people were driving in circles waiting for a parking spot to apply for two days.

 

OTOH, I think that attitude, that you should suck it up, bend over and do anything for a dollar is not necessarily always a sign of good character.

 

Yet again though, there is truth to the old saying that having a conscious is something only the well off can afford to indulge in.

 

Ouch! A little harsh, don't you think?

 

Remember this thread?

 

There are people who won't take a job unless it's just right, and I think what PQR was saying, is that he would take a job that would allow him to support his family.

[pqr]

Ouch!

There are people who won't take a job unless it's just right, and I think what PQR was saying, is that he would take a job that would allow him to support his family.

 

Correct.

 

I would take any legal job if it was the only means by which I could support my family. ANY legal job.

[Murphy101]

Mocking those poor creatures on street corners is not really funny.

 

 

Whatever. You evade the question. I'm actually not mocking them. According to your own statement, it doesn't matter what the work is as long as they are willing to work whatever job they can get, then they should do it.

 

You call them poor street creatures, but not all work the street or are poor. Is it only the obvious ones on the street you think are poor creatures? Is it acceptable for them to be on food stamps, health clinics? Or should only the really expensive call girls get nice meals and health care because they have obviously worked harder and earned it and have contributed more in taxes? (Keeping in mind prostitution is not illegal everywhere.)

 

My point is not to mock anyone.

 

My point is not all jobs are worth having and not all pay is equal to the work and morals required of the employee.

 

So would you really take ANY job that presented itself?

[pqr]

So would you really take ANY job that presented itself?

 

To put food in my children's mouths? Any legal job.....yes.

 

If a Father would die for his children how could he answer in any way but yes?

[Murphy101]

Yes, some people are picky about what job they will take.

 

But you can't assume that is the case.

 

And you can't assume if they seem picky that is the case either.

 

They might have valid reason they aren't sharing with you.

 

My dh has a difficult time with hard physical labor. He will do it. He can do it for short amount of time.

[pqr]

Yes, some people are picky about what job they will take.

 

But you can't assume that is the case.

 

And you can't assume if they seem picky that is the case either.

 

They might have valid reason they aren't sharing with you.

 

My dh has a difficult time with hard physical labor. He will do it. He can do it for short amount of time.

 

But he will do it and that makes all the difference, sounds like a man I would respect.

[Sahamamama]

Can we please stop bickering and get back to the original question?

[Rosie_0801]

What is the average percent of income spent on housing in Australia? Hoping not not sound too ignorant, but do you have to pay monthly for electricity, water and landline phone service? I really don't know how other countries function so this is an inquisitive question.:blushing:

What would a persons monthly budge include/look like?

 

I think most people spend about a quarter of their income on housing. The other Aussies should be able to chime in and comment on that. Our rent here (very SE Melbourne) is low, at $180/wk, and the place is a bit of a dump. But at least it is a 3 bedroom dump! When we were in Bendigo (2 hours NW of Melbourne) we paid $160 for a two bedroom, even more of a dump.

 

Yes we pay electricity and water on top of housing. In some places, such as a group of flats or units, water is included in the rent, but we've only had that once. We don't have to have a landline, so we aren't paying for one! Dh is on $45,000 a year at the moment, and I get roughly ten grand of social security per year. We don't live the high life and there isn't much left over at the end of each pay period :) Dh has only been working at this place for 3 months, and for the two years previous to that, we were both on social security, and lived much the same way as we do now, except we have increased to three bedrooms. We've nearly finished buying those extra bits and pieces you put off buying when you're unemployed, like ladders so you can clean the gutters, new car batteries and that kind of stuff, so we should be able to start saving a few hundred a month from now on, providing dd doesn't break any more windows. :glare: We're only a one car family too, but that's not from virtue but because dh is epileptic.

 

If we can save for two or three years to boost the bit of savings we still have, we'll be buying a three bedroom weatherboard, hopefully not too much of a dump, about an hour twenty NE of Melbourne for no more than $180,000. The prices go higher, naturally, but we won't be coz we're povvy and we know it!

 

Rosie

[cupajoe]

I haven't read the posts in the thread, but to the OP, I actually wrote a blog post earlier today along the same lines. It's been weighing on my mind ever since I heard about the Census Bureau's report yesterday about the number of Americans living below the poverty level.

If you'd like to read it, here is the link:

http://monkonthemove.blogspot.com/2010/09/as-mom-one-of-many-hats-i-wear-is-that.html

I'm certainly not an economist, and I certainly can't be sure, but I think this is part of our new reality as Americans. Sad, isn't it?

Edited September 18, 2010 by cupajoe
punctuation...ugh!

[Renee in NC]

$40-$60 K is, I suspect, more than many people on this board make.

 

Actually, past polls suggest that most families have income higher than that on this board.

 

Yet they still have internet access, cell phones, cars, etc... Hum, I wonder how they do it?

 

Not sure what you mean here, but we do it because of charitable family members and a very strict adherence to a budget. We don't pay for our internet and we have cell phones on a plan with someone else (no landline.)

 

Can we please stop bickering and get back to the original question?

 

Back to the original question - in some sectors wages will not come back. I know that blue collar jobs (construction, service, transportation, etc.) has seen a regression in wages that is horrific for many. I said in the other thread that dh is making $2 less an hour than he did 10 years ago for roughly the equivalent job. Many, many people here are making $8 an hour, so I'll feel blessed with his $10.:D

 

He's going back to college next year so that he can make $35K or so. I am going to work as well - no more homeschooling for us. I figure that I will be blessed to find something at $35K where as 5 years ago I might have made $50K+. In hindsight, we *never* should have homeschooled and I should have worked all along.

[TravelingChris]

Wages have to fall to eat up the supply. At the current rate of hiring, it will only be back to normal unemployment in 2019 or 2020. Even in people who have jobs wages are falling, usually even if their salary isn't. If you used to work and do x amount of work, and now you still get the same money but do 2x work, you are making in essence the same amount for double work and that means less pay.

 

But the reality is that some jobs are not coming back in the way they were.

[DawnM]

I do agree with this. DH has taken a pay cut of sorts. No bonus for two years and no cost of living increase or raise in two years.

 

Thankfully we see the bonus as just that, a BONUS and don't rely on it. We did use it for vacation and curriculum and some repairs on the house, so it is very much missed.....but we didn't rely on it for our living expenses as some have.

 

DH will find out in a few weeks about this year. They have been told there will be a small raise and possibly even a bonus of some sort, although I am not expecting previous numbers.

 

But the OP asked if salaries would be $10-$15. I just don't see people who have made $100K in the past being asked to work for $35K. I am not saying it couldn't happen, but I am not anticipating that it will.

 

Dawn

 

Wages have to fall to eat up the supply. At the current rate of hiring, it will only be back to normal unemployment in 2019 or 2020. Even in people who have jobs wages are falling, usually even if their salary isn't. If you used to work and do x amount of work, and now you still get the same money but do 2x work, you are making in essence the same amount for double work and that means less pay.

 

But the reality is that some jobs are not coming back in the way they were.

[Tabrett]

I haven't read the posts in the thread, but to the OP, I actually wrote a blog post earlier today along the same lines. It's been weighing on my mind ever since I heard about the Census Bureau's report yesterday about the number of Americans living below the poverty level.

If you'd like to read it, here is the link:

http://monkonthemove.blogspot.com/2010/09/as-mom-one-of-many-hats-i-wear-is-that.html

I'm certainly not an economist, and I certainly can't be sure, but I think this is part of our new reality as Americans. Sad, isn't it?

 

Hi, I made a comment on your post!:thumbup1:

[ColoradoMom]

No one deserves to make that much money, no matter what they do, but that's how our society is set up.

 

WOW. I never knew we were allowed to dictate who much money one deserves. That comment simply STUNS me.

 

Back on topic - I think everything is going down and that is not necessarily a bad thing in the end, but the adjustment to the deflation is going to be tough - especially for us small business owners.

 

I have been thinking a lot lately about how much harder I work now than I used to and the reason behind that. I am certainly not rich but I plan to be someday (I just hope Mergath doesn't come take all my hard earned money away...that attitude is really disturbing.)

 

I am prepared for whatever the economy throws at me and my family, and as a single mom I take on all the responsibility, which sucks but what can you do. We will survive because that's who we are.

 

If I wanted to I could give up homeschool and my home based business and my home based real job and go find one BIG job making 100 grand a year. But then I give up my freedom. So, I'm staying home. It's my choice to live on less money right now so I can't complain too much.

 

I do hope we see some economical growth soon though. We could probably speed up our recovery if we took the hard road - stop spending, cut government jobs, tighten our belts, and let it all reset itself. It still might take 5 years or more - but at least we wouldn't be looking at decades.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

WOW. I never knew we were allowed to dictate who much money one deserves. That comment simply STUNS me.

 

 

 

You are correct. OTOH I think CEO's who make millions are ripping off stock holders, the general public, and their employees IMHO and they should be taxed at a much higher rate as they were in the 1960's:D To me it is ridiculous that top executives of large corporations make 400-700 times as much as their employees compared to about 42 times as much in the 1960's from what I recall. It is no wonder that they are shipping are jobs overseas due to all of this greed which is a sin. No one needs this much money or is worth this much money. Our president and several other high level government jobs such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military have much harder jobs than any CEO and only earn less than $400,000/year from what I recall. I think it is time to create a new tax bracket for these multi-millionaires and tax them at least 60-70% rate as they have in days gone by:D I also think stockholders should have much more say in top executive pay as owners.

 

 

My 2 cents:).

[ma23peas]

Can we please stop bickering and get back to the original question?

 

Haven't read any responses, but I wanted to respond to the original question..

 

Here is my belief...and I'm an optimist by nature! :)

 

1. Incomes will be stagnant...my dh has had no pay raise in 3 years. He routinely received 6-10% each year before that.

 

2. Energy expenses will INCREASE....gas/electric/AC/heat will all go up.

 

3. Goods will go down in price (for awhile)..you will see more sales (cars, clothes, food in general will go up, they'll start packaging in smaller boxes but charging the same...but you will see great sales on even food, so you just have to be aware) the amount of production has stayed the same so the market is flooded with products and not enough buyers...therefore price will go down.

 

4. THEN...companies will begin to fold, all those making those products that don't have buyers will be forced to close, high unemployment.

 

5. I believe it will take 5-10 years for this to turn around...the country is so close to bankruptcy that our financial system is going to need a major adjustment....

 

3 years ago about 18 million cars were sold worldwide, last year 10 million...you had 427,000 homes go in bankruptcy in Florida alone last year, more expected this year....of those people..none are able to buy a new car...of the 100% who qualified for those 18 million for financing on a car (small percentage paid cash) less than 25% would qualify today...without capital to go around to buy the products...companies close, folks lose their jobs and it is even more important now to seriously consider what career you're in..management/sales will be hurt critically...health care is a good option..but I digress....in short.. the future is bleak and it is imperative that we have a government that STOPS spending and does some major major cutbacks...we're on the tracks speeding towards a decrepid bridge..we need to slow this train down and reinforce that bridge...or we're headed for a crash.

 

And I'm an optimist.

 

Tara

[ma23peas]

He's going back to college next year so that he can make $35K or so. I am going to work as well - no more homeschooling for us. I figure that I will be blessed to find something at $35K where as 5 years ago I might have made $50K+. In hindsight, we *never* should have homeschooled and I should have worked all along.

 

Aagh, this hurt me to read..your time with your children is irreplaceable...I would have said, "we should have waited to have children until my husband finished his degree" before I would have said we never should have homeschooled....I think it takes a lot of sacrifice, life lessons, parental devotion to homeschool...all of these virtues/experiences are far greater than what any 2nd income could have taught my children. We have been through all ups and downs, we've always survived on one income...for a year we survived on one car and my husband took a 2 hour commute on a bus each way to get to his job....but being there WITH our children to nurture and care for them far exceeds any second job....you are doing a wonderful thing and should you need to go back to work..I know you'll still be doing a great job...just don't devalue this wonderful time you've had with your family...

 

My husband finished his degree AFTER we had our second...but I was the breadwinner and he stayed home full time...his biggest regret was that he took so long to finish but he's now the breadwinner and he would never regret that we always had a parent home....the sacrifices we made were worth it, homeschooling or not.

 

Tara

[Brilliant]

I haven't read the posts in the thread, but to the OP, I actually wrote a blog post earlier today along the same lines. It's been weighing on my mind ever since I heard about the Census Bureau's report yesterday about the number of Americans living below the poverty level.

...

 

I think it would be hard to live at what the Census Bureau considers poverty level in the US.

 

But, I have been reading a lot lately about the definition of poverty. In Asia and Africa, many suffer in what's called "extreme poverty" - they literally don't know where their next meal is coming from. Their kids don't go to school (there is no school). They die from easily preventable & treatable diseases that we don't even have in the Western world. They own only the clothes (rags) on their back, and might not even have a pair of shoes.

 

The next level of poverty is also found in the developing world. These poor people have enough to get by, but not to get ahead. They *might* have access to a school for their children. But they probably don't have any running water or electricity or a myriad of other things we find to be necessities of life.

 

In the Western world (US & Europe) we have the third level of poverty. Our poor have enough food to eat (they are, in fact, overweight or obese at a much higher rate than higher-income families). They have roofs over their heads, with running water, electricity, and possibly cable TV. Their children go to school. They can get health care services.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the difficulties of being low-income in America. We have been unemployed and poor and on WIC - it was degrading. And I guess this is off the topic. But I just find it sad that we use the same word - poverty - to describe the state of 14.6% of lower-income Americans, and the state of desperate, abject poverty suffered by the poor in Mexico City or Bangladesh.

 

(The three books I have read on this topic in the last month are: Revolution in World Missions by K.P. Yohannan, The End of Poverty by J. Sachs, and The Hole in Our Gospel by R. Stearns.)

[ChrisOR]

I just saw an article yesterday online about the "lost decade of income." So true for us. Our income is almost exactly what it was in 2000. It went up for a few years in the middle part of the decade and down again. Same job that pays base+commission, same location. But our basic expenses are much higher now.

[laughing lioness]

You might want to check out Sonic Boom: Globalization at Mach Speed and The Post American World. I've reviewed them here, and here. I think we are in for a couple of decades of change on lots of different levels.

[6packofun]

The hardest thing about being low income is a flat out inability to compete on the financial level without going into debt. Sometimes the simplest things make it amazingly hard in a world where people assume a heck of a lot without giving much thought to how low income people manage to make it happen. Every freaking thing about it is harder. From just getting dressed right, to having technology, to transportation, to childcare, to business lunches... But only those who can play the game in these areas have a chance to get the job. All others can apply, but it sure isn't likely they will get the job or keep it.

 

Anyone who thinks internet and cell phones are optional in this job market are delusional.

 

Very, very true. Thank you for contributing that!

[dansamy]

My dh & I are going on 3 years with no raise. If we get to year's end with no increase, that's slightly over 3 years with no raises. Meanwhile, inflation has increased our expenses 20%. In effect, we've suffered a functional pay cut. We're still better off than people who took an actual reduction in pay plus dealing with inflation.

[Mrs Mungo]

Our president and several other high level government jobs such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military have much harder jobs than any CEO and only earn less than $400,000/year from what I recall.

 

POTUS makes $400k/year.

 

Chairman of the JCS makes around $220k, the military has a formula wherein the highest paid person may only make x times what the lowest paid person makes. I think it's a good strategy.

[Peela]

I think it would be hard to live at what the Census Bureau considers poverty level in the US.

 

But, I have been reading a lot lately about the definition of poverty. In Asia and Africa, many suffer in what's called "extreme poverty" - they literally don't know where their next meal is coming from. Their kids don't go to school (there is no school). They die from easily preventable & treatable diseases that we don't even have in the Western world. They own only the clothes (rags) on their back, and might not even have a pair of shoes.

 

The next level of poverty is also found in the developing world. These poor people have enough to get by, but not to get ahead. They *might* have access to a school for their children. But they probably don't have any running water or electricity or a myriad of other things we find to be necessities of life.

 

In the Western world (US & Europe) we have the third level of poverty. Our poor have enough food to eat (they are, in fact, overweight or obese at a much higher rate than higher-income families). They have roofs over their heads, with running water, electricity, and possibly cable TV. Their children go to school. They can get health care services.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the difficulties of being low-income in America. We have been unemployed and poor and on WIC - it was degrading. And I guess this is off the topic. But I just find it sad that we use the same word - poverty - to describe the state of 14.6% of lower-income Americans, and the state of desperate, abject poverty suffered by the poor in Mexico City or Bangladesh.

 

(The three books I have read on this topic in the last month are: Revolution in World Missions by K.P. Yohannan, The End of Poverty by J. Sachs, and The Hole in Our Gospel by R. Stearns.)

 

I think that is a very good point. Its the same in Australia. In fact, I have lived very well in my late teens/early twenties, in official poverty, by choice more or less. It really was ok. I op shopped for clothes, rode a bicycle, shared houses, never went hungry, had enough left over for the occasional coffee at a cafe. Had lots of time for the beach and friends! Poverty is quite a relative thing.

 

Our expectations are very, very high in the west. ANd our sense of entitlement. I still wonder if we are living in a false sense of security that widespread REAL poverty, as in famine, is not possible for us or our children in the next few decades.

[dansamy]

I think $250k/year is a reasonable income for an executive. Perhaps, $500k/year in areas with an elevated cost of living.

 

If my dh earned ~2x his present income, we could be comfortable middle class without me working. As it is, he makes just enough to keep us above poverty enough that we would not receive any assistance if I were home. However, his income is not so great that we could meet ourbasic necessities plus some niceties. We would be the "working poor". Sad, considering that if he fouls up his job, he can kill 200 people at once. My personal thought is that he should make more than an auto mechanic, since his job is much more critical. You can't pull a plane over at 30k feet.

[DawnM]

I was thinking about this comment. DH is in much the same position, having no raises or bonuses for over 2 years and expenses have gone up......but I have made some major changes in the way we live to compensate for the expenses and the lower income. I have been able to off-set it for the most part.

 

It isn't as fun to say no to going out for dinner or saying no to outings that cost more than we have budgeted for entertainment, but we are far more strict with our budget and I am actually glad that this has forced me to see where we have been grossly overspending.

 

I now buy mostly ingredients rather than prepared foods. I buy ALL clothing and household items from yard sales and thrift stores. I have started a YNAB account and assign every dollar a job which has really changed the way I see our income!

 

We have cut all extra curricular activities other than homeschool Tae Kwon Do ($60/month for 3 kids!) and cub/boyscouts, which is a relatively small amount of $$ overall and the biggest bang for our buck, we LOVE that and vacation or something else would be given up long before we would give up scouts.

 

If DH starts getting raises back or bonuses back I really hope that extra money can be socked away for college funds or whatever, rather than me going back to not paying attention as closely to our spending.

 

Dawn

 

My dh & I are going on 3 years with no raise. If we get to year's end with no increase, that's slightly over 3 years with no raises. Meanwhile, inflation has increased our expenses 20%. In effect, we've suffered a functional pay cut. We're still better off than people who took an actual reduction in pay plus dealing with inflation.

[nono]

I've got a few friends who work for Bill, they call the company Microslave... Sure, the MS has created jobs, many of which are not in the US. I'm guessing you were alluding to the US, but your in Europe, no?

 

All those 20,000 jobs don't mean much if they only make about $40-60k.

 

Knock knock knock. It's 2010. Billg retired from Microsoft many years ago. If you want to hate someone, please hate Steveb.

 

Scroll down here for the headcount....60% is in the U.S. Most of the U.S. jobs pay well above a $40-60K package. Matching 401K, employee stock purchase plans, stock options (now grants), and healthcare. I think your friends who call the company "Microslave" must have had some pretty cushy jobs before working there. Or else they haven't worked elsewhere. YES, the company works its people hard. That goes all the way up the line. But, as far as compensation, I'm pretty sure many people would be drooling at the packages provided by the company.

Edited September 19, 2010 by nono

[pqr]

All these comments about others deciding how much an executive should be able to earn and how we should really stick it to him in taxes are familiar.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " ----- that philosophy did not work out too well.

[ColoradoMom]

All these comments about others deciding how much an executive should be able to earn and how we should really stick it to him in taxes are familiar.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " ----- that philosophy did not work out too well.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see ONE example of where communism actually made people happy and productive and not lazy and fearful.

 

I'd like to add that I haven't gotten a raise in over 3 years as well and I'm pretty sure there aren't any on the horizon. I work for the State so I'm all for hunkering down to get us back on track - except my paycheck comes directly from the entities I regulate and not tax money. So in reality the state is stealing from my fee-paying producers and putting their money into the general tax fund for other things - which I am pretty sure is unethical if not illegal.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

All these comments about others deciding how much an executive should be able to earn and how we should really stick it to him in taxes are familiar.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " ----- that philosophy did not work out too well.

 

Gee, we had a 70 to 90% tax rate on the highest incomes in the 1960s from what I recall and we most certainly did not have communism then. In fact, I had a loved one in that tax bracket back then who did quite well and who created hundreds of jobs even though he had this tax bracket. IMHO I think a higher tax bracket for those making millions of dollars is not sticking it to them at all and is simply a matter of fairness.

 

PS I forgot to add that my loved one did not make 400 to 700 times the average employee at all. It was more in line with the less than 42 times the average employee and yet he had a very good life.

Edited September 19, 2010 by priscilla

[PineFarmMom]

All these comments about others deciding how much an executive should be able to earn and how we should really stick it to him in taxes are familiar.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " ----- that philosophy did not work out too well.

 

Exactly!! I'm praying that the number of logical humans who think clearly on issues like this will remain in the majority.

[ColoradoMom]

IMHO I think a higher tax bracket for those making millions of dollars is not sticking it to them at all and is simply a matter of fairness.

 

Fairness to whom? You? Or those who foot 90% of the bill?

 

I think we are well on our way to a flat tax with 15% as a good number. And I think EVERYONE should pay taxes - even if you only make $1000 a year and pay $150 in taxes.

 

You MUST have skin in the game or you begin to think those with more money OWE you welfare when they don't.

[DawnM]

Do you really see us WELL on our way to a flat tax? It has been talked about and talked about but I see no evidence of it actually being implemented at all. There are far too many people against it.

 

Dawn

 

Fairness to whom? You? Or those who foot 90% of the bill?

 

I think we are well on our way to a flat tax with 15% as a good number. And I think EVERYONE should pay taxes - even if you only make $1000 a year and pay $150 in taxes.

 

You MUST have skin in the game or you begin to think those with more money OWE you welfare when they don't.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Fairness to whom? You? Or those who foot 90% of the bill?

 

I think we are well on our way to a flat tax with 15% as a good number. And I think EVERYONE should pay taxes - even if you only make $1000 a year and pay $150 in taxes.

 

You MUST have skin in the game or you begin to think those with more money OWE you welfare when they don't.

 

Actually my dh and I are very blessed. I think it is fairness to all. I think those who earn more have more ability to pay and therefore should pay more. Even Warren Buffet said that he should be paying more in taxes.

 

As for a flat tax, I think that is inherently unfair to those with lower incomes. I also think it is ludicrous IMHO for someone only earning a $1000.00/year to pay income taxes since no one can live on that sort of income.

 

Of course, I am in favor of any reforms to prevent abuses of welfare, etc. but from what I understand significant reforms were already made in the 1990's. I also strongly believe that those who abuse welfare are in a minority. I know several posters reported anecdotal reports of abusers but IMHO these examples probably stick out in their mind while the majority of non-abusers do not. I think many on welfare would trade a good job for welfare any day since their standard of living would be much better with a good job.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited September 19, 2010 by priscilla

[Mergath]

Fairness to whom? You? Or those who foot 90% of the bill?

 

I think we are well on our way to a flat tax with 15% as a good number. And I think EVERYONE should pay taxes - even if you only make $1000 a year and pay $150 in taxes.

 

You MUST have skin in the game or you begin to think those with more money OWE you welfare when they don't.

 

Yes, the poor, poor multimillionaire CEOs. What a hard life it must be, toiling away in a plush office for mere millions a year. Just think, if the government taxes them at a higher level, they might have to sell off one of their European vacation homes. How traumatic.

 

The CEOs don't work any harder than the people making ten bucks an hour. They just had the good fortune to be born into a family that was able to pay for them to get a suitably impressive Ivy League education, and the connections to then get them a position making millions of dollars a year. And nothing about that deserves millions of dollars and a bunch of tax cuts to boot.

 

Right now, a step toward socialism sounds like a fine idea to me. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They're certainly more "socialist" than us- though in my opinion the term everyone uses so much as of late is completely inaccurate- and they're doing amazingly well. Best education systems in the world, happiest people, lowest poverty levels, great health care. If my great-grandparents had known what things would end up like here, they never would have left Norway.

[PineFarmMom]

Right now, a step toward socialism sounds like a fine idea to me. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They're certainly more "socialist" than us- though in my opinion the term everyone uses so much as of late is completely inaccurate- and they're doing amazingly well. Best education systems in the world, happiest people, lowest poverty levels, great health care. If my great-grandparents had known what things would end up like here, they never would have left Norway.

 

:lol::lol::lol: So that was what Dorothy was singing about!!! All this time, it was socialism and I never knew. I'll make sure and tell all those people in Cuba the truth about it. They just need a new way to view the whole thing, I'm sure!!

 

Somewhere over the rainbow

Skies are blue,

And the dreams that you dare to dream

Really do come true.

[Barry Goldwater]

Yes, the poor, poor multimillionaire CEOs. What a hard life it must be, toiling away in a plush office for mere millions a year. Just think, if the government taxes them at a higher level, they might have to sell off one of their European vacation homes. How traumatic.

 

The CEOs don't work any harder than the people making ten bucks an hour. They just had the good fortune to be born into a family that was able to pay for them to get a suitably impressive Ivy League education, and the connections to then get them a position making millions of dollars a year. And nothing about that deserves millions of dollars and a bunch of tax cuts to boot.

 

Right now, a step toward socialism sounds like a fine idea to me. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They're certainly more "socialist" than us- though in my opinion the term everyone uses so much as of late is completely inaccurate- and they're doing amazingly well. Best education systems in the world, happiest people, lowest poverty levels, great health care. If my great-grandparents had known what things would end up like here, they never would have left Norway.

 

There are too many in-accurate and erroneous statements here to parse and to rebutt...and too much envy and bitterness to have a constructive debate...Guess you're going to poison another thread...

[Melissa in Australia]

The CEOs don't work any harder than the people making ten bucks an hour. They just had the good fortune to be born into a family that was able to pay for them to get a suitably impressive Ivy League education, and the connections to then get them a position making millions of dollars a year. And nothing about that deserves millions of dollars and a bunch of tax cuts to boot.

 

.

:lol::lol::lol:

you are so funny.

 

I suggest you go and read some books like Atlas Shrugged , by Ayn Rand, and see what the world would be like if what you want to happen happens.

[Mergath]

There are too many in-accurate and erroneous statements here to parse and to rebutt...and too much envy and bitterness to have a constructive debate...Guess you're going to poison another thread...

 

Yes, because the other thread was such a ray of sunshine before I got there. If my opinion is so offensive to you, you're welcome to block me.

[Mergath]

:lol::lol::lol: So that was what Dorothy was singing about!!! All this time, it was socialism and I never knew. I'll make sure and tell all those people in Cuba the truth about it. They just need a new way to view the whole thing, I'm sure!!

 

Somewhere over the rainbow

Skies are blue,

And the dreams that you dare to dream

Really do come true.

 

I didn't say I want us to go from a democratic republic to actual socialism. As I said previously, most people who say that more government = socialism don't know what they're talking about. However, if our system of government took a page from many of the successful European countries, which people seem to *think* are socialist, I think we'd be much better off.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:lol::lol::lol:

you are so funny.

 

I suggest you go and read some books like Atlas Shrugged , by Ayn Rand, and see what the world would be like if what you want to happen happens.

 

Actually the 70-90% tax bracket did not take away the profit motive at all for my loved one in the 1950's and 1960's nor did for many, many others. A truly enterprising and industrious person will still find a way to make a profit IMHO since I have seen it happen:D This does not make me a socialist or commie because I believe in a higher tax bracket for multi-millionaires at all since I still believe in private industries and profit motives:D Lastly, those who make the most money typically benefit the most from our government IMHO even more so than those on welfare.

Edited September 19, 2010 by priscilla

[Mergath]

:lol::lol::lol:

you are so funny.

 

I suggest you go and read some books like Atlas Shrugged , by Ayn Rand, and see what the world would be like if what you want to happen happens.

 

Given that I think capitalism is one of the primary reasons our country has landed squarely in the shi**er, I doubt I'd get much out of anything by Ayn Rand.

[Vida Winter]

 

Right now, a step toward socialism sounds like a fine idea to me. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They're certainly more "socialist" than us- though in my opinion the term everyone uses so much as of late is completely inaccurate- and they're doing amazingly well. Best education systems in the world, happiest people, lowest poverty levels, great health care. If my great-grandparents had known what things would end up like here, they never would have left Norway.

 

Well you are certainly welcome to leave this horrid country and report back to us in a few years to tell us how it works out.

[Mergath]

Well you are certainly welcome to leave this horrid country and report back to us in a few years to tell us how it works out.

 

I'd love to, actually. :) I'm planning on teaching my dd Norwegian in case she wants to move there someday.

 

Also, the old "if you're going to be critical of any aspect of American society then just leave" argument gets a little old. We'd be a lot worse off now if no one ever pointed out the things that weren't working.

[pqr]

I didn't say I want us to go from a democratic republic to actual socialism. As I said previously, most people who say that more government = socialism don't know what they're talking about. However, if our system of government took a page from many of the successful European countries, which people seem to *think* are socialist, I think we'd be much better off.

 

How may Socialist countries have you lived in? Have you ever lived overseas?

[Mergath]

How may Socialist countries have you lived in? Have you ever lived overseas?

 

Actual socialist countries? None. But like I said, what many people here brand as socialism and actual socialism are usually two very different things, and I wish people would get their facts straight, because it would make it so much easier to discuss stuff like this.

 

As I said before, I think we should take a page from countries with governments that do much more to provide for their people, instead of trying to have less government. Many people here in the US would call that socialism, though it isn't.