PDA

View Full Version : State of the Union Speech



danziboi23
01-25-2012, 02:17 PM
Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech Last Night

Well he has a lot of adversity,it's straightforward too realize he's petitioning the wealthy people too fork out their acceptable chunk of the taxes...and damnit wealthy folks are mad about that,Business owners went left the country many moons before Obama was president,so do not blame him for joblessness.The Pres. does not have hiring control of each company ; place the blame where it belongs! If firms didnt go over seas their would be more roles and their would be less folk jobless,food stamps,public asst ! Place the blame where it's due ......he declared no more bailouts,ok we got that one covered,FOUR trillion towards state debt,that's a start..it's gonna take more than a single term in office for him too reverse the BUSH's who should be gettin the blame...it would be good if the govt would block the oil firms from upping their costs,that would help, they have enough cash;their just blinded by the greed

Bolas
01-25-2012, 07:18 PM
1. Jobs are overseas due to shortage of skilled labor. Know any good nurses, code monkeys, or engineers that are out of work? I didn't think so. Retraining is the solution, not tax increases.

2. Jobs are overseas due to more favorable corporate tax rates *ahem*. Lowering corporate taxes would result in more jobs here. Tell me true, if you could have your factory taxed at 35% or at 10%, where would you set it up? Ireland got in trouble with the EU for having corporate tax rates too low. EU was afraid too many jobs would move to Ireland.

3. Raising the minimum wage increased the joblessness among unskilled workers as well. The very workers that we have in abundance. Why not lower the minimum wage and get them back to work?

4. Firms going overseas are about simple economics. Where can the firms make the most money with the least risk? Change that equation (increase the profits or decrease the risk) and you'll see more jobs here.

5. Bush screwed up, agreed. Worst present in recent memory. Conservatives aren't supposed to spend money they don't have, and Bush violated that in a huge way by going to war when he didn't have the funds to do so. But couldn't a good leader get things going in the right direction sooner than 5 years?

6. Oil companies don't set the prices, the market sets the prices. Whoever bids the highest gets the oil. If you want the oil, out-bid the other countries that want the oil. Or put more money into fusion research, better yet. If you were a Saudi selling oil, would you sell it cheap to the US just to be "nice"? I don't think so, you'd sell it to the highest bidder. And with the exit from the gold standard, necessary due to government mismanagement (no surprise there), our currency has crashed over the last 40 years, such that a dollar has only 3% of the buying power that it had in the 1970's. Stronger dollar means cheaper oil, but we're pursuing a weak dollar policy thinking that it will help exports. Which means that oil will get more expensive, especially if the dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency. Which it will be if we try to print our way out of this mess.

7. Why should anyone pay a different percentage of taxes than their neighbor? Seems unfair to me. Far better would be a tax on consumption of non-renewable resources and on pollution. If you want to burn oil, wealthy or poor, you have to pay. That would encourage conservation of limited and non-renewable resources. It would make alternate energy look much more attractive and it would hasten it's adoption because it would make economic sense. And if you want to pollute, rich or poor, you get taxed as well. No exemptions, no caps, no trades, just taxes based on pollution. Companies that pollute less will profit more.

richardsharpe
01-25-2012, 08:04 PM
Yeah should be in Off-Topic

SmogHog
01-25-2012, 10:11 PM
Government Mandates make doing business in the US very costly.

Minimum Wage Laws
Health Care
Paid Maternity Leave
Taxes,taxes and more taxes
Reduce the size of the Federal government by 50%

Reduce the size of the population.Too many people for the number of jobs available.

Tax deductions for up to 2 children only.

Polititions that have been in office too long and have too much power.

The number of terms that can be served by Senators and Congressmen and even the President needs to be changed.

Prez = 1x5 year term
Senator = 2x4 year terms
Representative = 3x3 year terms
Governor = 1x5 year term
No politically appointed judges

Power Corrupts

Bolas
01-26-2012, 09:56 AM
Nice post, SmogHog.

arkarian
01-26-2012, 04:57 PM
1. Jobs are overseas due to shortage of skilled labor. Know any good nurses, code monkeys, or engineers that are out of work? I didn't think so. Retraining is the solution, not tax increases.



Very nicely put. I always cringe when people argue that jobs need to stay in america or products are advertised as "made in america". We need to educate the unskilled workers and stop focusing on keeping unskilled jobs in america. That way we turn those lost factory jobs into better careers.

Incognito
01-26-2012, 05:31 PM
Import tariffs once protected us from this crap. Free trade is not all it's cracked up to be. Since 1979, the average american's wage has increased 18%, not adjusted for inflation, while the top 1% of households income has increased 285%. The effects are far reaching to joe american: added stress; higher instances of obesity, higher divorce rates, higher instances of depression, etc. The average american takes far fewer days off than european counterparts as well. We "live to work" instead of "working to live". I'm only 37 and this country is a shell of what it was when I was a kid. The notion that one man, even the president, has the power to right the ship is silly. Big money runs the show.

arkarian
01-26-2012, 06:12 PM
Import tariffs once protected us from this crap. Free trade is not all it's cracked up to be. Since 1979, the average american's wage has increased 18%, not adjusted for inflation, while the top 1% of households income has increased 285%. The effects are far reaching to joe american: added stress; higher instances of obesity, higher divorce rates, higher instances of depression, etc. The average american takes far fewer days off than european counterparts as well. We "live to work" instead of "working to live". I'm only 37 and this country is a shell of what it was when I was a kid. The notion that one man, even the president, has the power to right the ship is silly. Big money runs the show.

So,,, Import tarrifs are causing obesity, divorce and depression? Am i ready something wrong?

acbatchelor
01-26-2012, 06:47 PM
Polititions that have been in office too long and have too much power.

The number of terms that can be served by Senators and Congressmen and even the President needs to be changed.

Prez = 1x5 year term
Senator = 2x4 year terms
Representative = 3x3 year terms
Governor = 1x5 year term
No politically appointed judges

Power Corrupts

I agree, except I think that the President and Governor terms are fine as is. Reducing the amount of time a bad President is in office can be helpful, but reducing the amount of time a good President is in office can hurt.

Personally, I think that the voting age should be raised to 21 and anyone who wants to vote should be required to pass a test that checks your knowledge about the candidates and about government. Too many people are voting when they don't know anything about the people they are voting for.

Also, lawyers should not be allowed to be President. Any lawyer who makes that much money is definitely corrupt. Most of them are anyway. I had a history teacher in college that used to be a lawyer. He said when he was at law school, most people passed the Bar exam by finding ways to cheat on it.

Bolas
01-27-2012, 12:33 AM
Lawyers holding all political offices = a very bad thing. Lawyers are trained to point out problems. Why not elect people that are trained to SOLVE problems? Engineers and Scientists, in other words.

I would go so far as to say that to hold a position in the house of representatives or the US senate, you should be required to have a four-year diploma from an accredited school in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics. You can have a law degree also, but you must have enough critical thinking skills to make sound and rational decisions.

I would also say that to get a driver's license, cast a ballot, create a child, drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, you should have a high school diploma. That should be the MINIMUM level of education that we require of our citizens.

I would raise the smoking age to 21. Or better yet, raise the smoking age by one year every year.

I would modify the 21 years old minimum drinking age. I'd set it at 18 if you have a high school diploma and are enrolled in a 4-year accredited college or university OR if you are enrolled in the military, but otherwise leave it at 21. If you are otherwise under 21 and caught drinking, CONGRATS, you just enlisted in the military.

powerpack
01-27-2012, 06:25 AM
Anyone one read about the wonderful working conditions for some of the workers in China. Sure helping Apples bottom line. So i guess more education and lower standard of living is the answer. Before you dump on the American worker and the 18% increase. Look a little more at the top 1% and their 200%+ increase.

I in no way think I have a simple answer. But I find some talk here and much more in the popular discourse to be exactly that. Simple answers to complex situations.

Incognito
01-27-2012, 07:44 AM
Greed is a simple concept.

Before "free trade", the tariffs protected American industry, not just the worker, but the entire economy. We produce very little, as our economy is %70 consumer based, and it's overall health is predicated on continued growth. Growth that outpaces itself long term is unsustainable - a pipe dream. One of our core problems is debt. In order to get out of debt, one must make more than one spends; an enormous undertaking for a consumer based economy. Industry must return home to make it work long term.

Maverick494
01-27-2012, 02:15 PM
Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech Last Night

Well he has a lot of adversity,it's straightforward too realize he's petitioning the wealthy people too fork out their acceptable chunk of the taxes...and damnit wealthy folks are mad about that,Business owners went left the country many moons before Obama was president,so do not blame him for joblessness.The Pres. does not have hiring control of each company ; place the blame where it belongs! If firms didnt go over seas their would be more roles and their would be less folk jobless,food stamps,public asst ! Place the blame where it's due ......he declared no more bailouts,ok we got that one covered,FOUR trillion towards state debt,that's a start..it's gonna take more than a single term in office for him too reverse the BUSH's who should be gettin the blame...it would be good if the govt would block the oil firms from upping their costs,that would help, they have enough cash;their just blinded by the greed

You do realize that the "wealthy" pay the majority of the tax burden in this country right?

97% of wage earners in the US pay an average of 11.9% in income tax. 51% of the people in the US pay no taxes (see a problem here?). The top 3% of wage earners pay approximately 90% of the tax burden in the US.

Want to fix the problem? scrap the current tax code entirely. Re-write the code so that the government is not subsidizing my mortgage interest and hundreds of other deductions that people use to essentially pay no income tax.

Flatten the tax and broaden the base. If you earn more than $15,000 a year you are subject to a 15% tax. Period. Write offs shall never exceed more than 3% being refunded (eg. kids and other dependents are worth a total of a 3% refund). Done, get rid of all these loop holes and write offs. Treat capital gains the same as income and tax them at the same rate.

Social Security: Since you are treating capital gains the same as income you can now lower the payments to people that are "wealthy," but don't have any income because all their money is coming in from investments and that is what they live off of. Oh and yes, I'd like to opt out of this PROVIDED I invest an equal amount of my income to that of the SS deduction into a retirement fund. I have to use a 1099 to prove I did and if I didn't the IRS will hit me with a penalty for the difference.

Medicare/Medicaid: you can do much the same thing with this system as SS and lower the assistance that people who can afford their own medical care (yep I am talking about a voucher system).

I won't even touch the abortion of a healthcare law that obamacare is, but there are a lot of things that could be done to help fix the system that that 2600 page bill didn't do.

Socialism is not the answer.


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Incognito
01-27-2012, 06:25 PM
There are MANY people at this time who must work 2 or more jobs just to survive. Children have parents who each work multiple jobs. Many of these have become homeless. These are not lazy or unmotivated people. When a couple can put in 120 hrs/wk and never get ahead, there is a problem. Socialism is horrible, but so is the current playing field in the US. It would be naive for one to think the coziness of the professor's/student's classroom is an accurate barometer of joe American's reality right now.

Incognito
01-27-2012, 06:31 PM
Don't believe the right wing propaganda any more than the left's. For every Obama there is a Cheney. They are all bought and paid for. Joe American will not be represented until Joe American can again run for office.

acbatchelor
01-27-2012, 10:49 PM
I agree, and I believe that there shouldn't be any political parties. All they do is fight against each other. The forefathers themselves said that political parties would be the end to this country.

SmogHog
01-28-2012, 12:35 AM
Super Pacs with the secret donor loophole that congress doesn't want to fix are the peole buying the Presidentcy for their candidate.

Special interest money from large rich donors will stop any average joe from ever getting elected.

Polititiond doen't want to cut off their cash cows.

The RIAA and MPAA own many office holders as evidenced by SOFA.

The public has started a petition asking the White House to investigate comments made by MPAA CEO Chris Dodd a few days ago on Fox News. Closing a tumultuous week of wide protest against PIPA and SOPA - two MPAA backed anti-piracy bills Dodd threatened to stop the cash-flow to politicians who dare to take a stand against pro-Hollywood legislation. Clear bribery, the petition claims, and already thousands agree.

25,000 signatures are required before the whitehouse will look into this matter.

You can directly sign up for the petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv)

You just know this will go nowhere's because the Whitehouse resident got the money too.

Incognito
01-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Petition signed! Thanks for the link smog. Time to put an end to the puppet show.

Dolphin35
01-28-2012, 05:22 PM
Also let not forget having our elected officials being paid and treated like a normal American taxpayer. No more of the following:
Special Retirement Program (Social Security only, with rules of everyone else)
Raises to salary (approve by vote of population or same as other Goverment Worker)
Special Medical Insurance (Medicare or the same as other goverment workers)
The following action to apply all current and past eleceted officals:
Salary $ 45K per year while in office only
Abolish all programs for said elected officail voted for by themselves, require as items as single line items approvall by voters in next elections
Finally the trem limits from Smog look great.

Bolas
01-29-2012, 03:50 AM
I would eliminate the minimum wage and replace it with a minimum/maximum ratio.

No employee shall be paid more than ten times the base salary of any other employee, nor more than twenty times the total compensation (bonus & benefits), of any other employee at the same company or working in the same building or facility (so that people don't weasel out of the law by hiring subcontractors). Yes, this applies to professional athletes and grounds crews as well as to CEO's and janitors. I'd call it the "equitable distribution of wealth" law. Don't need to redistribute if you do the distribution right in the first place. Furthermore, this applies to overseas employees of any company that wants to do business in the USA -- can't pay them less than half the US minimum wage (or wage ratio). That'll stop jobs from fleeing overseas for low wages, you know?

How would this work in practice... let's say that the CEO wants their salary to go up. They would then have to raise the salary of the other employees at the company. A CEO that is good enough at their job that they can pay their employees more DESERVES the raise... one that can't get more income for their employees through superior strategy DOES NOT deserve the raise... simple way to make CEO pay tied to performance rather than tied to greed!

I would also extend the following provisions to elected officials. No elected official shall earn more than twice the median salary in the state where he is elected. If the official wants to make more money, they would then have the same incentive as the hypothetical CEO listed above -- raise the standard of living in your state in order to raise your own standard of living. Can't improve conditions for your constituents? Then you don't deserve a raise. The voter's standard of living goes down? Yours should too, shared suffering.

Also, athletic coaches should not be paid more than twice the median salary of instructors for any given school. Seven figure football coach salaries at institutions of learning with five figure professor (Ph.D.) salaries shows that we have our priorities WAY out of whack. Time to prioritize what makes our nation great -- education -- rather than what makes it fun -- entertainment.

This ratio would solve a couple problems.

1. The widening gap between super rich and the poor in America.

2. Exploitation of workers by people making 460 times the average employee salary without doing 460 times the work of the average employee.

3. Strikes. Fewer strikes would be needed if every employee knew that the top man at the company was doing everything they could to raise the wages of the rank and file employee because that is the only way in which their own salary could ever go up.

4. Jobs fleeing to lower wage countries. No other country would enjoy more than a 2:1 wage ratio advantage.

Sure, importing goods would not be as cheap as now. But hey, that would make American made products a bit more price competitive.

Maverick494
01-29-2012, 04:00 AM
Bolas, what you describe is still socialism. When someone else is capped at what they can earn from their achievements by someone else it will fail because then no one tries.

It doesn't work.

Dolphin35
01-29-2012, 06:38 AM
Have one more for all. Alll elected officials must wear one piece coveralls with the logo of all the companys who gave them money. Much like Nascar drivers do. Also all elected officials must provide a statement of all forgein holding. Any deposit of over $50 K must include the name of the company or person providing the money. If an elected official claims to have no forgein holding, they must sign a swore affidivat stating such. If later investigation finds they are lying, they will be imediatley removed from office and must pay back the US Treasury any salary or expense incured by the American people since said signed statement.

Incognito
01-29-2012, 09:23 AM
Socialism is not the answer. Capitalism was a good concept until the moral fabric of America decayed to the point that our own citizens would become so greedy as to completely rape the economy of their own country. The thought was, that you could continue that trend indefinitely without it ever coming back to affect #1. When you decide to crap all over your an country for decades, eventually, that's all it'll be worth. I watched "shark tank" friday night. A guy pitched what the investors thought to be a viable and innovative business idea with enough potential to warrant the investment of the capital being requested. As it turned out, not one of the investors partnered with the man, because he was determined to keep his manufacturing in the U.S., full well knowing and accepting that that the margins would jot be as great. The sharks thought him to be absolutely ludicrous. I was absolutely disgusted; it is this kind of greedy and now, antiquated thinking that will be our undoing. It should be obvious to anyone by now his great the need is to invest here. So the margins are bit as stellar; how much is enough? Greed; continue to bend her over like a $10waste who're and that's all this country will be worth shortly.

Jonathan
01-29-2012, 12:04 PM
I find the entire thing a bit useless actually. The people in government probably have a good idea what is going on, but they don't really know how to fix it, or even if they did, they would probably lose something themselves so they don't try. I didn't watch it but basically that's what they all seem like to me.

Bolas
01-29-2012, 02:03 PM
Bolas, what you describe is still socialism. When someone else is capped at what they can earn from their achievements by someone else it will fail because then no one tries.

It doesn't work.

They aren't capped at what they can earn, only capped at the rate at which they can steal.

Do you honestly think that a CEO (let's say, Robert "Bob" Nardelli, for example) earns the company more money than 500 workers (Chrysler, in this example)?

I seriously doubt it. Those 500 workers can staff a factory that builds thousands of autos a year. I could easily see a case for him being worth more than 10 to 20 workers, but over that number... it's just exploitation of a robber baron scumbag.

Mr. Nardelli can still earn an unlimited amount of money per year, but he can not do it by using his power as CEO to set his salary at an unfair percentage of the total revenues of the company. So his salary isn't capped, it's as much as the company can make, potentially unlimited. He just is prevented from being as corrupted by power and greed as would normally happen if he's left unchecked.

Maverick494
01-29-2012, 05:42 PM
They aren't capped at what they can earn, only capped at the rate at which they can steal.

Do you honestly think that a CEO (let's say, Robert "Bob" Nardelli, for example) earns the company more money than 500 workers (Chrysler, in this example)?

I seriously doubt it. Those 500 workers can staff a factory that builds thousands of autos a year. I could easily see a case for him being worth more than 10 to 20 workers, but over that number... it's just exploitation of a robber baron scumbag.

Mr. Nardelli can still earn an unlimited amount of money per year, but he can not do it by using his power as CEO to set his salary at an unfair percentage of the total revenues of the company. So his salary isn't capped, it's as much as the company can make, potentially unlimited. He just is prevented from being as corrupted by power and greed as would normally happen if he's left unchecked.

sorry but any time you limit someone based on someone else it is socialism. you may not think he is worth it and if the investors agree they can not pay him that much or find someone worth it or that works for less. Actually by your rules he cannot earn an unlimited amount of money. he can earn 20 times the LOWEST paid employee, total. that's not unlimited.

Without someone to run a company there is no company, then 500 people have 0 income.

consider this:

median wage for a janitor in seattle is 18K, you are telling me that the apple CEO should be making 180K a year? Apple had 46 billion in revenue last year. Do we end up paying pur janitors 6 figures? If we do how much does a programmer now cost? That would drive labor rates through the roof and now what? what you are asking for is to limit my potential based on what we pay some of the lowest paying jobs. If you feel a job you do is worth more than you currently make, re-negotiate your salary or find another job. If you are unionized, well you are screwed and have very little say.

If companies are truly smart they would limit CEO income to a % of profits + % bonus if the profits are above a certain number. If a company has no profits they can set a base salary to provide for a salary say 10% above the highest paid worker. That, however, is a decision the companies make and one I would whole heartedly support even as the CEO. I would much rather tie CEO compensation to the productivity of the organization and maybe some day we'll get there.

I think you should go back and read these 5 things again:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

everything you have said is only a slight modification of those 5 things.

Incognito
01-29-2012, 06:27 PM
Somethings wrong when one guy work his butt off all week and can't pay the bills while another one works his butt off all week and rakes in millions. One doesn't work any harder than the other for this example, but were can't have a country full of CEO's or a country full of janitors. That said, joe american should be able to support his family if he busts his butt whether it be floors or portfolio management, and right now, that's just not the case.

Maverick494
01-29-2012, 07:31 PM
Somethings wrong when one guy work his butt off all week and can't pay the bills while another one works his butt off all week and rakes in millions. One doesn't work any harder than the other for this example, but were can't have a country full of CEO's or a country full of janitors. That said, joe american should be able to support his family if he busts his butt whether it be floors or portfolio management, and right now, that's just not the case.

I'm sorry, but once again you have not painted the whole picture.

The average work week for a CEO is 12 hours a day 7 days a week. That means 84 hours a week. The "joe american" average hours worked a week is 50 hours. So no you are not working as much as the CEO (if they are a good CEO).

"Joe American" can support a family if he works at it, I have known many janitors that do it. Sure it likely takes both parents to work those jobs, but it can be done. (that would be 36K a year if they both worked btw)

What Joe American can't do is afford the nicest newest cars or have 5 celphones on a unlimited plan. You and I both know they try it though. The problem isn't that "Joe American" can't support his family, its that he/she can't also have cable TV/Internet, and two new cars, and all of these other things, but they sure do want it and they go in to debt to get it. Instead of figuring out how to make more money so you can pay for what you want, not need, they just keep spending on credit.

I have prime examples of this in three different couples that are friends.

Couple 1(2 Kids) The guy works for Boeing and the Wife stays at home with the kids. They have declared bankruptcy 2 times and are very likely facing a third one. Why? because they overspend and they have a ton of debt. He makes 22 dollars an hour and they can't make ends meet because of the wants.

Couple 2(2 Kids) Both wife and husband work, together they make about 30.50 an hour. They were gifted a home in a mobile home park that has a space rental of 625 dollars a month (which includes garbage and water). They overspend and borrow like its going out of style. They went and bought a car then let it get voluntarily repossed when they wanted to get a new car and no one would take theirs in trade because they owed too much. They then bought two other cars. They already had a motorcycle. total payments on these vehicles? over 1500 dollars a month. Why did they NEED to let the other car get repo'd instead of just working to get it paid off and dealing with 1 car for a while? they didn't. To top it all off they continue to get into situations with things like payday loans and internet payday loans. All of their problems are their fault.

Couple 3(2 kids) Husband works, base rate of about 20 dollars an hour. Plus commision (if he'd get off his ass and sell). He "hates" his job, doesn't go to work or is late a lot. He wants to quit, he has quit 2 jobs and been let go from 2 others in the last 3 years. They have a negative 600 dollar a month cash flow, why? because they have celphones that cost 400 dollars a month (they were paying for two other family members), they had quite a bit of debt, and are 1400 dollars behind in rent. I just gifted them an old car I managed to get running so they had one because the one they had died and was repo'd. The car that got repo'd was not in their name luckily.

So which of these three couples aren't joe american? which of these three couples hasn't done exactly what every other person in recent decades has done?

Heck I have done it, not proud of it, but I did it too and its going to take a chapter 13 to fix my mistakes.

Living within your means is different than not being able to get your needs met. Sure there are some jobs out there that don't pay quite as well as they should, but there are lots that pay better and you have to have ambition and drive to find them and get them. The economy is slow, but growing and doing things to get wealth out of the system or spread it around as someone "in power" sees fit is not the answer.

Joe American would be just fine if Joe American would get back to making ends meet and then worrying about the wants.

Incognito
01-30-2012, 04:31 PM
I won't deny how many people I know who put themselves at risk, such as the ones you have described. At the same time, there is a disturbing trend I have seen just as much, with many companies eliminating full time employment in favor of part time, jobs continuing to be sourced overseas, and many jobs that remain actually paying less than they once did. I ak not so naive to believe the individual companies are to blame, after all, they simply must be as profitable as possible. The problem, IMO, is the climate and the parameters we have created for business to function within.

Maverick494
01-31-2012, 10:57 AM
I won't deny how many people I know who put themselves at risk, such as the ones you have described. At the same time, there is a disturbing trend I have seen just as much, with many companies eliminating full time employment in favor of part time, jobs continuing to be sourced overseas, and many jobs that remain actually paying less than they once did. I ak not so naive to believe the individual companies are to blame, after all, they simply must be as profitable as possible. The problem, IMO, is the climate and the parameters we have created for business to function within.

My dad is the vice president of manufacturing for a company in California. His company has done fairly well despite the recession. They have about 300 million dollars in cash in the bank and almost 0 debt. My dad has lost 3 of his plant workers in the last year and they will not let him hire anyone to fill the spots. Know why? because they hate this president. They hate the fact that they never know what this guy is going to slap them with next. They don't know what kind of taxes they are going to pay, and they have no idea what the climate for business is going to be in this country from one day to the next.

My dad has to go down to the floor and help assemble orders now, which he does gladly, but when you are paying someone 6 figures to run your manufacturing operations you don't really want him on the floor making parts.

That is the kind of thing business faces with the current administration. Scrapping the current tax code and getting rid of loop holes, write-offs, and special deductions will help business know exactly what the tax burden will be every year and all the time. It will also drive down costs for small to mid sized businesses because they can pay less for the accountant and tax specialists each year.

The IRS could get smaller and more streamlined. The Joe American tax payer would know exactly how much he paid in and how much he is going to get in a refund every year, without having to resort to digging for every little deduction and write-off they can.

You want to create a friendly climate for business and individual growth, make everyone pay the same amount in an uncomplicated system. This is a systemic failure that has been a problem for every society that uses a "progressive" tax system.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

its only 66 pages, but it is a "bi-partisan" report from 2010 that would've gone a LONG way to helping the current situation if any of it had been implemented and ready for Jan 1, 2012. Even that document talks of tax code changes.

Bolas
01-31-2012, 11:56 AM
You have some very solid points, Maverick. I like the bi-partisan report you linked. I like all the proposals to reform the tax code to make it uncomplicated and even across all pay rates.

Most of all, I agree with you that people are horribly stupid with their own money and show a complete failure of ability to live within their means. We clearly need more education on money management in grade school and high school. It is not being taught adequately, and 94% (or close to that percentage) fail at money management.

Personally, the only debt I have is a 30-year mortgage at a fixed 4.875%, currently being refinanced to a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3.25%. All autos paid off, all student loans paid off, all credit cards paid off in full every month. My mortgage debt is about 2x my annual salary (not an exorbitant McMansion). At age 42, I have 5 years gross salary saved for retirement in tax-sheltered accounts (401k, IRA, Roth IRA). I'm currently working on building up my emergency reserves and continuing to save for retirement, health needs (HSA), my daughter's college education, and our next auto purchase in a half-dozen or more years.

However, I still disagree that we don't need a ratio limit on salaries. Wealth stratification in extremes is not a benefit to society. Putting more money in the hands of workers who earned the money but did not receive it due to an inherently flawed system of profit distribution will improve our economy. I'm not talking about taxing and spending. I'm not limiting what any shareholder can make, nor any company owner can take as profits, merely what executives can earn as salary and bonus with respect to the rest of the company.

If some company is making insane profits (say, Apple), then yes, I would rather see all janitors making $36k and the CEO making $360k/year than their janitors making $18k and the CEO making $36M/year. That's the choice we are making. I'd rather see the janitors able to pay their own health care costs with money that they earn themselves than to have to tax the CEO to pay for their health care costs through some socialist redistribution scheme. Any way you slice it, the CEO is not doing too badly for himself or herself, whether it's at $360k/year or at $36M/year. But at the $36M/year salary, he's stealing the money that should be paid out to the other employees, and we need legislation to stop that.

You think we can't get that level of talent for less than the $36M/year? I call BS on that. I would personally do the job -- arguably better -- for quite a bit less money per year. If the CEO doesn't want to do the CEO job for $360k/year, then it's likely that they are not the right person for the job. Let them step aside, I'll do it for the $360k/year.

Glad to hear your dad is in manufacturing. I'm in manufacturing too. Masters of Science in Manufacturing Systems Engineering from Stanford, currently work for Bosch in Nebraska. We need more manufacturing in the USA, but with the high corporate tax rates, the regulatory burden, and the lack of skilled and educated workers, I don't see that happening.

Covfam
01-31-2012, 12:16 PM
My family gets screwed over by both parties. The right only gives tax breaks for the ultra rich and only the low income get tax breaks. and my wife who grew up in a poor family then worked odd jobs to go through midwife school, then worked as a midwife while going through nursing school, then went to a community college paid by herself and got a nursing degree, then went to medical school for to become a family physician. her medical school cost $270,000 in loans that we are paying off.

Now after working her butt off and racking up massive debt, she is a family physician at a rural medical clinic that employs 300 employees (her clinic is the #1 employer in the county and is not part of any major medical chain) she makes $194,000 a year before taxes and since she doesnt qualify for ANYTHING she pays 36% of her income to taxes

Yet because she runs a good buisness that not only has not layed off a single employee during the last 4 years and in fact each employee got a 3% raise each year plus matches 401k investment and pays for health insurence for each employee.

She has the left who has a major campaign of shame against her and her Medical partners because its easy for the left to target physicians because they are all RICH! and she doesnt make enough money to get all the loopholes the ultra rich get. simple fact is the hard working small/mid sized buisness owner pays a higher percentage in taxes than anyone else in the country.

Frankly i believe EVERYONE whould pay the same flat percentage of thier income with no loopholes or tax breaks. if everyone payed a flat 20% of thier income regardless of where they get thier income then everyone is carrying thier same share. and yes that would mean my wifes 20% would still be paying more actual $$ in taxes than the walmart employees 20% but it would mean that EVERYONE would be paying thier fair share.

Bolas
02-01-2012, 09:24 AM
Frankly i believe EVERYONE whould pay the same flat percentage of thier income with no loopholes or tax breaks. if everyone payed a flat 20% of thier income regardless of where they get thier income then everyone is carrying thier same share. and yes that would mean my wifes 20% would still be paying more actual $$ in taxes than the walmart employees 20% but it would mean that EVERYONE would be paying thier fair share.

I'm in agreement there. I see no reason why anyone should pay a different percentage of their income than anyone else, as far as the current income tax system works. And I certainly see no reason why 50% of the population should pay zero income tax.