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.
If we're turning government into fee-for-service, can I redirect the proportion of my income taxes going to national defense to education and healthcare? I'm pretty sure most of our military spending does more harm than good at this point and not being the world a-hole would do far more for national defense than how it is actually being spent.
On a more serious note, turning government into fee-for-service is inherently a bad idea. Living in a society has costs and we all have to pitch in. Don't like it, start living off-the-grid or move to a 3rd world country too dysfunctional to provide infrastructure.
Shame that the "Job Creators" who initially have benefitted beyond anyone's wildest dreams
never bothered to raise the wages and benefits of their lowest rung employees like they were
"Supposed" to when their tax breaks were first proposed and implemented.
Stop calling jobs "entry level jobs" to justify slave wages. Where I live, it is very difficult to
find a job that pays more than 8 bucks an hour. I live in a decent size town and rents/real
estate/car insurance/health insurance is as expensive as it is in any large metropolis.
There is a reason why the 1% keep getting richer and the middle class is devolving into
the lower middle class. There is nothing to invest in, so investors pay corporations to
answer to them. Lobbyists have twisted the original constitutional intent of lobbying
into legalized bribery for influence. 2010 Citizen's United ruling plunged our economy
into the toilet for average non degreed wage earner. The so called "Job Creators" are
NOT creating living wage careers for the very real human beings they depend upon to
employ. Corporate has more rights than a parent and children.
Instead of rewarding employees, investors are the focus.
There is a reason why the middle class prospered and the suburbs bloomed back in
the 1950's. Corporations were FORCED to pay higher taxes. To offset their taxes,
they reinvested in their lowest rung employees. They would never have otherwise.
No rich elite who gets a tax break passes the savings on to their employees. Maybe
the smaller, private held companies do. But not corporate. Never. Corporate is the
biggest pig in the trough and they will pay bribes to keep it that way.
Corporate does not want you to actually have health insurance either. They take
welfare payments from our government to agree to stay in the health insurance
business. Then they take investors. They take advantage of the consumers, because
everyone needs healthcare. Total pimp and prostitute scenario and nowadays the
administrators often make more money than the damn doctors and surgeons.
Tax credits are not socialism. I have heard people complain, I certainly didnt ask them their political affiliation but it was apparent they were not the ones getting those tax credits. I think the complaint is those who dont work or make so little they pay nothing in taxes can get a tax refund only because they have children. Its the pays no taxes but gets a tax REFUND. Emphasis on refund. and its an issue with our tax system, nothing to do with socialism.
This is fundamentally dishonest.
Tax credits are a hand-out. It's the same as handing them the money- just using the tax code as the mechanism.
If you are single and childless, you will receive $ 1400 under the Rescue Act. A family of four would receive $ 11,600 ( I have included the child tax credits in this calculation); more if the children are under 6.
I know raising kids is expensive. But this variance seems a bit out of proportion. 12K is a down payment on a house. $ 1400 covers one month of rent in a metro area.
Did I miscalculate? What are your thoughts on this?
Yep. We all get the shaft in nearly everything, both by the government as well as private enterprises.
Shame that the "Job Creators" who initially have benefitted beyond anyone's wildest dreams
never bothered to raise the wages and benefits of their lowest rung employees like they were
"Supposed" to when their tax breaks were first proposed and implemented.
Stop calling jobs "entry level jobs" to justify slave wages. Where I live, it is very difficult to
find a job that pays more than 8 bucks an hour. I live in a decent size town and rents/real
estate/car insurance/health insurance is as expensive as it is in any large metropolis.
There is a reason why the 1% keep getting richer and the middle class is devolving into
the lower middle class. There is nothing to invest in, so investors pay corporations to
answer to them. Lobbyists have twisted the original constitutional intent of lobbying
into legalized bribery for influence. 2010 Citizen's United ruling plunged our economy
into the toilet for average non degreed wage earner. The so called "Job Creators" are
NOT creating living wage careers for the very real human beings they depend upon to
employ. Corporate has more rights than a parent and children.
Instead of rewarding employees, investors are the focus.
There is a reason why the middle class prospered and the suburbs bloomed back in
the 1950's. Corporations were FORCED to pay higher taxes. To offset their taxes,
they reinvested in their lowest rung employees. They would never have otherwise.
No rich elite who gets a tax break passes the savings on to their employees. Maybe
the smaller, private held companies do. But not corporate. Never. Corporate is the
biggest pig in the trough and they will pay bribes to keep it that way.
Corporate does not want you to actually have health insurance either. They take
welfare payments from our government to agree to stay in the health insurance
business. Then they take investors. They take advantage of the consumers, because
everyone needs healthcare. Total pimp and prostitute scenario and nowadays the
administrators often make more money than the damn doctors and surgeons.
Might help all those young folks to have some kids. We will be needing new adults over the next decade.
Those born in 1956 hit retirement age. Middle of the Baby Boom. A lot of jobs to be opening.
They can't afford real estate to have families until they're older in life on even above average incomes in most areas of the country that have jobs as not everything is remote work due to escalating inflationary real estate prices.
Look at the thread on western US real estate prices.
They can't afford real estate to have families until they're older in life on even above average incomes in most areas of the country that have jobs as not everything is remote work due to escalating inflationary real estate prices.
Look at the thread on western US real estate prices.
I saw it. It's all relative. Housing bubbles occur every decade, I have seen them since 1974.
Bought first home in 1980 at 13% interest. Just refinanced current home at 3%. Buy now, get money from family, pay it back.
I'm just curious, Of all the money that we got from the previous stimulus, how much of it did you put back into the economy? How much would you have spent if you did not receive the previous Stimulus?
All of it
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.
