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.
Most of the poor in this country are already working one, two or three low paying jobs just to make enough to pay rent, buy food and cloths and just enough expensive gas to drive their clunker to work. Most are already “off their dead ass” and working said ass off for huge monopolistic corporations like Tyson Foods, ADM and Wal-mart.
I figure that independently wealthy (defined as people with enough assets that they do not have to work (even if they choose to) to supply their, frequently lavish, lifestyle, gain the most from a government that protects them from domestic and foreign competition and or invasion, should pay for that protection. They effectively own the assets of this country so they should be paying for the maintenance. The fact that most taxes are paid by the working people simply shows that the investor classes are parasitizing the population. The corporations and people whose investments are being “protected” by the war in Iraq should be paying for that war out of their own pockets. Not my pocket or the empty pockets of the working poor.
The least we can do when considering a tax is to include all income from all sources, including illegal, when calculating income and then levying an exponentially proportional tax on that income. All local sales taxed should be eliminated and property taxes reduced by exempting a median value house from the property tax calculation as an example. Additionally any income les than three times the mean income should be exempt from taxation.
In my experience the people that complain the loudest about the concept of the government providing a “cradle to grave” support system already have that system in place and provided by their family or their wealth. I think that they are frightened by the concept that a really intelligent poor kid will get the education needed to really compete for the wealth amassed by the rich and threaten a life of unearned privilege for the children of the wealthy.
The main goal of privilege is to shift the costs of protecting the privilege onto the masses and the profit onto themselves and their children. I really do believe in the Declaration of Independence when it states, “All men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” without artificial barriers created by the wealthy to protect their privilege by restricting the advancement of the less fortunate.
I f this makes me seem an egalitarian socialist, then that is an accurate assessment of my politics.
Well, I haven't kept that close track. Certainly, there are incentives to attract and hopefully retain quality teachers in lower income school districts...salary, loan forgiveness, continuing education, the usual. But (no surprise) turnover remains high there, so I don't know which between the lower and higher income areas would actually end up having the higher average.
I only know this because my mother taught in a very poor area for 30 years. She had plenty of opportunities to change jobs and switch to a school in the wealthy suburbs, but at such a pay cut for the same level job that it wouldn't have been worth it.
Here, the middle and lower middle class neighborhoods really get the shaft. The poor areas get so much state funding that they can afford to pay the most for teachers. The upper middle class suburbs have enough of their own money to compensate for the lack of state tax subsidies. The middle and lower middle class suburbs have the worst of both worlds, lower income, and no tax subsidy.
The pathetic part is that even though the urban schools are the wealthiest, their test scores are still the worst. People are going to argue that the urban schools are not really the wealthiest. That I am making that up, because in most states that is not the case, but it my socialistic, high tax state, the state supreme court has mandated as much. Their decision actually says that "The states 31 poorest districts must get at least as much funding as the states wealthiest dstricts." The poor cities spend 18K per pupil while the suburbs spend 10K-14K per student per year. So money is not the answer. There are obviously environmental influences playing a role here. Parents, peers, etc...
Now the big question is, who needs to take responsibility for that?
It is very easy to blame society. Say it is OUR fault. Generation after generation of racism placing these children in this environment.
But does that solve anything? I am firm believer that having someone else to blame is the biggest catalyst for inertia. People criticize the "personal responsibility" crowd, but honestly THAT is what will elevate people out of poverty. The BEST, MOST VALUABLE realization a person can make is that "NOBODY IS GOING TO HELP ME! I HAVE TO DO IT ON MY OWN!" Because when it comes down to it, that is the truth. As long as liberals keep giving them false hope with their petty little hand outs, the longer they will stay in poverty.
{Wow. I really only intended to write that first little paragraph, but somehow I lost control and went into a rant.}
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 01-29-2008 at 08:19 AM..
{Wow. I really only intended to write that first little paragraph, but somehow I lost control and went into a rant.}
You know why? Its because you are living too high of a lifestyle. I bet if you bought a smaller house and gave 75% of your earnings to the poor, you would feel that you were a much better person and in turn not lose control like you just did.
What is the reason for the high turnover? I've heard reasons from family members who were teachers in low income areas, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.
I don't know in this case. As I said, I haven't really paid close attention to developments in low-income school districts anywhere in New Jersey, but the typical factors are reasonably well-known. For one thing, low-income schools have disproportionate numbers of teachers who are new-hires right out of college, meaning that opportunties for mentoring and networking support are minimized. It takes at least three years of full-time classroom experience for a teacher to reach full competency, and majorities among teachers in many low-income schools simply aren't there yet. Low-income schools also tend to have the most run-down and inadequate physical plants. They tend to be located in less than beautiful and inspiring environments. And perhaps most importantly, they tend to have the least competent principals and other administrators on site, a fact that tends to depress the senses of value and power felt among in-class staff. They also of course face some of the stearner in-class challenges that a school system will have to offer, but this doesn't tend to rank very highly as an actual problem in the minds of teachers in low-income schools, whether they ultimately choose to leave or not. What might be grouped together as working conditions seems to be what will typically lead low-income teachers to leave those schools (and too often, the profession), and on average, they do so at rates that are about double those at upscale schools. So maybe this will jibe with the particulars that your family members report and maybe it won't, but I'd be rather surprised if they came up with lists of reasons that were completely different from this one...
Ah, that would be new information. Wasn't referred to that way in the earlier post.
Hmmm. No business fees or taxes? No insurance on her rather substantial inventory? No site-maintenance or web-hosting fees?
Yeah, sounds like it's going great for her.
Well no, $3K per month is not great money, but with some smarts, it is enough to get by on in most places. But per the earlier, this isn't going to be a cure for the common cold. This is a niche job that only a few are going to be able to tolerate long-term. Good thing, otherwise the market would soon become saturated with sellers. And in any case, you'd have a large enough house and a large enough computer standing as significant barriers to entry from the point of view of most poor people. Most poor people are willing and able and would love to work. A great many of them already do. They're still poor. Their kids are still poor. I think we'll need more than your lady-friend if we're going to get some of these folks off of the hamster wheel...
Beats the heck outta working at Wally World for 800 per month. As she puts it she is living the American dream working from home.
Update to let you know she purchased a piece of early Italian Glass for 5.00 at a thrift store. Turns out to be extremely rare as she began the listing on ebay she was told it was rare, she was nailed with emails asking her to stop the auction and sell it to them. She didnt.. it ended at 1650.00.
People who are poor are poor because they are not trying to need someone to push them into trying. Those who are poor have a huge advantage as there are many people out there who feel sorry for them and would help them get started in anything they want to do. Its those who wont do anything but whine about being poor that deserve to stay poor.
It's because it's easier for them to hold their hands out (for a government check) and whine about being poor than to get up off their collective butts and get an education, job training, better job, second job, third job. See those all require work, and whining is for the most part is easy and free.
Beats the heck outta working at Wally World for 800 per month. As she puts it she is living the American dream working from home.
Update to let you know she purchased a piece of early Italian Glass for 5.00 at a thrift store. Turns out to be extremely rare as she began the listing on ebay she was told it was rare, she was nailed with emails asking her to stop the auction and sell it to them. She didnt.. it ended at 1650.00.
People who are poor are poor because they are not trying to need someone to push them into trying. Those who are poor have a huge advantage as there are many people out there who feel sorry for them and would help them get started in anything they want to do. Its those who wont do anything but whine about being poor that deserve to stay poor.
I believe it is because th eentrepeneurial spirit is stifled in our society,due to various reasons.
One being the idea that our Uncle Sugar will take care of us.
Good example of hwo people make something of their lives.
Quite sad that netting $36,000 a year, working at home, and being your own boss is looked down upon.
Guess it shows how some are driven by the almighty $$$.
I know it drives me crazy to think this. This is the ultimate way of life, work when and how you want, make 36k per year net, enjoy what you do and have the potential to even make more with little more effort.
I will say this again, if this lady cannot live comfy on 36k per year net money then something is very wrong. 36 k per year is very good money if you are not living in a highrise condo and buying Hummers.
36k per year is not poor and if you cannot make it on 36k per year then I guess you should take on another job or work more hours or something. Or..... manage the money you have better.
All I can say is there is no excuse for being poor, there is no reason why we should force the burden of taxing the weathlty more to pay for those lazy butts who wont work or learn a trade etc to better themselves.
We need to lower taxes and force people who are not paying into the system to get a job and pay into the system. Instead of sucking from the system.
Sure poor and lower middle class want the weathly to be taxed to death so they can get more handouts.
We had an employee once who told my wife that she was voting for the huge school tax increase, the wife said why would you vote for that when it is going to raise our taxes out the roof. The answer.... " I dont own a home, I rent and if the rich can pay for my kids a better school why not?".
My answer is you dont pay taxes and you should not be allow to vote on taking money out of my paycheck because your lazy butt wont even work an extra 8 hour shift when he need you. This loser wouldnt even work through her lunch when we needed her to, she wouldnt work weekends or late nights.
But she sure was always talking the same crap that some here do about
taxing and taking away from the who have done things right and giving to those who have NOT.
Imagine if the fair tax was implemented,she would pay NO income tax and have even more of her own money.
Especially since most of her purchases are used(no sales tax on used goods)
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.
