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.
you get married- all is lovely- then you have kids and then the shzt the fan?? where you supposed to know in advance?? and if you had 2 income you did not have Medicaid--
Responsible married people don't have kids until they're financially secure and there are sufficient financial resources on reserve for the event of a job loss and/or if either parent having to raise the child(ren) alone becomes necessary. Otherwise... that's what birth control is for.
If you put the cart before the horse and can't support your own kids, that's your own fault.
If taxes would actually take food off your table, you wouldn't owe any taxes. Redistributions of income and wealth are meanwhile part of the core functions of any society. It's all supposed to flow from the more fortunate to the less fortunate of course
That's not how it works in the democratic socialist Scandinavian and European countries which have more and better social programs.
Scandinavian countries also apply their top marginal income tax rate to the middle class, while the U.S. top marginal tax rate only applies to the top 1%:
It can only be done within the phony constructs put forward by the corporate disinformation media. The taxpayer has to pick up the tab for food, housing, and health care for millions of low-wage people who in fact work full-time hours and more at one job or more.
Why? Why can't they live with roommates to split living expenses and cut other unnecessary expenses to live within their means?
Seriously? You think birth control and driver's ed are infallible means of prevention? Look around or something.
Interesting comparison. One is responsible for the result of their bad driving decisions (DUI, property damage, vehicular homicide, etc.) but not for their bad childbearing decisions? Nope. Can't have it both ways.
That's your best reply? It misses the mark completely. All the corny bootstrapper, pat-yourself-on-the-back posts in the world aren't going to address any part of the problem at all.
The problem is that we are allowing corporations to externalize a part of their costs of production. It's the same as dumping toxic chemicals into a nearby waterway and expecting the taxpayer to come along and clean it all up. In a labor market devoid of unions or other balancing factors, market power lies all on the employer side of the table. New and existing low-wage workers have no power at all. They end up working for lower than subsistence wages, and the taxpayer again has to come along and make up the difference. This is like one of the bedrock basics of right-wing economics. Make room for higher profits and dividends by getting the taxpayer to pick up a part of the costs of production that rightly should have been born by shareholders and fat-cat corporate salary recipients.
People are going to have to decide how much longer they are going to put up with situations such as this. How have things really been going in America since 1980 or so when the Harvard Business School spin on things began to take hold? Have your medical and pension benefits been getting better? Is your job security improved? Or are you instead expected today to do more for less or else take a hike? Workers in general these days have quite a lot in common with low-wage workers, though many still refuse to see it.
You can carry on about corporations, the fact of the matter is, if you aren't making enough money, get a 2nd job. I'm not the only person who has ever done that, it's been done by untold amounts of people for YEARS.
Stop asking the government to fix everything. I don't buy that excuse that "there's no opportunities" or "they live in a rural area, they can't find another one..." Baloney. I lived in the state of Maine which did not have much in the way of full time jobs. Yet despite the stigma of being "from away", and getting looked over several times in favor of someone who lived there their whole lives, I still managed to work multiple jobs to earn my own way until I was able to land a full time job. It took me two years to finally get a full time job, but if I can do it in Maine, then no, absolutely NOT do I buy the excuses that someone else "can't". Bull.
When people argue about low wages and a $15 minimum wage, the typical response is the low wage employee should just go back to school and learn a trade so they can earn more. Great idea but the low wage menial job still needs to be done by someone, so the newly trained worker will just be replaced by someone else.
Maybe 30% of full time jobs pay less than $15 an hour. Someone has got to do the low pay work, SO: Should the government pay welfare to the people who support a family on low income?
Absolutely not. This is how we have created a terrible number of welfare-minded citizens. Those low-paying jobs are for the very young and single who need to get started in the work arena, get experience and move up the scale. Government has already destroyed the market for the youngsters with their ridiculous regulations...let's not make it worse.
You can carry on about corporations, the fact of the matter is, if you aren't making enough money, get a 2nd job. I'm not the only person who has ever done that, it's been done by untold amounts of people for YEARS.
Stop asking the government to fix everything. I don't buy that excuse that "there's no opportunities" or "they live in a rural area, they can't find another one..." Baloney. I lived in the state of Maine which did not have much in the way of full time jobs. Yet despite the stigma of being "from away", and getting looked over several times in favor of someone who lived there their whole lives, I still managed to work multiple jobs to earn my own way until I was able to land a full time job. It took me two years to finally get a full time job, but if I can do it in Maine, then no, absolutely NOT do I buy the excuses that someone else "can't". Bull.
What an excellent example of a very good American you are.
That's not how it works in the democratic socialist Scandinavian and European countries which have more and better social programs.
How did Scandinavia get into this? Oh, I know. You didn't have any answer that related to either this country or the original point. I'll restate the original point: If taxes would actually take food off your table, you wouldn't owe any taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Scandinavian countries also apply their top marginal income tax rate to the middle class, while the U.S. top marginal tax rate only applies to the top 1%:
Update: European countries have in many cases taken care to assure that their middle classes are paid well enough to be able to afford the taxes that support middle class welfare programs. We haven't done that. In this country, only the wealthy make enough to be able to pay the taxes that support middle class welfare programs. And the pikers don't want to do it.
Why? Why can't they live with roommates to split living expenses and cut other unnecessary expenses to live within their means?
They do. And it doesn't work. If it did work, we would not have the problems that we have to begin with. The simple fact that such problems do exist is firm and conclusive proof that simplistic ideas about how to resolve those problems do not actually work. Did you have anything else to offer?
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.
