Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would really not "fix" it. In order to barter, you must produce something to barter with. More often than not, low income people are low income because they are not productive.
Unfortunately it takes effort to change a personal situation. It is so much easier to complain, demand and take.
What motivates (the idea of) a wealth tax and higher tax rates in general?
A recognition in general that a VERY large portion are unable to pay ANY tax and will be even less likely to in the future.
iow ... Te Sutton Principle rises yet again.
Yes, over half of US citizens are deemed too poor to pay income taxes.
The worldwide global average income is around $9,700 a year. Among Americans even twice that level of income would be deemed as extreme poverty.
The average yearly income in the US for 2023 is $56,940.00. Too poor to pay even a small percentage to the Feds for all the benefits they receive.....don't make me laugh!
A forty percent reduction in an intractable problem is not failure. The question is how to make it even more successful.
But I note you don't cite data on how many government bureaucrats were hired, replete with government pensions & healthcare, to fight the War on Poverty, let alone government contractors and consultants.
Job training requires government employees. Even allocating cash assistance to the poor requires the use of some government bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats help prevent a large amount of fraud and stealing that would exist without them. Could government be more efficient? I'm sure it could just as the private sector could be. I always open to ideas that don't involve eliminating assistance to the poor.
The mistaken worldview was - and is - that government assistance is the key to ending poverty. In reality, individual actions to add value (such as by working) is the key to ending poverty. Strategies are well-known and include, for example, don't get pregnant until you're an actual adult & married, continually improve your human capital & skills, you own your own employability, have a can-do attitude at work, don't sleep on the job, and most importantly, do not rely upon hand outs.
Both are important. Individual effort is necessary to end poverty. But my analogy would be that people without bootstraps cannot pull themselves up by bootstraps. Its why we have job training programs, student loan programs, and provide the unemployed assistance finding jobs. I agree its important to not get pregnant when you are young and without a means to support yourself. However, pregnancy rates among teenagers are at an all time low. Contraceptive options and family planning choices have made them that way. Wages didn't move up in this country for a very long time. Now, they are moving up a bit and some groups are feeling that.
We are a compassionate people always willing to give a hand-up to the downtrodden, but that must not be mistaken for perpetual hand-outs to the able bodied-yet-lazy.
It is a mistake to believe that only the lazy are poor. People are poor for many different reasons and that is why reducing poverty is hard. People are poor because of lack of education, where they live in the country, bad physical and mental health, disability, racial discrimination still plays a role, and low intelligence factors in.
Life isn't fair, and sometimes bad things happen to good people. But our social safety nets must NOT encourage the downtrodden to remain downtrodden in order to receive government handouts.
I agree. Its probably why we should eliminate subsidies to corporate farms and big business. Most people who go on public assistance do not remain there. Most are there for a year or less and than find something better.
From her perspective, it was successful: she was hired and received a paycheck, not by adding value via the private sector creating goods & services people wish to buy, but by working in a "Job Corp facility funded by the Federal Government."
There will always be people who lack job skills. The inner cities are full of those who need vocational skills and can benefit from them. My mother trained many such people to be able to make a living as medical assistants. She received letters from some of her successful students for the rest of her life. Many who go to the job corps are immigrants who are literally willing to work their rear ends off for an opportunity. I think you have a stereotype of the poor that is incorrect. A large portion are out there looking for any break...any opportunity at all...and will take it if they are given the chance.
And yet her paycheck depended upon the continued existence of "customers" feeding at the public trough.
I'm sure your mother was (is?) a wonderful woman with a big heart and demonstrated desire to help others by working in the Job Corp facility, and it sounds like some people indeed benefited by her efforts.
But if we remove emotion from the equation and focus solely on data, her demonstrated skills might have added even more value to society in the private sector creating goods & services people wish to buy, thereby driving GDP upward and GDP per capita upward.
Mom wanted to do exactly what she did. She was an RN with a BS degree. She preferred teaching to working in a hospital. Her services were well thought of. Her education of medical assistants probably was more helpful to the public than her work as an individual nurse would have been.
Utah is not alone. Many local housing markets across the USA have seen similar increases as COVID induced remote work enabled millions to relocate to places they wish to live so long as they have a fast internet connection.
Many long-time residents of communities don't like the remote work trend for any number of reasons, as they may find themselves out-bid by "Californians with money" in the marketplace for homes/condos/apartments. They may dislike how the increased population of "Texans coming to Park City" tax the existing infrastructure to the breaking point.
Is the solution to build more housing? Locals in Park City are of two minds: (1) keep Park City small, and (2) add workforce housing so there is a place to store all the low-paid hospitality industry workers who make Park City desirable. After all, if there are few workers preparing & serving food on Main Street and fixing bicycles & tuning skis & cleaning hotel rooms, Park City would not be desirable. So yes to workforce housing (meaning, cheap low-end & low-priced) - just "not in my neighborhood."
Should locals have a say when a developer wishes to add 1000 units where there will be an incremental 2000 cars and perhaps an incremental 800 children - when there is zero addition to roads, zero addition to schools, and zero addition to police & fire?
Or should we rely upon developers to know when & where it is best to add housing?
One anecdote here in Las Vegas. Developers saw an opportunity to develop higher-end apartment complexes with luxury amenities and a luxury price tag. Many developments have come online in the past few months, with more coming on line in the coming months. Those apartment complexes found the surge in supply happened simultaneously with other developers surge in supply. The result: the rent, rather than being a premium, is only slightly higher than old, tired, dirty, beat-up apartment complexes from many decades ago.
Maybe supply & demand really do work after all.
The housing market in Utah is a mess. I shouldn't complain though. The sale of my home at more than 5 X the price I bought it for is helping fund my upcoming retirement. It doesn't mean though that this market which is full of speculators rather than young couples is actually working. I'd call it a disaster or near disaster. Its no accident an apartment rents for $1500 or $1600 a month and the homeless population has dramatically increased. There are young couples with combined incomes of $100 K here who are having trouble affording a house.
A recognition in general that a VERY large portion are unable to pay ANY tax and will be even less likely to in the future.
iow ... Te Sutton Principle rises yet again.
I don’t know that that is necessarily true. If a “poor” person has (take your pick) a smart phone, big screen TV, gaming system, high end sneakers, designer clothing, booze, cigarettes, drugs, etc., are they truly unable to pay ANY tax, or are they simply electing to spend what disposable income they do have on life’s luxuries?
The average yearly income in the US for 2023 is $56,940.00. Too poor to pay even a small percentage to the Feds for all the benefits they receive.....don't make me laugh!
I did not say a word about anyone making over $50k a year.
Your attempt at intimacy has failed you tried to form an argument and then act as if I had made that argument. I appreciate your attempt to stuff your words into my mouth, but I think I am perfectly capable of saying what I have said.
And again I did not say anything about folks making $50k a year.
For years we have all heard from candidates that over 50% of US citizens do not earn a high enough income to qualify to pay income taxes. I am certain that if you wanted to do so, you are capable of finding a web link to show such a factoid.
Again I did not say anything about the wealthy folks who make $50k a year.
If you can find something here to laugh about, good for you.
... Its why we have job training programs, student loan programs, and provide the unemployed assistance finding jobs. I agree its important to not get pregnant when you are young and without a means to support yourself. However, pregnancy rates among teenagers are at an all time low. Contraceptive options and family planning choices have made them that way. Wages didn't move up in this country for a very long time. Now, they are moving up a bit and some groups are feeling that.
I think that student loan programs and grants should be restricted to only majors that feed into careers.
The DOL makes lists every year projecting the earnings potential for every college major. Every major that does not have the slightest potential to earn a living should no longer receive tax-payer funding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
