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.
Libs think its a problem because they want to give $$$ away to the lame and lazy in amounts that exceeds middle income wage earners.
Sick people.
What do you suggest that we do? Get rid of minimum wage, tax cuts for the wealthy - if we do this, were does the burden fall? The working poor cannot survive without government assistance, but they work so how are they lazy? By the way, no government assistance exceeds the wages of middle income wage earners. That is BS.
Income inequality is being talked about alot nowdays but what do those who want to end it want exactly? Do they want all people to have equal incomes regardless of job skills and profession? Should an architect and brick layer earn the same to make them equal?
If income equality is the goal then what exactly does that mean and look like?
Income inequality is not a problem. There should be no goal of income equality.
What do you suggest that we do? Get rid of minimum wage, tax cuts for the wealthy - if we do this, were does the burden fall? The working poor cannot survive without government assistance, but they work so how are they lazy? By the way, no government assistance exceeds the wages of middle income wage earners. That is BS.
Yes, we should eliminate the minimum wage.
And there are very few working poor. Most poor people don't work.
And there are very few working poor. Most poor people don't work.
Working poor means when you make 50,000 a year, with two kids and a wife, and can't afford to make any savings because you have to buy food, housing, and the minimum of services to make ends meet.
Yet, many people are making 250,000 a year are getting by on far more, not because they deserve it, but because of their job title, or because they can afford tax write offs that the man making 50K a year just can't.
There are a lot of working poor in this country, a lot.
Working poor means when you make 50,000 a year, with two kids and a wife, and can't afford to make any savings because you have to buy food, housing, and the minimum of services to make ends meet.
Yet, many people are making 250,000 a year are getting by on far more, not because they deserve it, but because of their job title, or because they can afford tax write offs that the man making 50K a year just can't.
There are a lot of working poor in this country, a lot.
$50k per year is not poor.
And people making $250k don't have any more tax write offs than people making $50k.
There are not a lot of working poor in this county. There are a lot of non working poor in this country.
There is a direct correlation between the number of people working in a family and family income. The bottom line is that upper income people work more than lower income people.
And people making $250k don't have any more tax write offs than people making $50k.
There are not a lot of working poor in this county. There are a lot of non working poor in this country.
There is a direct correlation between the number of people working in a family and family income. The bottom line is that upper income people work more than lower income people.
Yeah, try living on that in Manhattan, or Florida within 30 miles of the coast.
>There are not a lot of working poor in this county. There are a lot of non working poor in this country<
Typical. I dont see working poor so they dont exist hyperbole. Most poor are habitually unemployed losers etc etc hyperbole. Go to any distribution center. You will see a ton of former 40Kish maintenance people, former office managers, etc etc picking stuff from China (etc) for 7-8 bucks an hour.
Yes I know all those finance guys work 90 hours so they are winners blah blah blah. Add in corporations who only want to sell to people in a market but not employ any of those people in the market. If that was a person you would call them a parasite. If it is a corporation that is just good business.
Its not a matter of things should be equal. An engineer SHOULD make more than a bus driver. The CEO SHOULD make more than that engineer. The engineer and the bus driver would probably agree. It is a matter of degrees and balance. And things are getting more and more unbalanced.
It doesnt help that the CEO can fire the engineer, send the work to India and increase his bonus. All the while selling into (taking from) the market while employing (putting something back) one less person in that market. In the long run he along with other CEOs weaken the market they want to sell into. Death by a million pin pricks.
That's when it becomes a problem, until then we will continue to ignore the issue.
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.
