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.
I don't know. This nuevo-middle class has sure risen and blossomed during and after "Reaganomics". However, where the true inequality lies is between the working-class and the modern "middle class", the working-class has suffered ever since the 70's(?) and has been all but forgotten. Now this new middle-class created since that time is falling out. Maybe the trend will continue and the masses will at least level out, even if the rich stay rich. If you're suffering, get a master's degree. Then maybe in 20 years when too many have master's degrees somebody can come on here and tell you that you need a doctorate.
I don't know who the "nuevo-middle class" is but the middle-class has not blossomed under Reaganomics. Every study has show that the top 0.1% has done the best since 1979, followed by the top 1%. The rest are either worse off or stagnant.
In a flailing effort to address the pain of the middle class, the Republicans repeated familiar charges that Mr. Obama advocates a redistribution of wealth.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas outright called him a socialist. Newt Gingrich tried to focus national anger about income inequality with a faux populist assault on Mitt Romney’s participation in the frenzied world of leveraged buyouts.
It was all exactly backward. Americans are angry about income redistribution — from the middle class to the tiny sliver at the top, not from the top down. Leveraged buyouts were only one factor in the growth of the income gap. Also to blame was a host of benighted economic policies advocated by Republicans for the last 30 years.
...
The candidates’ economic arguments were disturbingly disconnected from economic reality. They spoke of government spending as if it were the sole cause of the federal budget deficit and cutting it the sole solution. In reality, it was tax cuts for the wealthy, an assault on social programs and a deregulatory zeal that allowed a recklessness that led to near economic collapse.
The solution is policies that promote growth and help the middle class, not what the Republican hopefuls want. Mr. Obama said it well on Monday night: “We can’t go back to this brand of you’re-on-your-own economics.” You couldn’t tell that by listening to Mr. Romney prattle about a merit-based economy and call for lowering taxes and cutting spending.
...
Economic growth and rising productivity are needed for broadly shared prosperity, but rising living standards require policies that ensure regular increases in the minimum wage, which peaked in 1968; greater investment in the social safety net; full employment as a government priority; progressive taxation; and effective financial regulation to avoid overgrowth followed by collapse.
These kinds of policies dominated from the late-1940s to the 1970s, a time of broadly shared prosperity and a strong middle class. Those policies were then systematically reversed, income inequality began to explode and productivity growth slowed. Tax cuts for the rich and assaults on programs for the poor and middle class worsened inequality during the years of George W. Bush.
The answer is not more of the same failed policies.
...
We're in uncharted territory these days.
Longest and deepest recession since WWII and the least number of people in the labor force.
How is it that 36% of Americans don't need to work ? Are there really that many retired, independently wealthy or on government support people out there ?
No one is suggesting we squeeze money from a stone. I think EVERYONE should pay taxes, and yes, EVERYONE who does, should have their taxes lowered. The problem isnt a lack of income, its OVER SPENDING.
The argument that it's all spending denies reality.
Government revenue as a %p of GDP has fallen to the lowest level in many decades, in-spite of GDP (the denominator) dropping in 2008. As I've repeatedly stated, recent year's spending increases are caused by the economic downturn.
However, looking further in the past, we see that deficits emerged after Bush lowered taxes. Budget deficits also worsened when Reagan lowered taxes, forcing him to re-raise taxes (of course, they weren't called 'taxes' they were called 'revenue enhancements.') See the pattern? The lowest tax-rates in generations is causal to budget deficits.
We're in uncharted territory these days.
Longest and deepest recession since WWII and the least number of people in the labor force.
How is it that 36% of Americans don't need to work ? Are there really that many retired, independently wealthy or on government support people out there ?
The demographics speak for themselves. There seem to be lots of retired Americans:
The demographics speak for themselves. There seem to be lots of retired Americans:
So 35 million retired is what..10% ? What about the other 26%..that's still a lot of people..1/4 of Americans not in the labor pool and of working age.
That should be a worrisome number because the BLS keeps adjusting it down, not up. Maybe due to boomers entering retirement ... still worrisome nevertheless.
The way I see it there are two ways to resolve the income distribution problem the working poor face. I don't think anyone can dispute that there is a large segment of Americans that are working but still living in poverty.
I look at my budget and wonder how some survive within the system the wealthy have created for them. I don't have a mortgage or rent, debt payments of any kind, and we live frugal every day. Including taxes, insurances and all of our basic living costs the two of us spent $42,000 a year. No frills, no vacation, no bar hopping weekends, no movie nites, no big parties, in fact basic cable and no internet. We don't have kids that need child care or college funding (my 30 something daughter is working on a PHD and is carrying well over $70k in student loans) my daughter lives on here own 1250 to the south and is on her own.
How do you expect a single mother making near minimum wage to survive and raise her kid? Should we remove her safety net AND take more income away from her by taxing her more and cutting her paycheck, too?
Either the government subsidizes them or employers pay a living wage.
The answer we get from the right is that we should do neither. They ask why employers need to pay a minimum wage at the same time they are saying these workers shouldn't receive aid and should pay more taxes. Most want both, stop supporting the poor while allowing employers to pay them whatever the low bidder accepts.
Wow, let's create an underclass like the untouchables in India. We can let them fight for the scraps of the wealthy living in the gated ocean front communities. Two Americas.
So 35 million retired is what..10% ? What about the other 26%..that's still a lot of people..1/4 of Americans not in the labor pool and of working age.
That should be a worrisome number because the BLS keeps adjusting it down, not up. Maybe due to boomers entering retirement ... still worrisome nevertheless.
How many non-working college students are there? How many stay at home parents are there? We already know there are 14 million unemployed.
We're in uncharted territory these days.
Longest and deepest recession since WWII and the least number of people in the labor force.
How is it that 36% of Americans don't need to work ? Are there really that many retired, independently wealthy or on government support people out there ?
Wife took SS at 62 last fall I retired and live off a portion my capital gains. Other than that no pensions or outside aid. Doubt we'd qualify for any government aid with our net worth, never bothered to even check into anything beyond SSDI. When I was not longer able to work I did bother to check if SSDI was an option because of two back surgeries but they decided I wasn't disabled.
My wife earned her SS check. So did her brother that died two years into receiving his SS checks. In a few years I will take my SS check that I earned. Neither my wife nor I ever earned a dime that wasn't subject to FICA. In fact as a business owner I paid both ends of FICA for every dime I ever paid myself.
First, without check, I doubt you checked either, your single mother probably would not qualify for these programs you list. And I suspect your dollar amounts are maximum benefits that she wouldn't get based on the income you attributed to her. Especially, when you add the mystery man's income. If you are going to lay out a scenario please keep it factual and legal. Let's not make everyone a criminal in your example to justify your agenda. Let's assume the single mother reported ALL household income or the mystery man doesn't exist.
Let's look at this single mother's costs:
Rent, national average about $800 a month or $9,600 a year.
Single mother gets subsidized housing, and gets to cut to the front of the line for Section 8
Quote:
Food and personal needs about $600 a month or $7,200 a year.
Single mother has access to WIC. Furthermore, why is she spending 600 dollars a month on food? That's $20 a day. Given that a box of non name-brand cereal costs about 3 dollars and would last a good 3 weeks, and that single mom probably gets junior free lunches at school, that means she's not being very frugal when either A) making dinner or B) avoiding Starbucks each morning on her way to work.
Quote:
Utilities, heat, lights and water about $250 a month or $3,000 a year.
Not for a 600 dollar apartment. Water and sewage are probably included. Electricity is probably no more than 60 bucks a month. Heat is probably electric. If it's gas, take on another 30.
Quote:
Car loan, about $250 a month or $3,000 a year.
A car isn't a right. She can take the train.
Quote:
So far I have costs of $22,800.
Really? I've got about 12,500 - and that's including money for bus passes.
Quote:
Gas for that car, 30 gallon at $3.33 or $100 a week or $5,2000 a year.
Where the hell is this woman driving to that she uses 30 gallons of gas a week? I fill up my car once per week...14 gallons. And I drive a lot. But again, she can take the train.
Quote:
$28,000 now, what are we forgetting? Taxes?
Your numbers are already too far off to continue, but let's anyways.
Quote:
Let's add another $2,500 in all the state, local, city, sales, FICA, gas and others like licensing of the driver and the car.
She's poor. The only thing she's probably actually paying without getting back is the sales tax.
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.
