Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-14-2013, 06:09 PM
 
34,257 posts, read 19,257,914 times
Reputation: 17244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
1. Can't you have a consumption tax that doesn't tax food, water, etc????

2. WOW... So if only the husband works..you would say the wife legally owns nothing???? Divorce, the wife out on her butt?

3. I agree.
1. turns out we can...in the end it looks a LOT like our current taxation system as far as the burden goes. Yeah the poors buy a xbox one this year as their major purchase. The rest goes into food/water/rent/electric/water/etc.

2. shrug, divorce is a contract discussion. Does she get it all then? nope. Well...not if the husband has a reasonable attorney. And if she gets more then 5 million in the divorce, and never worked for any of it then yeah tax it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:16 PM
 
26,280 posts, read 14,879,923 times
Reputation: 14461
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
1. turns out we can...in the end it looks a LOT like our current taxation system as far as the burden goes. Yeah the poors buy a xbox one this year as their major purchase. The rest goes into food/water/rent/electric/water/etc.

2. shrug, divorce is a contract discussion. Does she get it all then? nope. Well...not if the husband has a reasonable attorney. And if she gets more then 5 million in the divorce, and never worked for any of it then yeah tax it.
1. A consumption tax can even be progressive. For example, you could have a X% national sales tax, but every family gets $250 mailed to them once every 3 months to help with the consumption tax...thus it is possible for the poor to make a profit or choose to save and spend less on frivolous things.

2. So now you are back tracking and saying the housewife has an ownership claim to some of the property that she didn't earn through income?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:35 PM
 
26,280 posts, read 14,879,923 times
Reputation: 14461
Does the Social Security System actually prevent the working poor from obtaining wealth?

6.2% of their wages goes into the system and their employer matches it with funds that in theory would have been used to compensate that employee. As employers know they must match the SS contribution for all employees when hiring...it is factored in as total compensation. Wages would be higher if Social Security did not exist. In theory then 11.7%* of the working poor's wages get fed into Social Security.

The working poor tend to have a shorter lifespan than the rich. If a working poor person dies early in retirement then the bulk of this money goes to fund other people and is not passed on to heirs.

Chile has a system where the government forces investment for every individual into guaranteed growth funds that then must be used to buy annuities...some of those annuities can leave an inheritance...and the annuities are guaranteed by the government. People can choose to invest more and retire earlier.





* (6.2% + 6.2%) / (100 + 6.2%) = 11.7%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:37 PM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,329,577 times
Reputation: 3855
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Your assertion is that fewer people are getting means-tested social welfare program benefits under Obama's presidency? Prove it.

Um... yeah... look at any demographic study, poll, whatever. Here, I'll help you:
Umm...no, that's not what I said at all, but I wouldn't expect you to understand. I was simply pointing out that you assertion that Democrats purposely push people into poverty in order to shore up their votes is hogwash. If you seriously believe that, then even trading words with you is a waste of the skin on my fingers.

As for your insinuation that Obama's policies have sent so many people into poverty, let's look at the poverty numbers:

That's through 2011, and while this shows to 2012, I can't find a linkable image.

It looks like the number of people in poverty fell constantly throughout Clinton's presidency. Then it started to rise right at the end of his presidency, and continued to rise nearly unabated throughout Bush's presidency, minus a small dip around 2006. Obama came into office just after the last blue recession bar. What do you see? The huge upshoot was during the Bush years, continued shortly into Obama's first year, then appears to have tapered off.

Also, from the US Census Bureau:
• For the second consecutive year, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty at the national level were statistically different from the previous year’s estimates.
• The 2012 poverty rate was 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.

So, I know you guys hate hearing "Bush did it", but come on...the largest increase happened during Bush, and it was practically stopped within one year of Obama taking office. Is it still too high? Yes. Did Obama cause it? No.

I'll await your next retort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
No offense, but you are either slow or pulling an Obama by not being able to understand this simple concept.

Millions of low skill immigrants since the 1960s have entered the workforce. Millions of low skill women have entered the workforce since the 1960s. Low skill people means low wage jobs...as they cannot become doctors etc with low skills.

This has forced the average wage to remain stagnant...millions of low skill people flooding the economy for decades.

When you look at individuals...the vast majority of people including low skill people have seen their compensation BEAT inflation over the time period.
I did read your link, and your copy-and-pasted regurgitation of it. It simply makes no sense to say that the vast majority of people, including low wage people saw an increase, yet claim the average has stayed the same because of low-wage people. If the vast majority saw an increase, the average would have increased. And since we know that the top has increased significantly, someone has to have gone down to compensate if the average is staying the same, unless an incredible number of people have joined the labor force.

That being said, even if the average has stayed the same, even as the top has increased my multitudes, that just means we are failing and paying wages far too low to be sustainable in the long run.

Quote:
You are ridiculous to compare a 1960s home, which resembled a mass produced Levittown house and then compare it to a more expensive and more elaborate with more construction code McMansion of today. You are using dishonest comparisons...as per the typical liberal talking points in this regard.
Are you serious? Have you seen the cardboard houses being built nowadays in mass-produced neighborhoods? And their construction quality is most certainly not even close to a 1960s home. My house was one of the cheapest you could get within 15 minutes of Midtown when we bought it. It's practically made of balsa wood, and is a town home, not even a standalone house. It's the very definition of mass-produced. I don't even own the land it sits on. And it cost over $200,000. It's nowhere near a typical 1960s house. And houses comparable to a 1960s house in a decent neighborhood are going for $300k-$600k or more. Hardly within the realm of a typical worker (I'm not talking about minimum wage workers here before you go off all half-cocked about that).

It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. In those days, a person with an average job could own a good house in a good neighborhood with minimal worry. Nowadays, even skilled people might have trouble buying a basic house in an off neighborhood, with two incomes. Hell, a young couple across the street from me foreclosed, even though he is in IT, and she is a medical writer. There's no reason that should happen unless they are ridiculously careless with money. But, they didn't have anything extravagant in their house that I ever saw.

Quote:
Another FACT you chose to ignore: People are spending a smaller percentage of their income today on necessities, which includes housing and food than before...meaning they have more money for fringe things like iPhones.
And this wakes low wages okay? Are the costs of necessities that much less these days? Housing really hasn't dropped much, if at all, as evidenced by the cost of a house explained above. I don't want to clog up this post with graphs, but look here. Housing cost has remained essentially flat, minus the past ten years which did what to the average person? Food...how much less does it cost these days? I keep seeing articles about the rising cost of food. And gas? Come on...we know that's a bit more.

Quote:
READ and THINK.
I might encourage you to just think. Or read things that don't necessarily support your world view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:49 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,668 posts, read 44,417,536 times
Reputation: 13570
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
As for your insinuation that Obama's policies have sent so many people into poverty, let's look at the poverty numbers
09/23/13: Households On Foodstamps Rise To New Record High: More Americans Live In Poverty Than The Population Of Spain

Quote:
Obama came into office just after the last blue recession bar. What do you see? The huge upshoot was during the Bush years, continued shortly into Obama's first year, then appears to have tapered off.
No, it hasn't tapered off. See above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:54 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,374 posts, read 17,050,165 times
Reputation: 17410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
Ummm, no.

That's not how things work.


I can give you an explanation in a bit why its better for the overall Economy if there are more spenders (Middle Income and Lower Income brackets with disposable income).
Really?

What country, state of mind and ideology are you living in?

The cascade begins with the wealthiest and continues as they spend money. that money ends up in the pockets of everyone downstream...including the government handouts to the 'poor' who then spend the money and the middle class whop spend the money. So in reality the wealthiest pay taxes and invest... a double barrel shot of cash.

The government via obama got his influx of cash to jump start the economy and it has done no good . It is the pritning of money that keeps the economy afloat.... the shovel ready jobs caused obama to snicker when asked in an interview about that failed attempt. The feds had spent, depending on the source 1million dollars to create a temporary 40 K job. that flood of cash is going somewhere but obviously not into the pockets of the intended...that is the middle class and downstream. So oops ! that doesn't work.

Mind boggling to think that cash investments do not generate profit for unions, and every other classification of economic division you can name.

Again, unless the wealthiest keep their cash in a mason jar, which they don't, that money then gets spent and invested. The recipients of that fortune profit by jobs created and goods sold. Has worked well until obama forgot the slogan 'first do no harm' and drove a hurting economy overt the brink.

With all his spending fewer people are working and the fed keeps the econmy alive by printing money.

If your theory was sound, why not hand out fuistfuls of cash to whoever, no matter the classification.... then the economy would rebound from the 'spending'. Hasn't worked yet. Business is dormant because of the unpredictable economy primarily the fault of obamacare, the trojan horse disguised as healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 08:09 PM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,329,577 times
Reputation: 3855
And I counter with:http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...ps-Yearly1.jpg. Try to use a graph that doesn't start right as Obama took office and say "See! Look! It's Obama!!" At least look at the history leading up to it.

Number of people on foodstamps. High until Clinton came into office. Then it went down to the lowest level in 22 years by the end of his presidency. It started to rise immediately during Bush's first term, slowed for a bit, then started to shoot up during his last year in office. Any policy that Obama was going to enact would take at least a year or two to take full effect, as it would with anyone. And look, in the last two years, the upswing stopped. Agains...it was not Obama's policies that started this mess.

If I punch a hole in a dam, then abandon it, it's not fault of the guy who comes to fix it that a lot of the water got out.

Quote:
No, it hasn't tapered off. See above.
Yes, it has. See above. Your own link shows a tapering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 08:12 PM
 
26,280 posts, read 14,879,923 times
Reputation: 14461
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post


I did read your link, and your copy-and-pasted regurgitation of it. It simply makes no sense to say that the vast majority of people, including low wage people saw an increase, yet claim the average has stayed the same because of low-wage people. If the vast majority saw an increase, the average would have increased. And since we know that the top has increased significantly, someone has to have gone down to compensate if the average is staying the same, unless an incredible number of people have joined the labor force.

That being said, even if the average has stayed the same, even as the top has increased my multitudes, that just means we are failing and paying wages far too low to be sustainable in the long run.



Are you serious? Have you seen the cardboard houses being built nowadays in mass-produced neighborhoods? And their construction quality is most certainly not even close to a 1960s home. My house was one of the cheapest you could get within 15 minutes of Midtown when we bought it. It's practically made of balsa wood, and is a town home, not even a standalone house. It's the very definition of mass-produced. I don't even own the land it sits on. And it cost over $200,000. It's nowhere near a typical 1960s house. And houses comparable to a 1960s house in a decent neighborhood are going for $300k-$600k or more. Hardly within the realm of a typical worker (I'm not talking about minimum wage workers here before you go off all half-cocked about that).

It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. In those days, a person with an average job could own a good house in a good neighborhood with minimal worry. Nowadays, even skilled people might have trouble buying a basic house in an off neighborhood, with two incomes. Hell, a young couple across the street from me foreclosed, even though he is in IT, and she is a medical writer. There's no reason that should happen unless they are ridiculously careless with money. But, they didn't have anything extravagant in their house that I ever saw.



And this wakes low wages okay? Are the costs of necessities that much less these days? Housing really hasn't dropped much, if at all, as evidenced by the cost of a house explained above. I don't want to clog up this post with graphs, but look here. Housing cost has remained essentially flat, minus the past ten years which did what to the average person? Food...how much less does it cost these days? I keep seeing articles about the rising cost of food. And gas? Come on...we know that's a bit more.



I might encourage you to just think. Or read things that don't necessarily support your world view.
You obviously didn't read if you think I copy and pasted a response from it. We can't discuss if you are lying.

I will explain it for you in simple to understand terms:

"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today."

People are spending less on essentials...despite the fact that wages have NOT been stagnant...a higher percentage of your wages can now be spent on wants as opposed to needs. This means more disposable income. Even if wages were stagnant, which they haven't been since 1960 when looking at individual households, the fact that % of spending on cars, homes, clothes, food, household furnishings and etc has dipped dramatically means that your dollar goes farther.


Why have you refused to be brave enough to answer this question. Would you rather have the average 1950 household income, with 1950 prices and 1950 products OR would you rather have a 2013 average income, with 2013 prices and 2013 products??? After adjusting inflation, the median 1950 household has about half the income of the median 2013 household and far more disposable income.

American households have better wages and those wages go farther with better products, period.


You pretend like houses haven't gotten better since 1960? http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/s...medavgsqft.pdf
Houses have grown in size by 50% since 1973, the farthest back Census data I could find with a quick search. Houses in 1960 with huge vaulted ceilings, fancy architecture, stone decorated exterior walls, etc are expensive and is rarer back in 1960 than today.

Get out of your fantasy world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 09:04 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,668 posts, read 44,417,536 times
Reputation: 13570
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Yes, it has. See above. Your own link shows a tapering.
Record high participation isn't tapering. Taper means to reduce or diminish. The number of households on food stamps is increasing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 09:16 PM
 
34,257 posts, read 19,257,914 times
Reputation: 17244
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today."

Get out of your fantasy world.
I always love this bit, its SO compelling, so completely correct.....and sooo...misleading.

A bit of research shows that yes...as a % of disposable income thats correct....for us as a society. congratulations on demonstrating a awesome way to lie with statistics.

But what you say? OK. so thats correct, the only problem is that so much of the disposable income is owned by the 1%....Which is the point of this entire thing.

Lets say all those things cost $53 per person. and we have 100 people. in 1950 lets say 99 have 100 dollars each, and one has 1000. and you say all told they have 10,900 in disposable money, and spend $5,300 on necessities. The amount spent on these then is 52.6%-we'll round to ....53%

Now lets hit today. Today the 99 people have 80 dollars each, and the 1 person has 100,000. And lets say it STILL costs 53 dollars for the necessities. AWESOME today we only pay 5% ON THE AVERAGE! holy moly we must live in an age of plenty! Well...one of us does, the rest are paying 66% of their income.

Yeah thats what happens when you homogonize data that way. Its garbage. And it misleads. Seriously, the actual data when broken up into quintiles shows your wrong.

BTW heres some source material if you're curious:
http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxstnd.htm

Last edited by greywar; 11-14-2013 at 09:29 PM.. Reason: added link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top