US Budget

[Gao Bohan]

Yes, people are essentially forced because if they don't do it they face poverty. They may get to choose whether to sweep floors or flip burgers for life, but that's all the choice is.

No, those aren't the only choices. You're ignoring the potential of upper mobility. No system is perfect, but ours at least offers the possibility of advancing one's economic status.

People in the process of developing skills etc are not stuck in crappy jobs because it's basically part of their education. But the single parent child born into inner city poverty who doesn't get a decent education because his mother can't afford a decent school is not developing skills to move up because there's really no where to move up to.

I worked as a tutor at a community college for a few years. I literally saw (and in a very small way, helped) inner city kids AND working parents raise themselves out of poverty. I don't believe your assertion that there's "no where to move up to" because I know firsthand it's not true.

There's no removal of incentive because as I keep repeating, a basic living wage only covers the basic rent and food costs. As I said before, the vast majority of people will not be content to sit and stare at blank walls all day, and will go out to work. They just might have a bit more choice in the kind of work they do.

Let's think about these incentives you say are non-existent. Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that works out to $15, 080. That's just about the absolute minimum a person needs to survive. $5000 or $10,000 isn't going to cut it, $15,000 barely does. Even if we lower your figure down from $20,000 to $15,000, you've just told millions of workers they have the choice of staying home or working for the same financial reward. Yeah, that's called an incentive to not work. Sure, professionals making decent money would still want to work, but that would be moot because without workers their places of business will shut down. See my point?

[CraigTPE]

America is in such deep trouble because there are all these entitlement programs for government workers and they keep on taxing the job creators. It makes no sense to tax the rich people in America. Their money gets spent on make companies and employing people where poor people generally don't spend their money well.

What a complete load of crap.

Entitlement programs for government workers? What are those? Pensions?

Cutting taxes for rich does not create jobs in America. It just makes them richer. Not so distant history has proven it. Jobs are being sent overseas because it is more profitable, which after all is the only reason a company exists. In the event of a national financial emergency, the rich gotta pitch in and help, too, not just the poor.

Nor does putting more money into the pockets of rich people result in more spending, which would actually help stimulate the economy. They are already spending about as much as they can. Putting more money into the pockets of the poor results in more spending as they need it to survive.

Poor people don't spend their money well? What the hell does that mean? Buying food to survive is somehow less valid than buying another Bentley?

[GuyInTaiwan]

Anyone want to place bets on whose smurf this is? I'm going with Almas John.

I'll go with Satellitetv Jr.

Haha, we reach agreement. I was going to say the same thing.

The English is too good, isn't it?

[cfimages]

Yes, people are essentially forced because if they don't do it they face poverty. They may get to choose whether to sweep floors or flip burgers for life, but that's all the choice is.

No, those aren't the only choices. You're ignoring the potential of upper mobility. No system is perfect, but ours at least offers the possibility of advancing one's economic status.

Not ignoring it at all. Unless you're a high school student seeking an after school job or perhaps planning a career in hospitality, working at McDonalds for instance doesn't offer much in the way of upper mobility. There are cases where it may be useful and desirable to work there but in general it's a dead end job for most. Better to leave those jobs for students looking to make some extra beer money.

People in the process of developing skills etc are not stuck in crappy jobs because it's basically part of their education. But the single parent child born into inner city poverty who doesn't get a decent education because his mother can't afford a decent school is not developing skills to move up because there's really no where to move up to.

I worked as a tutor at a community college for a few years. I literally saw (and in a very small way, helped) inner city kids AND working parents raise themselves out of poverty. I don't believe your assertion that there's "no where to move up to" because I know firsthand it's not true.

And if they had have been able to spend more time studying they'd have worked their way out of poverty so much quicker. Let them spend the time studying and training and developing their skills. Don't force them to work a dead end job when they could be better spending the time concentrating on moving up.

There's no removal of incentive because as I keep repeating, a basic living wage only covers the basic rent and food costs. As I said before, the vast majority of people will not be content to sit and stare at blank walls all day, and will go out to work. They just might have a bit more choice in the kind of work they do.

Let's think about these incentives you say are non-existent. Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that works out to $15, 080. That's just about the absolute minimum a person needs to survive. $5000 or $10,000 isn't going to cut it, $15,000 barely does. Even if we lower your figure down from $20,000 to $15,000, you've just told millions of workers they have the choice of staying home or working for the same financial reward. Yeah, that's called an incentive to not work. Sure, professionals making decent money would still want to work, but that would be moot because without workers their places of business will shut down. See my point?

You seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that people will choose a life of relative poverty staring at the walls. I disagree. I'd predict that the people that want to do that more or less already are. They are the ones cheating the system now. The ones working minimum wage jobs are not going to sit at home and spend all day doing nothing. A basic living wage is not going to allow them vacations, X-boxes and an endless supply of alcohol. Those minimum wage workers will be able to spend the time studying or training in a field they are interested in or doing a stint of volunteer or intern work for experience and in most cases, that's what they'll do. Hell, they could keep doing the minimum wage jobs and effectively give themselves twice as much money. Then they start getting ahead and having real choices, they have money to spend with helps consumption and the local economy. You scenario only works if they sit at home and do nothing and I don't believe they will.

[housecat]

Let's think about these incentives you say are non-existent. Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that works out to $15, 080. That's just about the absolute minimum a person needs to survive. $5000 or $10,000 isn't going to cut it, $15,000 barely does. Even if we lower your figure down from $20,000 to $15,000, you've just told millions of workers they have the choice of staying home or working for the same financial reward. Yeah, that's called an incentive to not work. Sure, professionals making decent money would still want to work, but that would be moot because without workers their places of business will shut down. See my point?

Hmm. I have a very good friend back in AR. This friend was raised in a middle class home by two parents. She is the only child. She did well enough in High School, but due to her spina bifida braces, always struggled a bit with self-esteem and just could not be convinced to go to university. However, though she qualifies for disability, she doesn't sit home and collect a check. She works, on her feet, in a drive through pizza joint.

Her husband, also without university education, works as a cook in a resturant. They share financial and physical responsibility of his son from a former relationship. This is a wonderful guy who supports my friend and loves her very much.

We were talking just yesterday about how she's been off work for a couple weeks because some new braces had raised very large blisters on her heels and she'd had to have them lanced and scrapped. She's back to work now, but between the two of them, they managed to bring home just under three hundred dollars this week. Utilities were half that, the car payment the other half, and they won't have money for food or gas until next week. Oh, and rent is nearly half their income. No, there aren't cheaper options. There is government subsidation of rent for single mothers or for students, but as they are married and not students, they don't qualify for that.

My friend works for two reasons. First, because she CAN. If she sat around on her bum, she'd soon not be able to walk at all, and she knows it. Secondly, when she gets a full schedule she can earn more than she could draw--but being that she works in a minimum wage job, she almost never gets a full schedule (that's the same with her husband, the cook). She even mentioned that she's off all day Sunday, but the perky seventeen year old girl they just hired is scheduled for a double shift that day!

If my friend drew disability payments, she'd still be allowed to work--a FEW hours a week. But not enough to make it worth it for the gas an inconvience for minimum wage. Instead, she makes and sells jewelry at the local bowling alley to try to suppliment her income a bit.

My friend and her husband are good people. They don't spend their money "unwisely." They simply have too little of it to survive any better than they do. My friend DOES have the option of sitting home and collecting a check, but she doesn't do it. I know that my friend is an acception though. I know many, many more who would just sit home and contribute nothing but mischief to society.

CFI, I really like your idea, but it's simply way too utopian to work--at least in the States. Hell, I had kids in my Special Ed classroom who COULD have functioned in a normal classroom, but the parents wanted them in my classroom because that meant they could get the kid diagnosed as MR--and collect an automatic $1200 per month! One of my students had seven siblings (all with different fathers), and all of them but the baby were "MR." The baby just wasn't old enough yet. You want to know how many of those kids lived with the mom who cashed those checks? Zero. Grandma was raising them all.

That's why I say, after working as a food stamp worker and a special ed teacher, I really could kick these people out on the street and end this stuff. The kids rarely see anything good from it--and it is really, heavily abused.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Bloody hell! That's over $100,000/year. That's crazy.

[housecat]

Bloody hell! That's over $100,000/year. That's crazy.

That's correct! And doesn't include food stamps and government health care for all those kids.

As that kid's teacher, I made $36,ooo for the year--and of course didn't qualify for food stamps or health care coverages.

[Mr He]

America is in such deep trouble because there are all these entitlement programs for government workers and they keep on taxing the job creators. It makes no sense to tax the rich people in America. Their money gets spent on make companies and employing people where poor people generally don't spend their money well.

What a complete load of crap.

OK, if you give money to poor people, they will spend every penny, so you will kickstart the economy faster.

[MsDoGood]

America is in such deep trouble because there are all these entitlement programs for government workers and they keep on taxing the job creators. It makes no sense to tax the rich people in America. Their money gets spent on make companies and employing people where poor people generally don't spend their money well.

What a complete load of crap.Entitlement programs for government workers? What are those? Pensions?

Cutting taxes for rich does not create jobs in America. It just makes them richer. Not so distant history has proven it. Jobs are being sent overseas because it is more profitable, which after all is the only reason a company exists. In the event of a national financial emergency, the rich gotta pitch in and help, too, not just the poor.

Nor does putting more money into the pockets of rich people result in more spending, which would actually help stimulate the economy. They are already spending about as much as they can. Putting more money into the pockets of the poor results in more spending as they need it to survive.

Poor people don't spend their money well? What the hell does that mean? Buying food to survive is somehow less valid than buying another Bentley?

Entitlement programs for government workers? What are those? Pensions?

Dear CraigTPE,

People need to expand their definition of entitlements.

Government workers get their defined compensation plan at a much earlier age than people who work in the private sector. Most people who work in the private sector don't even get a pension, it is a relic of the past (like me.) Most people say pensions are just governments way of recruiting talent away from the higher paying private sector. Well maybe it is in the short run, but in the long run it becomes a horrible burden for the government and all those employees feel entitled to it even though their counterparts in the private sector all have limp 401(k)s. What happens if you try to reduce these pension funds? Then there is a huge back lash and the employees rally in the streets and say they will no longer do their jobs. It's disgusting. When public employees do get paid their enormous benefits, they say they do it because they like to work for the public and say it's more fulfilling working for a big corporation, yet the minute they have to sacrifice, they show their true colors. All these government workers feel they are entitled to cozy jobs with great benefits.

Don't even get me started about the medical benefits these government workers get. It's insane. Living in Taiwan you take for granted cheap and abundant in health care but in America it's anything but. Yet, even though a large portion of America go without health care all these government workers expect they get great health care for themselves, their families and for their future (soon to be) retired self.

Entitlements are getting resources that you didn't work for that someone else has to pay for. Government workers do "work" but the amount of benefits they receives way out sizes the amount of work they put in compared to their private worker friends. Go ask a baby popping welfare mom about her benefits and she says she deserves them because all the work she did by having children. It's all preposterous.

Cutting taxes for rich does not create jobs in America. It just makes them richer. Not so distant history has proven it. Jobs are being sent overseas because it is more profitable, which after all is the only reason a company exists. In the event of a national financial emergency, the rich gotta pitch in and help, too, not just the poor.

Nor does putting more money into the pockets of rich people result in more spending, which would actually help stimulate the economy. They are already spending about as much as they can. Putting more money into the pockets of the poor results in more spending as they need it to survive.

Poor people don't spend their money well? What the hell does that mean? Buying food to survive is somehow less valid than buying another Bentley?

CraigTPE, this is a very understandable way of thinking. Yet, let's look at it more broadly.

The rich in America are not wealthy because they have a fat bank account or they have a big house. They are rich because they own large companies that employee lots of people. So I think it's important to "see through" how their wealth is being created. I'm pretty sure they make most of their money from capital gains & dividends not from a salary.

Currently the US forces their corporations to pay 35% of their profits to the federal government. That's HUGE.

Here are the corporate tax rates for other companies around the world.

Taiwan 17%
Russia 20%
Hong Kong 16.%
Canada 16.5%
Ireland 12.5%
America 35%

Why in Pete's name would you want to invest your money in America where you could invest your money in these other countries and get more for your dollar? The poor buy 2nd hand cars, the middle class buy homes the rich invest money into companies.

Maybe you just think I'm just a crazy old lady, well I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid! If you don't believe me, you should watch this 60 minute special on the tax issue. http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes ... QQFmfWAHuk According to the interview there are BILLIONS of dollars overseas because if they bring those dollars in, it's going to create an out sized tax liability for them.

And yes, poor people generally do not spend their money well. To me this is self evident but for most, I guess it isn't. Whenever I look at my friends who are poor, they are generally the ones buying cars they don't need (either too fast, too big or too new) or they are buying houses they can't afford, or they are having more children then they can afford, or they have never invested in an education for themselves. Most people are in bad situations because of the sum of all their prior mistakes.

Money is a funny thing, it compounds if you make good choices or it deteriorates if you make bad choices.

[housecat]

And yes, poor people generally do not spend their money well. To me this is self evident but for most, I guess it isn't. Whenever I look at my friends who are poor, they are generally the ones buying cars they don't need (either too fast, too big or too new) or they are buying houses they can't afford, or they are having more children then they can afford, or they have never invested in an education for themselves. Most people are in bad situations because of the sum of all their prior mistakes.

Money is a funny thing, it compounds if you make good choices or it deteriorates if you make bad choices.

Oh. Excuse me. Maybe we need to re-define poverty. MY poor friends don't have the money to buy a fast, big, or new car, and they sure as hell can't afford to by a house. And, IMO, buying groceries is a plenty sound financial choice--but money spent on bread and milk doesn't compound.

I just bet, MsGood, that using MY definition of "poor," you don't have a single poor friend.