Lots of speculators here.
HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Apr 20 2011, 06:41 PM) Psh you should blame your poor take home pay on your business decisions. I mean construction company to build cubes? I dunno your business but I would just go for cheap partitions and heck they can be done by one person and you wouldn't even need to hire a construction company to take 5 days. What do you need in the workstations? Perhaps you could use Linux and thus save on those expensive software licences.
I'm assuming you mean most of that in jest. If not, then yeah, you don't know my business. I can't go with a cheap construction job due to the fact that clients see the space. The software isn't a windows/linux question, its a professional software specifically created for my industry. And then there's always having to listen to people whine about unemployment and lack of upward mobility, all the while hearing the same people suggest that business people should be more frugal and not hire quality construction workers to do good work or software companies to write quality software.... I'll choose the former, but that's just me.
Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 20 2011, 06:48 PM) That's not trickle-down, though, because it didn't come as a direct result of the government giving you free money to reward you for being rich. It's trickle-up - the reason you hired a new employee is likely because...well, I was going to make an economic argument here, but you said right there in the post that it was needed to fill a hole created by nepotism, which kind of negates the point I was going to make. Of course, you wouldn't have had to hire a construction crew to revamp the office if you had planned for expansion in the original layout and made allowances for it, so I guess poor planning and lack of foresight are good for the economy too!
But you know, I guess you're right! Why allow the filthy masses to have enough money to buy your goods and services when we can just funnel all the money straight into your pockets! I'm sure it'll all trickle down to whichever employees manage to survive the layoffs that happen when your business suffers due to potential customers being less able to afford you!
Le' lol... I'm guessing you must believe that Microsoft started day 1 with a great big campus and 50,000 employees since they knew how big Gates' ideas were going to be. As for the rest, TA was right.
girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 20 2011, 07:08 PM) mcwarren, you have conclusively proven that economic activity is good for the economy.
On the other hand, if we tax your not-quite-$250k income a bit more, maybe we can pay for better education programs, with the help of which perhaps those noisy construction workers would have had more social mobility, and could move up to working in cubicles, while the construction work itself would be done by some robots that a more educated population would surely be able to design and build... Thus creating even more jobs!
Meh. All's I's knows is, the middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and poor is going up, social mobility is going down, and that means
somewhere there's room for improvement.
I thought about this, and TA is probably wrong about not hiring another employee if I were taxed more. I'm not certain that he is wrong because that was my initial thought, but I'd say eventually I would've made this particular move, only because I feel it is my duty as a Christian to lift other people up to fully use their God given talents. It would've taken longer though because I wouldn't want to sink the whole business to better one person. At some point though it stops being worth my time to continue to work so hard. If I were taxed, say 10% more on the next $100k I earn I'm certain it would not be worth it. I would probably rather spend that extra effort volunteering rather than working to give in excess of 52% of every additonal dollar I earn to the government. Even at this income level 40%+ of each additional dollar I earn goes to federal, state, and local government. I'm not sure where my breaking point would be. It might be 2% more, it might be 6% more. All I know is that I do think about it often and know that I could be at home with my wife or out directly helping people in need. If all of my basic needs are met, I'm on track with retirement savings, then there isn't much point in spending that additional hour in the office if I'm going to keep so little of the fruit of that labor.
Bard wrote:QUOTE (Bard @ Apr 20 2011, 07:38 PM) At USD 250,000 or less per year, even in Indianapolis, you are by no means a "rich person".
When I, personally, say "Rich Person" I mean people who make upwards of a USD 1,000,000 net per year.
You are just barely upper middle class.
You don't qualify as "rich" until you're using tax loopholes and offshore holding to dodge taxes almost entirely.
I pretty much feel the same way on most of that. $250k/yr is a lot of money, but most $250k/yr earners at my stage of career are definitely not wealthy.
Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Apr 20 2011, 07:42 PM) Mo' money mo' problems.
WORD!
girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 20 2011, 07:51 PM) Why not? It depends on how much he pays his employees. Also depends on whether the $250k is corporate profits or his personal salary. Also depends on many other factors, I'd imagine, including just how much we'd be raising the tax rate, and how the benefits would match up with the costs.
I stand by my point: Generally, social mobility is good, a healthy middle class is good, and giant growing gaps between the rich and the poor are bad. Maybe taxing people to provide better social services isn't part of the solution, but something has to be, and the invisible hand of the market doesn't seem to be too eager to fix the problem yet.
I was talking about my income. However, two years ago my employees all made more money than I did. I'm sure you would agree that I was being overly generous by not cutting their salaries down to my level (which was less than $40k in 2009) since business was off so much. I'm sure they would've understood and happily just accepted that too.
Anyone would gladly do to get ahead right?
PS - I have one employee who I've repeatedly tried to encourage to study for and take a licensing exam. In exchange for that they would get an immediate 10% raise. Mind you, this isn't a bonus, its a permanent improvement in their pay and an opportunity to greatly expand their career. Nope, they don't want to spend the 100 hours of time outside of work that it would take to pass the exam. The one that just got promoted took the exam two years ago and its paying off hugely for her. The point is even in the face of obvious cause and effect some people simply won't do what it takes to better their situation.
Heyoka wrote:QUOTE (Heyoka @ Apr 20 2011, 09:53 PM) What I want to know is why funding for education continues to be cut.
I don't know how to manage money, I don't know how to do many things.
My knowledge on world geography is pretty damn @#(!ty. My math skills are horrible. My reading and comprehension skills are above average, but that comes from a natural disposition to such things.
It's not like I didn't try, it's that our Public school systems are $#@!ed, and we're $#@!ing them more and more. Now, we're also $#@!ing post-secondary education.
As a person in the poverty-level, I feel like I am getting $#@!ed out of any opportunity to improve my financial situation.
I also have a fairly debilitating handicap, yet I have refused to apply for SS disability. I am a hard worker when I am able and I do my best to make it, yet I continue to run into roadblock after roadblock.
I honestly have no idea where to go from this point. I run and operate my own small business, but have to offer my services at 50-80% below the "standard" rates because of the economy and apparent hatred for small-business.
I pretty much hate the US Government at this point.
I empathize with your situation, but let's be honest about education funding. We have thrown more money at it in the last 30 years than ever before and it didn't seem to help at all. So money isn't the issue.
At risk of sounding callous it sounds like you shouldn't be seeking college level education if you struggled so hard in secondary education. At least not until you've gotten a decent mastery of the high school level coursework. If you aren't 'ready' for college yet it is just a waste of your and the college's time and money. That is one of the issues causing tuitions to go up so much. Too many unqualified students in the classroom at the college level. We wind up with classrooms full of students that will never graduate, which only serves to make tuition more costly for everyone.
If you have been accepted by a university there is plenty of grant money available for low-income students, especially ones that excel once they are in school. It really is never too late to go back to school even if it is part-time.
edit - added response to Heyoka
Omnia Mutantur, Nihil Interit.
