Free Allegiance Forums

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.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 20 2011, 07:08 PM) On the other hand, if we tax your not-quite-$250k income a bit more....

Yeah you missed the point. If you taxed him more, he couldn't have afforded to give the girl a promotion or hire a new guy.

And jimen you're just making stuff up now.

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Apr 20 2011, 05:15 PM) us 'rich' people are demonic... and I didn't even make $250k last year.

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.

Mo' money mo' problems.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 20 2011, 07:29 PM) Yeah you missed the point. If you taxed him more, he couldn't have afforded to give the girl a promotion or hire a new guy.

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.

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.

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.

Well yes of course it depends on all those things but the theory is that the more you tax poor McW, the less money he has and the less likely he is to expand his economic activity and create jobs. McW was just illustrating how it is that a rich dude like him stimulates economic activity. So instead of taking his money away from him and putting it into useless and wasteful government programs, perhaps we should let him keep more of it and create more jobs. That is the theory, anyway.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 20 2011, 07:51 PM) 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.

I can't imagine anyone on planet earth will disagree with those things.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 20 2011, 07:51 PM) 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 hate the term 'social services' WTF does that even mean? so many government programs are just throwing money away. In that sense they are a huge drain on the economy. I agree that we need certain safety net programs like social security, unemployment, and food stamps. I am also generally in favor of some type of basic socialized medicine. But so much of what the government spends money on is just bull@#(!.

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

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Apr 20 2011, 10:03 PM) 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.

In reality, it is.

The problem is that all of the extra money we're throwing at education isn't going to the teachers or students -- it's going to the school board.

A couple of years back, we had a school superintendent for a small school district who "retired" in his 40's and automatically got a NICE pension package equal to his salary and permanent health insurance coverage for the rest of his life. He worked the minimum number of years to qualify for a pension, and because the law only stipulated that he couldn't work another job IN THIS STATE to continue receiving his health insurance and pension money, he took another job as a school superintendent in ANOTHER state, continued to receive his salary from our state, AND got a salary in another state.

This happens because lawmakers are patting each other on the back and taking care of THEMSELVES instead of using the money the way it SHOULD be used.

We also have schools that, instead of running school lunch rooms, are taking kickbacks from low-bidder catering companies and having THEM serve up the cheapest food that qualifies as "healthy" under the federal requirements for funding. A bunch of our schools ALSO took kickbacks from Coca-Cola for installing vending machines with Dasani bottled water in them if they agreed NOT TO INSTALL MORE WATER FOUNTAINS so the students would be forced to use the machines.

In Chicago, one school banned bag lunches so that kids would be FORCED to pay for the catered school lunches under the auspice of "healthy eating" which, again, gives them more federal money that they're NOT spending on the students.

The problem isn't that the money wouldn't help, it's that it's NOT BEING REGULATED AND THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS ARE CROOKS.

Hell, Detroit just sent layoff notices to 5,714 of it's teachers and I have yet to see how that enrollment drop compares, ratio-wise, to the number of teachers being laid off and what that will do to class sizes.

Of course, there was enough money available in the Michigan budget to buy expensive hardware that lets police officers download all of the data off of your cellphone regardless of phone security features or model because Michigan has a "no texting while driving" law, which will now give any officer carte blanche to pull you over because they can claim they "thought they saw you texting" and they'll have automatic probable cause to search your vehicle and download all of your cell phone data anytime they please.

Now, Michigan is currently in a pretty screwed up state, but this sort of gross money mismanagement is happening all over the place with state budgets.
The politicians of ALL parties keep doing "fuzzy math" by shifting money from one place to another so they can say they "cut X by $Y" when in reality they just shifted it around.

I got off on something of a tangent there, but the reality is: More money for education WOULD help if it was guaranteed to go towards things that would benefit students, teachers, and class size ratios, but it absolutely isn't. That's why we're not seeing any appreciable gain.

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Apr 20 2011, 10:03 PM) 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.

Forgot to respond to this.

In actuality, the government is trying VERY hard to do away with that grant money for low income students.

I think the rationale is that more student loans are supposed to be better for the banks and therefore the economy.

(Pardon the slightly politically slanted side of the article, it's the most recent one I have. It's not just Republicans after this sort of thing.)