Topic: New state taxes
started by: Self-Banished
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2013,5:25 am
Gov Dayton want to increase taxes on the top 2% (democrat, go figure) and increase the cigarette tax. Any smokers here???
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 18 2013,8:22 am
you got to pay your bills!SB~Life is tough buttercup
Posted by This is my real name on Mar. 18 2013,8:37 am
Former smoker, but I'm opposed to these so-called "elective" taxes, because eventually they come around to taxing something you do. These taxes generate some support, because their supporters wrongly feel it doesn't affect them - until it does.It might not be this particular tax that affects you, but this ABILITY to impose tax on any one thing affects us all.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2013,9:29 am
(Expatriate @ Mar. 18 2013,8:22 am)
QUOTE
you got to pay your bills!
SB~Life is tough buttercup
SB~Life is tough buttercup
Yes it is retard, yes it is
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2013,9:36 am
(This is my real name @ Mar. 18 2013,8:37 am)
QUOTE
Former smoker, but I'm opposed to these so-called "elective" taxes, because eventually they come around to taxing something you do. These taxes generate some support, because their supporters wrongly feel it doesn't affect them - until it does.
It might not be this particular tax that affects you, but this ABILITY to impose tax on any one thing affects us all.
It might not be this particular tax that affects you, but this ABILITY to impose tax on any one thing affects us all.
I agree, what happens when there aren't enough smokers(I quit over 2 years ago) or, and it's more likely to happen, the black market takes over and we get another gov. Program like the war on drugs?
What's the total gov. Take on a pack of smokes now? If this goes through it's gotta be $5.50 plus?
Yep, truly a tax on the poor.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 18 2013,12:14 pm
QUOTE
Gov Dayton want to increase taxes on the top 2% (democrat, go figure) and increase the cigarette tax. Any smokers here???
Thanks for starting the thread, I kept meaning to start a topic about the budget proposal. I'm sure there's no lack of strong opinions on this. The price on a pack/carton sure makes me glad I quit. That being said, you'll notice republicans aren't happy about him wanting to dramatically lower sales taxes and property taxes, so their problem is really about one thing; the top 2%.
Expatriate:
QUOTE
you got to pay your bills!
SB~Life is tough buttercup
SB~Life is tough buttercup
HA, S.B. shrugs off any empathy for regressive taxes like sales or property taxes skyrocketing for the middle class. He'd even suggest the person should just be homeless: after all, "they don't have a right to a home". Apparently the top 2% are the buttercups that life shouldn't be tough for.
QUOTE
What's the total gov. Take on a pack of smokes now? If this goes through it's gotta be $5.50 plus?
Yep, truly a tax on the poor.
Yep, truly a tax on the poor.
I don't recall repubs complaining about Pawlenty's "health impact fees", and there's a direct correlation between republican LGA cuts and property taxes doubling over the past decade for many households. Reversing that trend makes the tax system more proportional. But don't tell that to the republican strategists, their focus is only on those making above $250k a year.
Anyone who's been to or watched city council or county board meetings in greater Minnesota has seen the line of people at the podium about regressive taxes breaking their budget. I don't think the middle class in this state can handle much more of the republicans "no more taxes" rhetoric.
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 18 2013,12:25 pm
Since it's a global market, and we're in competition with impoverished crapholes like China and Mexico, we need to turn our country into an impoverished craphole, too. That seems to be the unspoken philosophy at work, these days.
Posted by pepi la pew on Mar. 20 2013,10:52 am
Hang on to your A$$ Dayton wants all your money, Even what you have not earned yet?
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 22 2013,7:15 am
This is what makes me puke. The libs on here bitch about who, what, and how much a person should get taxed as if it's their money. Nothing is ever said about what should get cut.Quote from Gov. Dayton
QUOTE
“Just saying no to tax increases is not a budget plan. It’s not responsible,” he said. “Those who don’t want to pay a single dollar more in taxes need to own up to the responsibility to tell us what are the consequences of that.”
How about rephrasing your question Mr. Governor:
Just saying no to budget cuts is not a budget plan. It's not responsible. Those who don't want to cut a single dollar more in spending need to own up to the responsibility to tell us what are the consequences of that.
A typical "middle class" family can't run a budget like this so why do we let our government.
Same old tax and spend donkocrats. Nothing will ever change.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 22 2013,7:23 am
IEQUOTE
I don't recall repubs complaining about Pawlenty's "health impact fees", and there's a direct correlation between republican LGA cuts and property taxes doubling over the past decade for many households. Reversing that trend makes the tax system more proportional. But don't tell that to the republican strategists, they're focus is only on those making above $250k a year.
And I think there is a direct correlation with all of the new government buildings and schools being built all over the state during a recession..and the lack of people willing to take their local governments to task.
...nuff said
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 22 2013,7:30 am
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 22 2013,7:15 am)
QUOTE
This is what makes me puke. The libs on here bitch about who, what, and how much a person should get taxed as if it's their money. Nothing is ever said about what should get cut.
Quote from Gov. Dayton
How about rephrasing your question Mr. Governor:
Just saying no to budget cuts is not a budget plan. It's not responsible. Those who don't want to cut a single dollar more in spending need to own up to the responsibility to tell us what are the consequences of that.
A typical "middle class" family can't run a budget like this so why do we let our government.
Same old tax and spend donkocrats. Nothing will ever change.
Quote from Gov. Dayton
QUOTE
“Just saying no to tax increases is not a budget plan. It’s not responsible,” he said. “Those who don’t want to pay a single dollar more in taxes need to own up to the responsibility to tell us what are the consequences of that.”
How about rephrasing your question Mr. Governor:
Just saying no to budget cuts is not a budget plan. It's not responsible. Those who don't want to cut a single dollar more in spending need to own up to the responsibility to tell us what are the consequences of that.
A typical "middle class" family can't run a budget like this so why do we let our government.
Same old tax and spend donkocrats. Nothing will ever change.
Well CC, these people and/or companies can either own up to these tax increases or they can do what they have been doing, moving.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2013,7:56 am
From Irish:HA, S.B. shrugs off any empathy for regressive taxes like sales or property taxes skyrocketing for the middle class. He'd even suggest the person should just be homeless: after all, "they don't have a right to a home". Apparently the top 2% are the buttercups that life shouldn't be tough for.
Taxes are skyrocketing from doorknob politicians that the masses have elected, elected because they think they're going to get something for nothing. These idiots are getting what they deserve and far as taxes are concerned.
The ones that are really paying the freight for everyone else are the upper middle class and up. I don't mind paying taxes but what gets me in paying for people that continually and generationally use the welfare system.
Housing? Food? No one has a right to them, one has a right to pursue happiness but not take food from my family's mouth and put in theirs. Can't make a living on minimum wage, maybe you need to sell a few toys, opt to cancel your cable and internet. Can't feed your family on minimum wage? should have considered that before your knocked up the "trailer park princess" two doors down.
This time of year is one of my favorites, tax refund time. I hear all the time,"I'm getting so much $$$ back from the gov. It's either that the person didn't pay squat into the system and are getting tax credits, or the dumdass has made an interest free loan to the gov. for the year.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 23 2013,12:34 pm
Interestingly I watched 2days of state legislature committee meetings on dhs and implementing the affordable care act in the state by 2014. One republican representative expressed concern over the proposals presented for vote stating it would penalize married couples and was too expensive for the middle class, the taxes proposed would affect the middle class, especially for those not opting to buy into the co-op but choosing to keep their current insurance the cost per individual is too expensive. That those choosing to be part of the co-op their costs would increase $490 to 1200 per person and for less coverage. Then a democrat rep. spoke up and said, "I have better things to do than listen to this, I'll be back when its time to vote"! Another republican chimed in saying the cost to the middle class needs to be considered and options weighed. Another democrat interrupted, "madam chairman I move we stop this discussion and move for a vote"! No wonder Washington can't get anything done. A republican presents a plan...the democrats turn a blind eye and deaf ear...and the media has a hay day misrepresenting and misquoting!
Posted by grassman on Mar. 24 2013,7:54 am
Seems to be the pattern preferred by both sides of the isle. Bunch of third graders having a pissy party. It is not one sided. When people will step up on that, something may change. If the followers of each party backs up their party right or wrong, why would they change.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 25 2013,6:59 am
QUOTE
Dayton’s snowbird tax causes some heartburn
ST. PAUL — Gov. Mark Dayton’s plan for an income tax on snowbirds is generating heat from people who say it could wind up driving out long-term visitors.
Right now, only people who live in Minnesota more than six months of the year have to pay state income taxes. Dayton would extend that to anyone who spends 60 or more days a year in Minnesota, raising an estimated $15 million a year, although even the governor himself has expressed doubts that the proposal can pass.
The governor says it’s a matter of fairness — that anyone who uses the same service everyone else does should pay their fair share. His proposal would prorate the amount they have to pay
ST. PAUL — Gov. Mark Dayton’s plan for an income tax on snowbirds is generating heat from people who say it could wind up driving out long-term visitors.
Right now, only people who live in Minnesota more than six months of the year have to pay state income taxes. Dayton would extend that to anyone who spends 60 or more days a year in Minnesota, raising an estimated $15 million a year, although even the governor himself has expressed doubts that the proposal can pass.
The governor says it’s a matter of fairness — that anyone who uses the same service everyone else does should pay their fair share. His proposal would prorate the amount they have to pay
This guy's a nut and this is probably one of his dumber proposals. It's like he is trying to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2013,8:13 am
Sh!t usually sticks^^^
Posted by StevenSmith625 on Apr. 27 2013,1:43 am
This is what makes me puke. The libs on here bitch about who, what,
and how much a person should get taxed as if it's their money.
Posted by pepi la pew on Apr. 28 2013,7:36 am
All Demacrats should be taxed at 65%. That way they would feel what the rest of us fell all the time? Because all that's in it for them TAX & SPEND. 
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 28 2013,8:54 am
^ this is why they're democrats, would you vote to end your free ride???
Posted by Self-Banished on May 17 2013,5:15 am
Well here we go boys and girls, Gov. Goatboys newest idea for taxes, use new cigerette and corporate taxes to finance the Vikings stadium. As fair as can be, the evil corperations will get taxed even more and Bobby redneck will pay his share too with a extra $1.60 tax on smokes(should make a pack what, $7 plus a pack?) I'm surprised they didn't rise fuel taxes, people are getting used to paying $3.50 (now $4.00)plus for gas
So the dumbass
that smokes will be helping to build the new CORPERATE WELFARE stadium and real corperations will again be eyeing their bottom line thinking it might be better to move. 
If the corp. is not located here and thinking of moving MN will just get pushed further down the list.So for our esteemed representatives, thank you for another stellar thought session.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 17 2013,6:19 am
It's interesting to note that the prosperity enjoyed in this country in the 50's and 60's really didn't start fading away until top tax rates were radically lowered. How did businesses ever survive the prosperous 50's and 60's?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on May 17 2013,6:25 am
There also wasn't the amount of BS entitlement programs back then either botto.Comparing yesteryear to now is a tab bit dishonest and misleading.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 17 2013,7:20 am
There were more people working back then, and tax rates were higher. There were less corporate loopholes, and higher tariffs on imported goods. Once those things were abolished in favor of the failed notion of trickle-down economics, small wonder we have a target-rich environment for entitlement programs, which, by the way, are a mere fraction of our unnecessary military budget.
In short, there are myriad factors that led us to this juncture. To say that entitlements are the biggest problem in the mix is hardly accurate.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on May 17 2013,8:26 am
You just said it, more people were working. Now we have a culture that seems to feel entitled to things instead of busting their humps to get. You are right there are many other factors at play that got us here, but to lay blame on just the adjustment of taxes is a little disingenuous, I would lay the blame at the ever growing consumption by both state and federal govt.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 17 2013,5:51 pm
That's just it - Righties have gone on for years about how lower taxes are good for the whole economy, when in fact middle Americans have been sliding downhill, economically speaking, since Reagan. How is it that we were so prosperous during those high-tax years, and so the opposite since trickle-down became part of the economic lexicon?It's bad enough for the economy that we hold the notion that continuous growth is sustainable, and that burgeoning mega-corporations find themselves wielding more political and economic power than whole state governments, but to further suggest that these guys weren't writing their own rules along the way is sheer folly.
I'm all for fair markets and a free economy, so long as there are publicly-sanctioned checks and balances along the way. For instance, I don't want USDA policy being decided by McDonalds. I wand USDA policy decided by an agency that is truly concerned with our collective well-being.
Posted by Santorini on May 19 2013,8:59 am
(irisheyes @ Mar. 18 2013,12:14 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Gov Dayton want to increase taxes on the top 2% (democrat, go figure) and increase the cigarette tax. Any smokers here???
Thanks for starting the thread, I kept meaning to start a topic about the budget proposal. I'm sure there's no lack of strong opinions on this. The price on a pack/carton sure makes me glad I quit. That being said, you'll notice republicans aren't happy about him wanting to dramatically lower sales taxes and property taxes, so their problem is really about one thing; the top 2%.
Expatriate:
QUOTE
you got to pay your bills!
SB~Life is tough buttercup
SB~Life is tough buttercup
HA, S.B. shrugs off any empathy for regressive taxes like sales or property taxes skyrocketing for the middle class. He'd even suggest the person should just be homeless: after all, "they don't have a right to a home". Apparently the top 2% are the buttercups that life shouldn't be tough for.
QUOTE
What's the total gov. Take on a pack of smokes now? If this goes through it's gotta be $5.50 plus?
Yep, truly a tax on the poor.
Yep, truly a tax on the poor.
I don't recall repubs complaining about Pawlenty's "health impact fees", and there's a direct correlation between republican LGA cuts and property taxes doubling over the past decade for many households. Reversing that trend makes the tax system more proportional. But don't tell that to the republican strategists, their focus is only on those making above $250k a year.
Anyone who's been to or watched city council or county board meetings in greater Minnesota has seen the line of people at the podium about regressive taxes breaking their budget. I don't think the middle class in this state can handle much more of the republicans "no more taxes" rhetoric.
Leaders lead by persuasion..." they" sure persuaded you!!!
Posted by grassman on May 19 2013,6:06 pm
If you do not see THIS as really happening, you either do not own property or are just plain ignorant. ( 
)ignorant
Adjective
1. Having the lack of knowledge, or background/factual information of a particular thing in general. However, the effect in which this person will be proceeding with their "unproven knowledge" imbedded in their mind as if factual information, they, in turn, will plan on using it in the future to make false and incorrect statements based on what they didn't know about the particular thing, or may have heard as a majority of votes for.
Posted by grassman on May 21 2013,10:25 am
Do you suppose this could be part of the problem?NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Apple executives are set to defend the company's tax practices and call for corporate tax reform on Capitol Hill Tuesday amid harsh criticism following a Senate investigation.
A report released Monday by Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Carl Levin, D-Michigan, charged that Apple "has used a complex web of offshore entities -- including three foreign subsidiaries the company claims are not tax resident in any nation -- to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes."
The report says Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) relies on a number of unusual accounting tactics along with a handful of subsidiaries in Ireland -- where it has negotiated a tax rate of less than 2% -- to reduce its tax bill. The U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 35%.
One Irish subsidiary -- Apple Operations International, or AOI -- has no employees or presence in Ireland, holding its board meetings and keeping its bank accounts in the U.S., the senators said. AOI reported $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, but its management structure allowed Apple to exploit a gap between U.S. and Irish law and avoid paying taxes in either country, the report claims.
Another Apple subsidiary in Ireland, Apple Sales International, booked $74 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2012 but paid taxes only on "a tiny fraction" of that sum, the report says, generating an effective 2011 tax rate of just five hundredths of one percent. The company also ducked taxes on $44 billion in income by transferring the rights to its intellectual property though cost-sharing agreements with its subsidiaries, the senators alleged.
The California-based company holds more than $102 billion offshore, allowing it to avoid the 35% tax it would pay upon returning the money to the U.S. The firm recently borrowed $17 billion to buy its own stock from shareholders rather than draw on its overseas cash, avoiding substantial U.S. taxes as a result.
Posted by Santorini on May 21 2013,2:16 pm
(grassman @ May 19 2013,6:06 pm)
QUOTE
If you do not see THIS as really happening, you either do not own property or are just plain ignorant. ( )
ignorant
Adjective
1. Having the lack of knowledge, or background/factual information of a particular thing in general. However, the effect in which this person will be proceeding with their "unproven knowledge" imbedded in their mind as if factual information, they, in turn, will plan on using it in the future to make false and incorrect statements based on what they didn't know about the particular thing, or may have heard as a majority of votes for.
)ignorant
Adjective
1. Having the lack of knowledge, or background/factual information of a particular thing in general. However, the effect in which this person will be proceeding with their "unproven knowledge" imbedded in their mind as if factual information, they, in turn, will plan on using it in the future to make false and incorrect statements based on what they didn't know about the particular thing, or may have heard as a majority of votes for.
Ooops! My comment was meant for a different thread!!! Got too excited and tied up with too many threads...sorry
BTW am property owner AND a smoker!! I've always felt these taxes only hurt the poor...people will always find a way to get their cigarettes... they'd buy cigs before milk for their kids, I've seen it...yet no matter what is taxed, clothes, cigs, food, services etc. by formula the lower income always get hurt the worst. What's the answer?? Show proof of income at purchase to decide which end of the scale your taxed? PS 2011 cigs in NY $14.50/pack (that's where I'll draw my line in the sand)!!!
Posted by Common Citizen on May 21 2013,10:06 pm
(grassman @ May 21 2013,10:25 am)
QUOTE
Do you suppose this could be part of the problem?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Apple executives are set to defend the company's tax practices and call for corporate tax reform on Capitol Hill Tuesday amid harsh criticism following a Senate investigation.
A report released Monday by Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Carl Levin, D-Michigan, charged that Apple "has used a complex web of offshore entities -- including three foreign subsidiaries the company claims are not tax resident in any nation -- to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes."
The report says Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) relies on a number of unusual accounting tactics along with a handful of subsidiaries in Ireland -- where it has negotiated a tax rate of less than 2% -- to reduce its tax bill. The U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 35%.
One Irish subsidiary -- Apple Operations International, or AOI -- has no employees or presence in Ireland, holding its board meetings and keeping its bank accounts in the U.S., the senators said. AOI reported $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, but its management structure allowed Apple to exploit a gap between U.S. and Irish law and avoid paying taxes in either country, the report claims.
Another Apple subsidiary in Ireland, Apple Sales International, booked $74 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2012 but paid taxes only on "a tiny fraction" of that sum, the report says, generating an effective 2011 tax rate of just five hundredths of one percent. The company also ducked taxes on $44 billion in income by transferring the rights to its intellectual property though cost-sharing agreements with its subsidiaries, the senators alleged.
The California-based company holds more than $102 billion offshore, allowing it to avoid the 35% tax it would pay upon returning the money to the U.S. The firm recently borrowed $17 billion to buy its own stock from shareholders rather than draw on its overseas cash, avoiding substantial U.S. taxes as a result.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Apple executives are set to defend the company's tax practices and call for corporate tax reform on Capitol Hill Tuesday amid harsh criticism following a Senate investigation.
A report released Monday by Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Carl Levin, D-Michigan, charged that Apple "has used a complex web of offshore entities -- including three foreign subsidiaries the company claims are not tax resident in any nation -- to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes."
The report says Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) relies on a number of unusual accounting tactics along with a handful of subsidiaries in Ireland -- where it has negotiated a tax rate of less than 2% -- to reduce its tax bill. The U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 35%.
One Irish subsidiary -- Apple Operations International, or AOI -- has no employees or presence in Ireland, holding its board meetings and keeping its bank accounts in the U.S., the senators said. AOI reported $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, but its management structure allowed Apple to exploit a gap between U.S. and Irish law and avoid paying taxes in either country, the report claims.
Another Apple subsidiary in Ireland, Apple Sales International, booked $74 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2012 but paid taxes only on "a tiny fraction" of that sum, the report says, generating an effective 2011 tax rate of just five hundredths of one percent. The company also ducked taxes on $44 billion in income by transferring the rights to its intellectual property though cost-sharing agreements with its subsidiaries, the senators alleged.
The California-based company holds more than $102 billion offshore, allowing it to avoid the 35% tax it would pay upon returning the money to the U.S. The firm recently borrowed $17 billion to buy its own stock from shareholders rather than draw on its overseas cash, avoiding substantial U.S. taxes as a result.
G-man...do you not do everything within the law to lower your own tax rates or do you pay the full bill?
I don't care if you're an individual or corporation. You shouldn't be called onto the carpet for playing by the rules. All it is is political posturing...to get guys like you all up in a tizzy.
If the politicians were serious, they would pass laws preventing Google from doing what they did rather than go on TV and grandstand just make a good headline or sound bite.
...nuff said.
Posted by grassman on May 22 2013,6:57 am
I suppose this is ok-doky too!The U.S. Senate may — and should — review the NFL’s tax-exempt status
Recently, you may have heard that the Internal Revenue Service came under some considerable fire for targeting certain groups seeking tax-exempt status while green-lighting others (such as one run by the brother of President Obama), but did you know that the National Football league, an organization that currently rakes in about $10 billion per year in revenue, is also a non-profit organization in the eyes of the government? While you're trying to figure that one out, we've got another one for you. Did you know that the league has been a non-profit organization since 1966, when the NFL merged with the American Football League, and then-commissioner Pete Rozelle folded in the request for an exemption with the request for an anti-trust exemption?
Yes, it's all true. Technically, the NFL is a 501©(6) non-profit organization. That part of the Internal Revenue Code "provides for the exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade and professional football leagues, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
While member teams obviously operate for profit, the interesting wrinkle here is that the league itself claims not to. And one way to avoid profitability is to pay your current and former executives up the wazoo, which the NFL has done. In 2012 alone, the league paid approximately $53.8 million to its big -ticket execs, including $11.6 million to Commissioner Roger Goodell and $8.5 million to former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who replaced Rozelle in 1989 and ran the league until Goodell replaced him in 2006. In 2011, Goodell received a $22.3 million bonus after negotiating several enormously lucrative extensions with the television networks that provide the predominant percentage of the league's revenues.
It's all legal.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 22 2013,8:50 am
^ this I did not know but it makes sense that a bunch of deadbeats don't pay taxes. It's just like being at the grocery store and seeing someone paying with an EBT card then following them out to their almost new car with the 22' rims,Sometimes it makes ms wonder why I work.
Posted by grassman on May 22 2013,8:56 am
So you see folks, what is happening is... the ones with the money keep the money instead of paying the taxes. Meanwhile those of us who do not have the luxury of a bent tax system, foot the bill, more and more. All the while they get some brainwashed into thinking that it is good for everyone if it goes that way.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 22 2013,6:10 pm
^ what he said 
Posted by Botto 82 on May 22 2013,7:05 pm
(Common Citizen @ May 21 2013,10:06 pm)
QUOTE
I don't care if you're an individual or corporation. You shouldn't be called onto the carpet for playing by the rules.
Yeah, right.
Like individuals can lobby for tax rules favorable to them like huge corporations can.
These guys are shooting craps with loaded dice. It's pretty easy to play by the rules when you wrote them in your favor in the first place.
Posted by Common Citizen on May 23 2013,12:07 pm
That's what I mean. Instead of the dog and pony show, why not change the laws?The dog and pony show is to demonstrate to their voters that, see? we're really doing something about it. When in fact they aren't...their only goal is to make sure their constiuants believe they are.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 23 2013,1:07 pm
I'd be happy as he'll with a consumtion tax. 
Posted by grassman on May 23 2013,9:34 pm
(Common Citizen @ May 23 2013,12:07 pm)
QUOTE
That's what I mean. Instead of the dog and pony show, why not change the laws?
The dog and pony show is to demonstrate to their voters that, see? we're really doing something about it. When in fact they aren't...their only goal is to make sure their constiuants believe they are.
The dog and pony show is to demonstrate to their voters that, see? we're really doing something about it. When in fact they aren't...their only goal is to make sure their constiuants believe they are.
It does not matter anymore which party they are. They are all in it to win it. At the expense of us mediocre peasants. Dump them all.
Posted by irisheyes on May 28 2013,3:24 am
(Self-Banished @ May 23 2013,1:07 pm)
QUOTE
I'd be happy as he'll with a consumtion tax.
So you'd be "happy as hell" with a big tax increase as long as it cut taxes for the rich?
We really do live in a bizzaro world where Joe the Plumber types want to tax themselves more so corporations and billionaires will pay much less, or nothing in taxes.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2013,5:34 am
(irisheyes @ May 28 2013,3:24 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ May 23 2013,1:07 pm)
QUOTE
I'd be happy as he'll with a consumtion tax.
So you'd be "happy as hell" with a big tax increase as long as it cut taxes for the rich?
We really do live in a bizzaro world where Joe the Plumber types want to tax themselves more so corporations and billionaires will pay much less, or nothing in taxes.
Let me put that in a little better perspective for you.
To simplify our tax system would bring many blessings, more compliance, more people ACTUALLY PAYING TAXES, a far more fair way of taxation. A consumption tax would in it's very nature be self regulating, too much tax and the economy falters, too little and inflation kicks in. The real kicker for this is that the gov. would have to live within it's means.
Think of all the effort and expense that would be eliminated and properly managed our economy would flourish. We wouldn't be 4 years in a recession working on year 5.
As far as your "Joe the plumber" cuts and your "Truck driving Cletus" remarks go
Remember, ask your customers if they want to supersize their order, with a little effort you could be promoted to fry cook
Posted by pepi la pew on May 28 2013,7:37 am
I don't know what youre gripping about. I think all billionaires should pay the same % that some one making 10K a year makes.
Posted by irisheyes on May 28 2013,8:59 am
They won't pay the same percentage, they'll pay a lower one. You won't even see the term "flat tax" come up in an actual study of economics. There's only regressive, progressive, and proportional. And consumption taxes are regressive.Corporations and executive perks, they'll be completely excluded because those are "business expenses". But grandma's heart meds, your mortgage/rent, a car purchase, repair bill, gasoline, groceries, and everything else will be taxed at 20-30%. But the executives I've met with company cars and lavish corporate vacations, they'll be taxed at zero as long as they're on the company dime. Corporations aren't taxed at all under the "fairtax".
S.B.
QUOTE
To simplify our tax system would bring many blessings, more compliance, more people ACTUALLY PAYING TAXES, a far more fair way of taxation. A consumption tax would in it's very nature be self regulating, too much tax and the economy falters, too little and inflation kicks in. The real kicker for this is that the gov. would have to live within it's means.
As far as your "Joe the plumber" cuts and your "Truck driving Cletus" remarks go
As far as your "Joe the plumber" cuts and your "Truck driving Cletus" remarks go
Neither was meant as a cut, sorry if it came out that way. You came up with Cletus, I just decided to keep it going.
But the real "Joe the Plumber" during the election comes to mind during these discussions, which is why I use it often. Solidly blue collar, middle class, but hopes that one day he'll be rich so he votes in favor of politicians that undercut him economically.
As for "more people actually paying taxes", no, they won't. Every flat tax proposal discussed last election included a prebate payment to all taxpayers, a payment every month to lower income people to offset their taxes. A new entitlement program estimated to cost 700 billion. In fact, the only people that will pay LESS in taxes under the Fairtax are the poor and the rich. This has been shown and I've posted the conclusions of Bush's advisory committee on tax reform several times on here. The only people who paid more in taxes under the "Fairtax" (with or without prebate) were about $25k to $250k. Above or below those incomes paid far less.
Posted by pepi la pew on May 28 2013,9:59 am
What im saying is you pay the same tax on your gross pay. No deduction of any kind?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 01 2013,4:31 pm
(irisheyes @ May 28 2013,8:59 am)
QUOTE
They won't pay the same percentage, they'll pay a lower one. You won't even see the term "flat tax" come up in an actual study of economics. There's only regressive, progressive, and proportional. And consumption taxes are regressive.
Corporations and executive perks, they'll be completely excluded because those are "business expenses". But grandma's heart meds, your mortgage/rent, a car purchase, repair bill, gasoline, groceries, and everything else will be taxed at 20-30%. But the executives I've met with company cars and lavish corporate vacations, they'll be taxed at zero as long as they're on the company dime. Corporations aren't taxed at all under the "fairtax".
S.B.
Neither was meant as a cut, sorry if it came out that way. You came up with Cletus, I just decided to keep it going.
But the real "Joe the Plumber" during the election comes to mind during these discussions, which is why I use it often. Solidly blue collar, middle class, but hopes that one day he'll be rich so he votes in favor of politicians that undercut him economically.
As for "more people actually paying taxes", no, they won't. Every flat tax proposal discussed last election included a prebate payment to all taxpayers, a payment every month to lower income people to offset their taxes. A new entitlement program estimated to cost 700 billion. In fact, the only people that will pay LESS in taxes under the Fairtax are the poor and the rich. This has been shown and I've posted the conclusions of Bush's advisory committee on tax reform several times on here. The only people who paid more in taxes under the "Fairtax" (with or without prebate) were about $25k to $250k. Above or below those incomes paid far less.
Corporations and executive perks, they'll be completely excluded because those are "business expenses". But grandma's heart meds, your mortgage/rent, a car purchase, repair bill, gasoline, groceries, and everything else will be taxed at 20-30%. But the executives I've met with company cars and lavish corporate vacations, they'll be taxed at zero as long as they're on the company dime. Corporations aren't taxed at all under the "fairtax".
S.B.
QUOTE
To simplify our tax system would bring many blessings, more compliance, more people ACTUALLY PAYING TAXES, a far more fair way of taxation. A consumption tax would in it's very nature be self regulating, too much tax and the economy falters, too little and inflation kicks in. The real kicker for this is that the gov. would have to live within it's means.
As far as your "Joe the plumber" cuts and your "Truck driving Cletus" remarks go
As far as your "Joe the plumber" cuts and your "Truck driving Cletus" remarks go
Neither was meant as a cut, sorry if it came out that way. You came up with Cletus, I just decided to keep it going.
But the real "Joe the Plumber" during the election comes to mind during these discussions, which is why I use it often. Solidly blue collar, middle class, but hopes that one day he'll be rich so he votes in favor of politicians that undercut him economically.
As for "more people actually paying taxes", no, they won't. Every flat tax proposal discussed last election included a prebate payment to all taxpayers, a payment every month to lower income people to offset their taxes. A new entitlement program estimated to cost 700 billion. In fact, the only people that will pay LESS in taxes under the Fairtax are the poor and the rich. This has been shown and I've posted the conclusions of Bush's advisory committee on tax reform several times on here. The only people who paid more in taxes under the "Fairtax" (with or without prebate) were about $25k to $250k. Above or below those incomes paid far less.
The middle class are carrying all the freight now, what I would like to see is everyone, no exemptions, no paybacks or rebates. With this there is no buying votes and would be a purely capitalistic society.
As far as the "Joe the Plumber" thing, that guy was nothing more than a publicity blip for the media.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 07 2013,6:27 pm
With the new "sin tax" on cigarettes forcing mostly lower and middle income to pay the brunt of the expected $2.1 billion in additional revenue, here comes the next big rape of your tax dollars. Keep in mind that you Minnesota dwellers already pay over 10% of your income into the state coffers. (7th highest in the nation) This new smoke tax is going to harm small business owners, especially in border counties and the metro area where smokers will cross the border to continue their habit. When Iowa raised their tax on cigarettes $1.36, border crossings (smoke smuggling)went from 2.4% to 21.3%. Trust me, they will. I did it for years myself. The brunt of the $400 million cigarette portion of revenue increase will largely be felt by lower income taxpayers. Now, the counties are considering a "wheelage tax." Only in Minnesota. Wheelage taxes were proposed 100 years ago. With the increased expense in highway construction and maintenance in order to meet traffic demands the carrying of the total cost as a general property tax is decidedly unfair. A wheelage tax was places based on the tires and tonnage of individual vehicles licensed in the state. When any motor vehicle is licensed, the appropriate tonnage is applied for and paid. Paying an additional tax on your car based on where it is parked is ridiculous at best.
SB, would it make more sense to have a tire tax? Tires are sold based on size and weight bearing properties. The more you use the road, the faster they wear out. Every time tires are sold, tax the pi$$ out of them. Sound O.K.?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 07 2013,8:34 pm
I've been paying a $5 a vehicle wheel age tax in the municipality I live in for the last 5 or so yearsTrucks are already licensed and pay by weight. A typical semi tractor licensed in the state of MN pays about $1750 a year being licenced for 80K.You also have to add in another $550 a year for HVUT ( heavy vehicle use tax) Reminds me, I have to send another check to the gov. At the end of the month.
Tire tax, sure why not? Gives me another reason to raise prices to customers, then that gets past down the line. You're sounding like you want a tire tax to replace a license tax or even fuel tax. Sorry, with our politicians it doesn't work that way, they're like crack junkies, more taxes are better.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 08 2013,5:47 am
QUOTE
You're sounding like you want a tire tax to replace a license tax or even fuel tax.
Nope. Just figured that would get your dander up with Gov. Dildon finding new ways to tax.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 08 2013,8:03 am
(MADDOG @ Jul. 08 2013,5:47 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
You're sounding like you want a tire tax to replace a license tax or even fuel tax.
Nope. Just figured that would get your dander up with Gov. Dildon finding new ways to tax.Aren't they cute when they do that?
Bastards are going to do what they're gonna do and I just adapt, mean while the libs cheer taxes getting raised making it "more fair" then they bitch when prices for services and products go up
Posted by mngroomer on Jul. 08 2013,3:53 pm
I am a smoker but refuse to pay the extra taxes so I have been using the e-cigs for 3 months now and its a lot cheaper and healthier then regular cigs. and I feel better because I am not getting all the tar etc that's in cigarettes. give them a try. I suggest you buy them from the smoke shop by walmart, they have a few to choose from.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 08 2013,6:40 pm
^yep, I've been seeing more and more E cigs. My wife can even smoke in my pickup and there's no odor.
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 25 2013,7:47 pm
(Self-Banished @ Jul. 08 2013,8:03 am)
QUOTE
mean while the libs cheer taxes getting raised making it "more fair" then they bitch when prices for services and products go up
Republicans raised taxes many times, cigarettes, property taxes, other fees. Nobody says anything until FOX and AM radio mentions the wealthy are going to take the same hit as the middle class.
We don't cheer, we just don't want to be taxed out of our homes and have more infrastructure crumble as a result of state and federal cuts.
QUOTE
they bitch when prices for services and products go up
We cut taxes on the wealthy many times in the past decade, goods and services went up plenty then too. I can't buy a coke for a quarter anymore either, but blaming it all on taxes is overly simplistic.
I have yet to hear a CEO or other senior executive tell everyone he got a tax cut, so he doesn't have to make as much and will charge his customers less for their goods and services.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2013,8:31 pm
^But if he doesn't get taxed more he at least has the chance to raise wages. You act like Moparman, you think that even though a man invests and takes chances to start a business you're part owner of that business and have a say in how it's run.
Posted by Moparman on Aug. 25 2013,9:34 pm
Apparently you have never sat in a meeting where the employees have been asked to "show ownership" in the company. Investing your time, talent, expertise, and experience to better your companies position in the marketplace used to actually mean something and lead to fair compensation. Unfortunatly, in the last 3 decades, as production and performance has exploded exponentially by the majority of the people who actually do the work their compensation for this work has remained virtually stagnet or actually descreased when inflation is factored in. So what have a majority these highly compansated CEO's or EVP's invested? What is their risk if the company underperforms?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2013,9:56 pm
^ it all comes down to who controls the company, who writes the pay checks. If you don't like the amounts or what you're doing you're always free to go elsewhere.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 26 2013,2:19 am
(Self-Banished @ Aug. 25 2013,9:56 pm)
QUOTE
^ it all comes down to who controls the company, who writes the pay checks. If you don't like the amounts or what you're doing you're always free to go elsewhere.
I'd be happy if we just taxed the crap out of "elsewhere," that being all the offshore havens that make things cheaper than we can in this over-taxed, over-regulated business environment.
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 26 2013,4:13 am
(irisheyes @ Aug. 25 2013,7:47 pm)
QUOTE
I have yet to hear a CEO or other senior executive tell everyone he got a tax cut, so he doesn't have to make as much and will charge his customers less for their goods and services.
I have yet to hear a CEO or other senior executive tell everyone he got a multi million dollar bonus for making his quota and will have to raise prices to pay for those executive bonuses..
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 26 2013,5:16 am
^ what the market will bear boys.
Posted by Moparman on Aug. 30 2013,3:55 pm
You really still believe that nonsense? If that statement was even close to true the minimum wage would be around $21per to even out the increased costs of everything in this "market". Minimum/ low wage jobs are nothing but corporate welfare driving this country over the cliff.
Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 30 2013,4:21 pm
(Moparman @ Aug. 30 2013,3:55 pm)
QUOTE
You really still believe that nonsense? If that statement was even close to true the minimum wage would be around $21per to even out the increased costs of everything in this "market". Minimum/ low wage jobs are nothing but corporate welfare driving this country over the cliff.
I live it every day, market forces drive the economy
If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!I like that Trumka and Hoffa are now bitching that Bamer should fix healthcare, that it will be the demise of the 40hr work week. Nice little turn around against a law they once supported.
By the way, who decided 40hrs is enough to work in a week?
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 30 2013,6:26 pm
(Self-Banished) quoteQUOTE
I live it every day, market forces drive the economy If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!
If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 30 2013,6:35 pm
(Expatriate @ Aug. 30 2013,6:26 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished) quote
^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
QUOTE
I live it every day, market forces drive the economy If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!
If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
Teamsters union will never stand for that...
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 30 2013,7:08 pm
(Expatriate @ Aug. 30 2013,6:26 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished) quote
^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
QUOTE
I live it every day, market forces drive the economy If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!
If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
Maybe for long haul, mostly impossible for city .
I'll be retired before that anyway.
And I wouldn't want to take you job (you clean the toilets too as part of your job description, don't you?)
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 30 2013,7:10 pm
(Glad I Left @ Aug. 30 2013,6:35 pm)
QUOTE
(Expatriate @ Aug. 30 2013,6:26 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished) quote
^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
QUOTE
I live it every day, market forces drive the economy If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!
If labor were short then wages would go up but they're not, unemployment is something like 7.6%. Then the libs want amnesty for the criminal immigrants?please!^technology will put you in the unemployment line gear-jammer, driverless trucks already exist they’re in use in Australia and will be in America within the decade. Don’t worry there’s lots of minimum wage jobs you’d qualify for, maybe you can get that greeter job at Wally World.
Teamsters union will never stand for that...
Teamsters have no pull anymore, they're scared of their own shadow.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 02 2013,8:11 pm
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience.
That's what Rush says, I've read it and heard it many times. The conservative response is always callous; they did this wrong, they did that wrong, it's their fault, etc. It's moot, minimum wage jobs aren't just high school students. When they outsource jobs, lay off the truck driver, get rid of the men and women too close to receiving full retirement and hand over more to the skeleton crew remaining that's not good for the rest of us either. They can't buy as much, pay their bills, and Wally World will probably be more likely to send them to the welfare office than promote them or give a raise.
QUOTE
There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
Your response is probably to tell the elderly man who's not so good at seeing/hearing that he should learn to build windmills 100 feet in the air. Or the grey haired women that there's a boom in North Dakota if she'd just get on that rascal and become a rough-neck.
A third or half of the people I see in min wage jobs aren't the pimple faced teenagers Rush talks about. Many are examples above. They can't stimulate the economy much if you pay them just enough to barely get by and wait to hit 65.
A higher tide raises all ships. They knew it decades ago when Henry Ford raised wages, invested more in infrastructure and education to get us out of depression. Today it wouldn't happen, market conditions would suggest we lower them instead, at the expense of quality, turnover, even the economy as a whole is considered irrelevant if we can squeeze more for the top.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 02 2013,8:52 pm
(Self-Banished @ Aug. 25 2013,8:31 pm)
QUOTE
^But if he doesn't get taxed more he at least has the chance to raise wages.
Kind of like how the CEO's for many local companies in the 80's "had a chance" to raise wages when they got tax cuts; but they lowered them instead. Much like the CEO's of the past 12 years who "had a chance" to raise wages after the Bush tax cuts.
If you tell a lie often enough, it doesn't make it true. And even Republicans know that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were not invested in wages and other moves to stimulate the economy. In aggregate they did the opposite. Wages and unemployment continued to get worse throughout the decade, just like when Reagan did it.
QUOTE
You act like Moparman, you think that even though a man invests and takes chances to start a business you're part owner of that business and have a say in how it's run.
It isn't running the business for them to pay the same tax rate as their employees, or expecting them to not dump toxic waste and wait for us to clean it up, or any other economic externalities for that matter. It isn't running their business, it's expecting them to run it themselves.
As for "starting a business", the middle class is more likely to take chances and invest, not the richest. More often the richest people in this country DID NOT start or invest in a business at all. They're more likely to be the children, widow, grandchildren, great-grandchildren of the ones WHO DID.
I don't think we should pass the tax burden onto the middle class in an effort to give heirs like Walton, Murdoch, Trump, Ford, Koch, Mars, or Rockefeller a lower tax rate.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 03 2013,5:29 am
So if you raise taxes corperations won't raise prices?
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 03 2013,7:26 am
^Why should the taxpayer subsidize corporate wage?
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 03 2013,9:04 am
^ so you're saying the gov should set prices?
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 03 2013,5:29 pm
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Are these tech school openings free? How is that minimum wage paycheck going to pay for school and everything else? Unless you live at home with mommy and daddy it's not. Ok, so get a loan and go in debt on the assumption that your two year degree will get you a job that will pay your expenses plus your loan. So now you take your freshly printed sheepskin out to the job market only to find out companies are not hiring "entry" level employees only experienced ones. Or that jobs your program were in demand two years ago but now there is a glut of qualified applicants.
In reality don't assume everyone working minimum wage is lazy. Don't assume lack of resources as a lack of ambition. Most of the time it's who you know and plain dumb luck that gets one ahead.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 03 2013,5:52 pm
(Moparman @ Sep. 03 2013,5:29 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Are these tech school openings free? How is that minimum wage paycheck going to pay for school and everything else? Unless you live at home with mommy and daddy it's not. Ok, so get a loan and go in debt on the assumption that your two year degree will get you a job that will pay your expenses plus your loan. So now you take your freshly printed sheepskin out to the job market only to find out companies are not hiring "entry" level employees only experienced ones. Or that jobs your program were in demand two years ago but now there is a glut of qualified applicants.
In reality don't assume everyone working minimum wage is lazy. Don't assume lack of resources as a lack of ambition. Most of the time it's who you know and plain dumb luck that gets one ahead.
Nobody said it'd be easy, maybe one has to live at home, work a job when you're not in class.
Just remember,
Life's tough buttercup
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 03 2013,8:32 pm
(Moparman @ Sep. 03 2013,5:29 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Are these tech school openings free? How is that minimum wage paycheck going to pay for school and everything else? Unless you live at home with mommy and daddy it's not. Ok, so get a loan and go in debt on the assumption that your two year degree will get you a job that will pay your expenses plus your loan. So now you take your freshly printed sheepskin out to the job market only to find out companies are not hiring "entry" level employees only experienced ones. Or that jobs your program were in demand two years ago but now there is a glut of qualified applicants.
In reality don't assume everyone working minimum wage is lazy. Don't assume lack of resources as a lack of ambition. Most of the time it's who you know and plain dumb luck that gets one ahead.
You remind me of the same people working at McD's complaining about their wages and benefits. Always making excuses and pointing fingers at others for their own problems. If an illegal can figure out how the system works then...well?
< My Webpage >
QUOTE
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) – Going to college seemed inconceivable when Adriana Sanchez, the 12-year-old daughter of farm workers, was brought from Mexico to Central California and the family overstayed their visas.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 06 2013,2:58 pm
Ahh, The old " life's tough buttercup" excuse again. We should be striving to make higher education easier to attain not taking pride in the fact that its getting more and more out of reach for more and more people. I never said it should be easy, far from it. But, the hardest part about education should be done in the classroom not the financial office.
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 06 2013,3:18 pm
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 03 2013,8:32 pm)
QUOTE
(Moparman @ Sep. 03 2013,5:29 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Are these tech school openings free? How is that minimum wage paycheck going to pay for school and everything else? Unless you live at home with mommy and daddy it's not. Ok, so get a loan and go in debt on the assumption that your two year degree will get you a job that will pay your expenses plus your loan. So now you take your freshly printed sheepskin out to the job market only to find out companies are not hiring "entry" level employees only experienced ones. Or that jobs your program were in demand two years ago but now there is a glut of qualified applicants.
In reality don't assume everyone working minimum wage is lazy. Don't assume lack of resources as a lack of ambition. Most of the time it's who you know and plain dumb luck that gets one ahead.
You remind me of the same people working at McD's complaining about their wages and benefits. Always making excuses and pointing fingers at others for their own problems. If an illegal can figure out how the system works then...well?
< My Webpage >
QUOTE
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) – Going to college seemed inconceivable when Adriana Sanchez, the 12-year-old daughter of farm workers, was brought from Mexico to Central California and the family overstayed their visas.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
So what is the excuse for the exponential rise in prices for pretty much everything even as wages have remained stagnate?
And if you believe a master's degree program can be paid for with unpaid volunteer work and internships using some "grey area in federal law", you truly are out of touch. Working the system means that joe taxpayer paid for this degree.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 06 2013,4:53 pm
(Moparman @ Sep. 06 2013,2:58 pm)
QUOTE
Ahh, The old " life's tough buttercup" excuse again. We should be striving to make higher education easier to attain not taking pride in the fact that its getting more and more out of reach for more and more people. I never said it should be easy, far from it. But, the hardest part about education should be done in the classroom not the financial office.
Well, life is tough, I use this axiom to drive myself. When part of a job needs to get done or there's a particularly nasty task to perform this little saying runs through my head. It works very well, customer acquisition and retention are easier if you just bust ass a little.
But a lot of these kids now days think it should be handed to them, made easy, the "I'll just rely on the gov. " and they think they'll be fine attitude. It's kinda like these Somali drivers that think if they buy a truck life's going to be easy after that. They don't realize they usually have to work 10-12 hours, everyday. They think when they're done they can just go home and not have to check their truck over and maybe do some repairs.
I worked a side job when I was in college, did you?
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 06 2013,5:05 pm
(Moparman @ Sep. 06 2013,3:18 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 03 2013,8:32 pm)
QUOTE
(Moparman @ Sep. 03 2013,5:29 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Aug. 30 2013,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Minimum/low wage jobs exist for a reason. The majority of the people take these jobs when they are young to build their resume and experience. In our society, these jobs were never meant to be a life long career choice.
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
To most people, the low wages are motivation enough to get off your arse and do something about it...ON YOUR OWN. That's why unemployment is suppose to be temporary...so you get off your arse and do something about it before it runs out.
The majority of the people making a career out of these kinds of jobs have no ambition to do anything else. There are openings right now at the local tech school to learn a trade and quite a few companies offering better jobs than McDonald's.
What's the problem?
Are these tech school openings free? How is that minimum wage paycheck going to pay for school and everything else? Unless you live at home with mommy and daddy it's not. Ok, so get a loan and go in debt on the assumption that your two year degree will get you a job that will pay your expenses plus your loan. So now you take your freshly printed sheepskin out to the job market only to find out companies are not hiring "entry" level employees only experienced ones. Or that jobs your program were in demand two years ago but now there is a glut of qualified applicants.
In reality don't assume everyone working minimum wage is lazy. Don't assume lack of resources as a lack of ambition. Most of the time it's who you know and plain dumb luck that gets one ahead.
You remind me of the same people working at McD's complaining about their wages and benefits. Always making excuses and pointing fingers at others for their own problems. If an illegal can figure out how the system works then...well?
< My Webpage >
QUOTE
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) – Going to college seemed inconceivable when Adriana Sanchez, the 12-year-old daughter of farm workers, was brought from Mexico to Central California and the family overstayed their visas.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Adriana Sanchez, who was brought from Mexico to Central California as a 12-year-old, teaches a math class Monday at the Adult School in Fresno, Calif.
Even though Sanchez excelled in high school, she was in the country illegally, lacked a Social Security number and work permit, and didn't qualify for financial aid. But she volunteered hundreds of hours and paid her way through college and graduate school with a dozen internships.
Now 24, Sanchez graduated last week from California State University, Fresno with a master's degree in International Relations, a full-time job and no loans to repay. Using a gray area in federal law, she works as an independent contractor.
"For most undocumented students, you have to put yourself out there. You volunteer, you go beyond what regular students do," Sanchez said. "That's what connects us to opportunities. Now employers call me."
So what is the excuse for the exponential rise in prices for pretty much everything even as wages have remained stagnate?
And if you believe a master's degree program can be paid for with unpaid volunteer work and internships using some "grey area in federal law", you truly are out of touch. Working the system means that joe taxpayer paid for this degree.
So now you're blaming inflation for keeping people in minimum wage jobs. If you're still making the same cabbage you were 10 years ago and you're not satisified...you ain't trying hard enough. This is my opinion...love it or leave it.
Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 07 2013,7:43 am
I was making barely above minimum in 93 just out of high school. Did that for a few years and it sucked. I moved back in with mom and dad. Worked full time, went to school damn near full time and managed to get my degree. When I graduated, I got a promotion at my company rather than have to go elsewhere.I'm not saying that is the right track for everyone, but sometimes you gotta kick it in the ass yourself. I didn't get any grants, scholarships, etc... It was paid via good old fashioned hard work and determination.
20 years later I am glad I made the sacrifice, it has paid for itself many times over. Although I don't think I could keep the same schedule at 40 as I did at 20...
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 10 2013,4:32 pm
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 06 2013,4:53 pm)
QUOTE
(Moparman @ Sep. 06 2013,2:58 pm)
QUOTE
Ahh, The old " life's tough buttercup" excuse again. We should be striving to make higher education easier to attain not taking pride in the fact that its getting more and more out of reach for more and more people. I never said it should be easy, far from it. But, the hardest part about education should be done in the classroom not the financial office.
Well, life is tough, I use this axiom to drive myself. When part of a job needs to get done or there's a particularly nasty task to perform this little saying runs through my head. It works very well, customer acquisition and retention are easier if you just bust ass a little.
But a lot of these kids now days think it should be handed to them, made easy, the "I'll just rely on the gov. " and they think they'll be fine attitude. It's kinda like these Somali drivers that think if they buy a truck life's going to be easy after that. They don't realize they usually have to work 10-12 hours, everyday. They think when they're done they can just go home and not have to check their truck over and maybe do some repairs.
I worked a side job when I was in college, did you?
I never had to work during school. Between my scholarships, grants, and 90+ hour weeks at a summer job the only things I had to worry about we're getting good grades and enjoying the college lifestyle.
Heck, I was making $10 an hour straight time back in the mid eighties, add on OT and that was more than enough to pay for school and all my fun. All debt free...
How many kids could do that today?
Was it easy? Not at all, it was long, hard, hot work, but I was rewarded fairly for that work and it was worth it. Today, more often than not, the reward for hard work is debt and more hard work.
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 10 2013,4:51 pm
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 06 2013,5:05 pm)
QUOTE
So now you're blaming inflation for keeping people in minimum wage jobs. If you're still making the same cabbage you were 10 years ago and you're not satisified...you ain't trying hard enough. This is my opinion...love it or leave it.
No, I'm blaming inflation for keeping people with minimum wage jobs from supporting or bettering themselves.
Does this cabbage buy the same amount of goods it did ten years ago?
And how again is that the fault of the worker?
If a company is paying the same wages as it did ten years ago, no thanks, I'll leave it..
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 11 2013,5:17 am
^If a company paying the same as it did ten years ago you'll leave??? It would take you ten years?
Posted by grassman on Sep. 11 2013,6:38 am
What seems to be lacking on some people's understanding, is that it is pretty much spelled out that the working poor are still the working poor while the huge profits are being absorbed by the top. The top find ways of not paying the same rate of tax as the lower paid workers. This is taking money out of the working capital for the various govt. agencies. These agencies are not going away. Therefore the middle class has to pick up the tab. Got it!Income gains for 1% break records
WASHINGTON The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America last year reached the widest point since the Roaring Twenties, an academic study shows.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share since 1928. Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
The share held by the top 10 percent of earners last year reached a record 48.2 percent.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But it grew again last year, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of the researchers, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January, although he said that such a scenario could only explain part of the disparity.
Saez was careful to point out that the 2012 data is based on projections and subject to revision. But from 2009 to 2012, using established data, the conclusions for the vast majority of Americans are just as dreary .
Saez said that during those years, average real income per family grew a modest 6 percent. "However, the gains were very uneven," he wrote. "Top 1 percent incomes grew by 31.4 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes grew only by 0.4 percent from 2009 to 2012.
"Hence, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery."
The top 10 percent haven't done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, up from the previous record, 46.6 percent, in 2011.
"We now have more data to show that workers aren't getting fair share of income, which is strengthening the burgeoning movement of worker protests in fast food, retail and the Occupy Movement," said Tamara Draut, vice president of policy and research at public interest advocacy group Demos. "If you think about the notions of what Americans believe about their country, like the American dream of a broad middle class, this should be a wake-up call that this is not a good path for our democracy to be on."
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.
The income figures include wages, pension payments, dividends and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets. They do not include so-called transfer payments from government programs such as unemployment benefits and Social Security.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 11 2013,7:51 am
But you see that's just it, our tax code is so screwed up, so complicated that if you have enough $ to hire good accountants you can slide, side-step and work your way around paying large amounts of taxes. Let's simplify our tax code, everyone gets to pay including the bottom feeders that seem to get back more than they pay in.
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 12 2013,5:38 pm
(grassman @ Sep. 11 2013,6:38 am)
QUOTE
What seems to be lacking on some people's understanding, is that it is pretty much spelled out that the working poor are still the working poor while the huge profits are being absorbed by the top. The top find ways of not paying the same rate of tax as the lower paid workers. This is taking money out of the working capital for the various govt. agencies. These agencies are not going away. Therefore the middle class has to pick up the tab. Got it!
Income gains for 1% break records
WASHINGTON The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America last year reached the widest point since the Roaring Twenties, an academic study shows.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share since 1928. Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
The share held by the top 10 percent of earners last year reached a record 48.2 percent.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But it grew again last year, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of the researchers, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January, although he said that such a scenario could only explain part of the disparity.
Saez was careful to point out that the 2012 data is based on projections and subject to revision. But from 2009 to 2012, using established data, the conclusions for the vast majority of Americans are just as dreary .
Saez said that during those years, average real income per family grew a modest 6 percent. "However, the gains were very uneven," he wrote. "Top 1 percent incomes grew by 31.4 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes grew only by 0.4 percent from 2009 to 2012.
"Hence, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery."
The top 10 percent haven't done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, up from the previous record, 46.6 percent, in 2011.
"We now have more data to show that workers aren't getting fair share of income, which is strengthening the burgeoning movement of worker protests in fast food, retail and the Occupy Movement," said Tamara Draut, vice president of policy and research at public interest advocacy group Demos. "If you think about the notions of what Americans believe about their country, like the American dream of a broad middle class, this should be a wake-up call that this is not a good path for our democracy to be on."
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.
The income figures include wages, pension payments, dividends and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets. They do not include so-called transfer payments from government programs such as unemployment benefits and Social Security.
Income gains for 1% break records
WASHINGTON The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America last year reached the widest point since the Roaring Twenties, an academic study shows.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share since 1928. Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
The share held by the top 10 percent of earners last year reached a record 48.2 percent.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But it grew again last year, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of the researchers, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January, although he said that such a scenario could only explain part of the disparity.
Saez was careful to point out that the 2012 data is based on projections and subject to revision. But from 2009 to 2012, using established data, the conclusions for the vast majority of Americans are just as dreary .
Saez said that during those years, average real income per family grew a modest 6 percent. "However, the gains were very uneven," he wrote. "Top 1 percent incomes grew by 31.4 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes grew only by 0.4 percent from 2009 to 2012.
"Hence, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery."
The top 10 percent haven't done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, up from the previous record, 46.6 percent, in 2011.
"We now have more data to show that workers aren't getting fair share of income, which is strengthening the burgeoning movement of worker protests in fast food, retail and the Occupy Movement," said Tamara Draut, vice president of policy and research at public interest advocacy group Demos. "If you think about the notions of what Americans believe about their country, like the American dream of a broad middle class, this should be a wake-up call that this is not a good path for our democracy to be on."
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.
The income figures include wages, pension payments, dividends and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets. They do not include so-called transfer payments from government programs such as unemployment benefits and Social Security.
Americans in 'Poverty' Have TVs, VCRs, Cell Phones, Air Conditioning
American poverty just ain’t what it used to be. A new report from the Census Bureau found that 80.9% of households considered poverty stricken have cell phones along with their landline phones, and 58.2% have computers. 96.1% of those in “poverty” have televisions, and 83% have some sort of DVR.
The percentage owning refrigerators? 97.8%
Gas or electric stoves? 96.6%.
Microwaves? 93.2%
Air conditioning? Over 83%.
Washer? 68.7%
Dryer? 65.3%
People still don’t mind washing dishes, apparently; only 44.9% surveyed had a dishwasher.
Posted by grassman on Sep. 13 2013,7:49 am
So people still buy these items. What does that have to do with the rising seperation of earnings? Typical smoke screen.
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 13 2013,8:00 am
I kind of took your article as a complaint against rich people and that the rich keep getting richer. People will then naturally begin to feel sorry for the poor and angry with the rich. I took a step back and thought about how we define poor in this day and age and how different it was 100-150 years ago.
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 13 2013,2:22 pm
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 11 2013,5:17 am)
QUOTE
^If a company paying the same as it did ten years ago you'll leave??? It would take you ten years?
Um... No, I guess you missed the point.
Posted by grassman on Sep. 14 2013,2:24 am
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 13 2013,8:00 am)
QUOTE
I kind of took your article as a complaint against rich people and that the rich keep getting richer. People will then naturally begin to feel sorry for the poor and angry with the rich. I took a step back and thought about how we define poor in this day and age and how different it was 100-150 years ago.
The article is not a compalaint against rich people. It is an article of fact. If it seems like a complaint, then somewhere inside you truly understand how wrong the picture is. Just think where our economy would be if some of that money was in the hands of the lower earners. That would be a lot more tvs sold now wouldn't it. The wealthy store money (sometimes offshore), the lower earners spend it.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 14 2013,7:29 am
(Moparman @ Sep. 13 2013,2:22 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 11 2013,5:17 am)
QUOTE
^If a company paying the same as it did ten years ago you'll leave??? It would take you ten years?
Um... No, I guess you missed the point.
Enlighten me.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 14 2013,11:04 pm
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 13 2013,8:00 am)
QUOTE
I took a step back and thought about how we define poor in this day and age and how different it was 100-150 years ago.
Your point is well taken, people in poverty did not have TV's, VCR's, and air conditioning 100 to 150 years ago.
^I'm just razzing ya, I know the point you're trying to make. But TV's and appliances are not luxuries anymore, old ones cost more to dispose of than they're worth. So you'll see plenty of poor people with a hand-me-down TV, fridge, or dishwasher. Or they rent their home or apartment, in which case the appliances are included.
Granted, poverty in modern America is not near what it is in third world countries. But only the Republicans want to see the poor do worse and the rich do better. For example, Grover Norquist and friends. Which brings me to my next point, courtesy of Self-Banished.
Self-Banished:
QUOTE
But you see that's just it, our tax code is so screwed up, so complicated that if you have enough $ to hire good accountants you can slide, side-step and work your way around paying large amounts of taxes. Let's simplify our tax code, everyone gets to pay including the bottom feeders that seem to get back more than they pay in.
Repubs managed to convince you that a less complicated tax code is good, the bad part is that in doing so they'll make it even more regressive than it already is. And you'll pay more in taxes as a result.
Even Lincoln wouldn't have suggested such a regressive tax; his income tax wasn't even flat, it was progressive with the bottom bracket paying nothing.
The middle class already pays a higher rate in taxes than the richest, I don't see how it benefits the economy to make it even more regressive. But Grover Norquest and AM radio have sure convinced a lot of people that it's better to eliminate taxes on corporations, lower them even more for the richest 1%, and raise them for the middle class.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2013,5:07 am
(irisheyes @ Sep. 14 2013,11:04 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 13 2013,8:00 am)
QUOTE
I took a step back and thought about how we define poor in this day and age and how different it was 100-150 years ago.
Your point is well taken, people in poverty did not have TV's, VCR's, and air conditioning 100 to 150 years ago.
^I'm just razzing ya, I know the point you're trying to make. But TV's and appliances are not luxuries anymore, old ones cost more to dispose of than they're worth. So you'll see plenty of poor people with a hand-me-down TV, fridge, or dishwasher. Or they rent their home or apartment, in which case the appliances are included.
Granted, poverty in modern America is not near what it is in third world countries. But only the Republicans want to see the poor do worse and the rich do better. For example, Grover Norquist and friends. Which brings me to my next point, courtesy of Self-Banished.
Self-Banished:
QUOTE
But you see that's just it, our tax code is so screwed up, so complicated that if you have enough $ to hire good accountants you can slide, side-step and work your way around paying large amounts of taxes. Let's simplify our tax code, everyone gets to pay including the bottom feeders that seem to get back more than they pay in.
Repubs managed to convince you that a less complicated tax code is good, the bad part is that in doing so they'll make it even more regressive than it already is. And you'll pay more in taxes as a result.
Even Lincoln wouldn't have suggested such a regressive tax; his income tax wasn't even flat, it was progressive with the bottom bracket paying nothing.
The middle class already pays a higher rate in taxes than the richest, I don't see how it benefits the economy to make it even more regressive. But Grover Norquest and AM radio have sure convinced a lot of people that it's better to eliminate taxes on corporations, lower them even more for the richest 1%, and raise them for the middle class.
Let's take a look at this
< http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ >
And this one,
< http://www.cato.org/publica...ome-tax >
Posted by grassman on Sep. 15 2013,8:24 am
SB good job! You just showed us that if wages were up, the use of welfare would go down! Again, job well done!
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2013,8:41 am
And that is why we should work harder, to keep our butts off of welfare
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 16 2013,7:39 pm
(grassman @ Sep. 14 2013,2:24 am)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Sep. 13 2013,8:00 am)
QUOTE
I kind of took your article as a complaint against rich people and that the rich keep getting richer. People will then naturally begin to feel sorry for the poor and angry with the rich. I took a step back and thought about how we define poor in this day and age and how different it was 100-150 years ago.
The article is not a compalaint against rich people. It is an article of fact. If it seems like a complaint, then somewhere inside you truly understand how wrong the picture is. Just think where our economy would be if some of that money was in the hands of the lower earners. That would be a lot more tvs sold now wouldn't it. The wealthy store money (sometimes offshore), the lower earners spend it.
I agree it's not healthy for the income gap to be widening like it is but it is hard to feel sorry for the poor in the modern era of the United States.
It has been growing wider than ever under the Obama administration for the last five years. Kind of strange considering they are the party who represents the "poor".
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 17 2013,5:06 am
The recipients themselves seem to be getting wider too.
Posted by pepi-lapew on Sep. 18 2013,7:51 am
Why should the shifles and lazy work when the FREE BENNIES from the GOV, are better than working. equal to more than 12.50 a hr. 
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 20 2013,2:03 pm
QUOTE
< Another example of "You have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" bill. >
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton told producers at Farmfest earlier this month that he favors repealing a much-criticized new sales tax on farm equipment repair in a special session of the state Legislature on Sept. 9.
Much of the session will be devoted to dealing mostly with a state match for federal disaster aid needed to repair damage from storms that raked southern Minnesota in June.
Dayton said the machinery tax repeal is the only other issue he would like discussed in the one-day session, adding that he would like to see the tax refunded retroactive to Aug. 1.
He later told farm reporters that the producer tax was in a huge budget bill and he didn’t even know it was in the legislation. “It surfaced in the last minute of the last night, and no one even wants to take responsibility for (putting it in the tax bill).”
So while they are dealing with matching funds to a federal disaster bill, they can go in a fix a screw up from not reading a bill. This bill forces the labor machine repairs to be now taxable. Up until now, when you had your car or truck or tractor in for repairs, you only paid tax on the parts, not the labor. Now during this special session, they want to alter to pass a narrow exemption for farm equipment. The everyday car owner will still be screwed. Sounds like another unfair subsidy conspiracy for agriculture.
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton told producers at Farmfest earlier this month that he favors repealing a much-criticized new sales tax on farm equipment repair in a special session of the state Legislature on Sept. 9.
Much of the session will be devoted to dealing mostly with a state match for federal disaster aid needed to repair damage from storms that raked southern Minnesota in June.
Dayton said the machinery tax repeal is the only other issue he would like discussed in the one-day session, adding that he would like to see the tax refunded retroactive to Aug. 1.
He later told farm reporters that the producer tax was in a huge budget bill and he didn’t even know it was in the legislation. “It surfaced in the last minute of the last night, and no one even wants to take responsibility for (putting it in the tax bill).”
Posted by Moparman on Sep. 20 2013,2:47 pm
I guess some people still don't understand the simple concept that farmers cannot raise their prices to "pass along" these cost increases to the everyday consumer.
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 20 2013,3:52 pm
I guess you lost me on that one?? Is that like if you could charge your boss more per hour for your services because the price of hamburger went up?Make no mistake. My business depends on farmers. I'm a firm believer in ANF. But I don't believe we should have subsidize them every time they cry out.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 20 2013,5:23 pm
So corn's around $4.50, that's the breaks bubba, can't have $8 corn forever. Think of it like this, it'll be cheaper to make that farmer welfare, I mean ethonol product
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 20 2013,5:27 pm
(Moparman @ Sep. 20 2013,2:47 pm)
QUOTE
I guess some people still don't understand the simple concept that farmers cannot raise their prices to "pass along" these cost increases to the everyday consumer.
If you're not getting enough for your product, don't make as much or hold on to it.
Posted by alcitizens on Sep. 20 2013,6:26 pm
I've never met a farmer that said they had good crops.. Many at the same time are packing their bags for their trip to their second home in the south to spend the winter..
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 21 2013,5:04 am
(alcitizens @ Sep. 20 2013,6:26 pm)
QUOTE
I've never met a farmer that said they had good crops.. Many at the same time are packing their bags for their trip to their second home in the south to spend the winter..
These would be the part-time farmers, or "hobby" farmers like Mopar