I think they were voting for some fairness in the economic system, [/quote]
What isn’t fair about the current one?[/quote]
I think it is clear that the shrinking middle class and the wealth-gap indicates a growing unfairness in the current system. Anybody can get rich in this country, what pisses people off is that the rich make the rules, they influence the votes, they have access to decision makers, hell congress has been insider trading for years, using their influence and knowledge to get rich while the working stiff does the same thing and goes to jail. America is not a rigged system, but it definitely favors those that already have money and power.
What are we cutting to pay for this?
We are about 1.4 trillion over extended. What are you cutting to pay for this? Food Stamps? Planned Parenthood? Medicare? Social Security? Defense?
We will cut some from a few programs, defense is obviously the low hanging fruit, but we can always raise more revenue as well, 1/4% raise on the employee portion of SS taxes, eliminate the upper limit cap on SS taxes, maybe institute a 1/2%-1% national sales tax on non-perishable goods (last year that would have been around 50-100 billion I believe) people hate taxes, but we can’t complain about a debt figure and refuse to pay it down
I think it is clear that the shrinking middle class and the wealth-gap indicates a growing unfairness in the current system. Anybody can get rich in this country, what pisses people off is that the rich make the rules, they influence the votes, they have access to decision makers, hell congress has been insider trading for years, using their influence and knowledge to get rich while the working stiff does the same thing and goes to jail. America is not a rigged system, but it definitely favors those that already have money and power.[/quote]
Name one civilization in history where the ruling class wasn’t in control of the vast majority of resources please. Don’t worry I’ll wait.
Secondly, you already admit anyone can make it in America, anyone. So what would you like to change about the system?
So your plan is a loose “cut some from a few programs, mainly defense” and a detailed “tax more”?
Washington Status Quo. Thanks, but no thanks. Cuts, we needs cuts. Only after that should the citizenry pay for the government’s (ruling class) mistake.
[quote]
Raising the limit means paying more each paycheck, how is that kicking the can down the road? If people want SS they will have to pay for it.[/quote]
Because you get back more in retirement the more you paid in, so when the people paying in on 500k today retire tomorrow, the problem just, well comes back… Called kicking the can down the road.
Public schools need better math teachers.
No not even close. That is really what you’ve gotten out of this?
My point is, you can’t just point to defense and say “slash” and poof we have all this money sitting around.
We have to cut everything, everything. Everything.
What about all those American’s that will lose their good paying jobs because of this?
What about the fact that other nations will just put their bases up where we close ours?
What about the nations that want us to be present?
The the cheap goods they provide that everyone wants isn’t providing to the growth? The products and services aren’t providing for growth?
If you increase costs by forcing companies to operate in a non-competitive way, please explain how they are going to make a profit. The tax rate could be -25% and it still wouldn’t counter the increase in costs for “bringing back” whatever portion of the business you feel is gone.
A better and sustainable solution is to find a way to grow the pie by finding a new venue for people to provide value here in America. I thought leftys were all about forward and progress? When it comes to business you guys are all about regression, delay and dictation of resource allocation.
Right, sounds so good. Just like Welfare. I mean we know there isn’t generational dependance on that or anything.
Nope this sounds like it would be perfect, and no one would make a career out of a free job they can’t be fired from, didn’t have to compete for or never had to leave. And god knows we can just keep upping the spending on infrastructure, because we’ll slash defense spending. All the people that lose their jobs making tanks and missiles can just make bridges and pave roads. Lets not hire private companies to do this anymore, lets have the state and state supplied labor do it.
I think it is clear that the shrinking middle class and the wealth-gap indicates a growing unfairness in the current system. Anybody can get rich in this country, what pisses people off is that the rich make the rules, they influence the votes, they have access to decision makers, hell congress has been insider trading for years, using their influence and knowledge to get rich while the working stiff does the same thing and goes to jail. America is not a rigged system, but it definitely favors those that already have money and power.[/quote]
Name one civilization in history where the ruling class wasn’t in control of the vast majority of resources please. Don’t worry I’ll wait.
Secondly, you already admit anyone can make it in America, anyone. So what would you like to change about the system?
So your plan is a loose “cut some from a few programs, mainly defense” and a detailed “tax more”?
Washington Status Quo. Thanks, but no thanks. Cuts, we needs cuts. Only after that should the citizenry pay for the government’s (ruling class) mistake.
beans,
rather than do this over and over I will be clear.
-I do not advocate raising the max amount in SS entitlements, just in raising the limit on the amount you pay in. that is not kicking the can down the road, that is saving SS.
the OJT program would be limited to 2-3 years at which point you would be cut loose, I am pretty sure I said that at the beginning. 2 years does not a generation make, the idea would be to quickly reduce the lifetime welfare recipients, leaving only the truly unemployable disabled on the roles. Again this is not very hard to fathom, people need skills, the roads and bridges need work, highway bills don’t get passed, federal infrastructure spending is grinding to a halt (excluding hurricanes) train people to do these jobs then end their benefits, America will be short on qualified electricians, steamfitters, welders etc over the next decade and in many areas they already are, why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
as for the rest I’m pretty sure no matter what I say you will type increasingly condescending responses. All I am getting from you is that you want American businesses to stay overseas, you would like us to slash programs that feed children in an effort to maintain clearly unsustainable rates of defense spending, and you want to keep American soldiers in harms way to secure the friendliness of people that you very much wish us to not be like (Europeans, the Middle East), it’s strange but I think you like the status quo as it gives you something to complain about.
-I do not advocate raising the max amount in SS entitlements, just in raising the limit on the amount you pay in. that is not kicking the can down the road, that is saving SS.[/quote]
So, you want to increase the amount people pay in, but not increase the amount they are returned?
Is that not taxation without representation?
So as person A leaves the program and is replaced with person B, where is person A going to go work?
I mean you want government to do all this work. If we aren’t hiring private firms to do the work, where do the workers go to do what the government just trained them to do?
Again, like I said before. I’m not saying this suggestion is awful, but seeing as the thread title is “sustainability” I’m looking for how this works long term. Because this inflates supply in the workforce, but you don’t mention anything about demand until now, and I’m not sure your point holds up with data. (It may).
I want the market to dictate where resources are spent in order to avoid government/cronyism inflated bubbles like the housing bubble.
So, if because American’s want to spend less on the goods they buy, companies have to produce those goods overseas to be profitable, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Not to mention the poorest American’s are still much better of than the poor in the countries where this manufacturing is going.
So, like I said, I would rather the smart and industrious here find ways to add value that doesn’t require government manipulation of where resources are spent.
That is not at all what I said. Not even remotely close.
Please try and address what I’m actually saying. Or answer the questions I asked.
Again, please actually answer my questions than try and pretend I said something I didn’t.
This is more nonsense.
Anyway, please address my questions about “fairness”.
-I do not advocate raising the max amount in SS entitlements, just in raising the limit on the amount you pay in. that is not kicking the can down the road, that is saving SS.[/quote]
So, you want to increase the amount people pay in, but not increase the amount they are returned?
Is that not taxation without representation?
So as person A leaves the program and is replaced with person B, where is person A going to go work?
I mean you want government to do all this work. If we aren’t hiring private firms to do the work, where do the workers go to do what the government just trained them to do?
Again, like I said before. I’m not saying this suggestion is awful, but seeing as the thread title is “sustainability” I’m looking for how this works long term. Because this inflates supply in the workforce, but you don’t mention anything about demand until now, and I’m not sure your point holds up with data. (It may).
I want the market to dictate where resources are spent in order to avoid government/cronyism inflated bubbles like the housing bubble.
So, if because American’s want to spend less on the goods they buy, companies have to produce those goods overseas to be profitable, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Not to mention the poorest American’s are still much better of than the poor in the countries where this manufacturing is going.
So, like I said, I would rather the smart and industrious here find ways to add value that doesn’t require government manipulation of where resources are spent.
That is not at all what I said. Not even remotely close.
Please try and address what I’m actually saying. Or answer the questions I asked.
Again, please actually answer my questions than try and pretend I said something I didn’t.
This is more nonsense.
Anyway, please address my questions about “fairness”. [/quote]
beans,
-taxation without representation? seriously? it is no different from the current SS tax policy except that you have to continue to pay on earnings over $110,000. if people choose to not earn more than $110,000 to avoid paying the tax, that is entirely up to them.
-regarding fairness, your argument that the rich have always controlled things makes me think you are trolling. fairness and the status quo are not the same thing, you saying that they are is a bit confusing.
-regarding bases overseas, close them. who gives a shit if Germany wants us to keep it open, if they do they can pay for it, we will provide defense if the host nation foots the bill.
-regarding the OJT, in my original post I state they will “assist” in bridge repairs (as an example), they will be assisting whomever it is that does that job now, whether it is private business or government crews. we are not paying people extra to do this, this is how they earn their benefits, by learning a trade and developing a work history.
regarding the rest, clearly if you don’t want higher taxes and you don’t want defense funding cut you are limited in what you can trim, SS and medicare are untouchable, that leaves social programs for the poor and disabled so…
-taxation without representation? seriously? it is no different from the current SS tax policy except that you have to continue to pay on earnings over $110,000. [/quote]
Then you are, in fact just kicking the can down the road.
Again: You get back an amount that grows depending on how much you pay in. So, therefore when the person pays in on 500k they will receive a higher benefit than if they paid in on 110k.
Therefore, when the person paying in on 500k retires, we are back to square 1.
You said things aren’t fair because the class that has the most resources rules the land.
I said the world has worked this way since the dawn of civilization, and then asked you what you would do to make it more fair.
So again: what would you do to make the country fair?
Germany? They haven’t been a threat to the worlds citizens for 60-70 years or so.
Why would you assume it was them I was worried about?
So you want to require government contractors to hire unskilled labor and give them a skill?
Stop putting words in my mouth. This is why people don’t like trying to have a conversation with you.
I said cut everything, everything. Everything. Everything includes defense.
It isn’t that higher taxes are instantly wrong. But the tax paying citizenry shouldn’t have to suffer the entire burden. So once the government cuts spending, then we the citizens will agree to tax increases.
-I have stated already that you do not get an increased benefit, you just pay on everything over 110,000.
-I believe the economic system could benefit from a little more top end accountability, people like to see that the richest Americans are required to pay a more equitable amount, a return to the Clinton era taxes is good, a return to the Roosevelt era taxes would be bad, somewhere in between would be perfect (I already hear the screaming 47% pay nothing and 10% pay 63%). Also finding a way to make education affordable for the middle class would go a long way towards leveling the field as well, if a person has an education they have a chance even in tough economic times.
Germany was an example (and an expensive one) tell me which you want to keep open and why.
At what point did I say private businesses should hire unskilled workers and train them? The private employers will not be paying them, they are on welfare/public assistance programs, the workers will receive training from the government and OJT from contractors.
what words am I putting in your mouth, your quote is cut, cut, cut everything including defense (and including hungry kids), but earlier you said “what about those poor defense contractors losing their jobs.” the fact is that somebody is going to take it in the ass more than someone else, simply due to the necessity of the program, there is no lobby for hungry 2 year olds but there is a lobby for defense contractors and pretty much every other corporate entity. maybe if someone had the sack to ban lobbyists and special interest money government would be more efficient.
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich.
-I have stated already that you do not get an increased benefit, you just pay on everything over 110,000.
-I believe the economic system could benefit from a little more top end accountability, people like to see that the richest Americans are required to pay a more equitable amount [/quote]
But why? Just how far is that going to stretch? Honestly? It’s peanuts considering the debt and future entitlement/welfare growth. I mean, if we’re serious about yanking some actual money down Washington DC’s way so big cuts to entitlement/bureaucratic spending–which will need to happen–need not be even bigger cuts, then expand the tax base. Raise taxes on them AND the middle class. There’s not nearly enough rich, with nearly enough wealth, to make going after them anything more than a symbolic gesture.
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
The median individual income is currently 38,500 yr.
If you have an income of 175,000 a year and are having a hard time getting by, you’re the problem.
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]
Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]
Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
[/quote]
Why don’t you write a check to the Treasury if you are so hell bent on raising taxes on the rich? No one is stopping you.
You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS.
Ths is an important question that lefties never answer. Abortion? Pages and pages. Same sex marriage? More pages.
Sustainability of entitlement programs? Crickets chirping. And none of them seem to have spent any time thinking about this. And we’re running out of time.
These programs - even if you love them dearly - are not sustainable. There is not enough wealth to tax to pay for them. Even if there was, it is morally bankrupt to vote yourself benefits only to stick your children with the enormous bill.
The great irony, of course, is that we hear about sustainability from lefties all the time re: the environment, and all the same principles get said out loud: the need to circumscribe our wants now so that we don’t leave nothing for our kids to enjoy, the importance of resolving sustainability problems long in advance of the problem coming to a head (environmental disaster), and so forth.
But these principles - good, important ones - are left unspoken when lefties get asked about entitlement programs.
That isn’t to say that “conservatives” (some of them) aren’t guilty of the same thing at times. But the slience is deafening from the Left, and we’re running out of time to reform them, and we should prefer surgery now to amputation later.[/quote]
The welfare state not only is implemented because a lot of voters have the mindset of little children, it actively breeds more of them.
Its an auto-catalytic process, much like an avalanche and we have pretty much crossed the point of no return.
You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS. [/quote]
And this is part of the problem with the class warfare lies pushed by the left. Many of the people who are falsely labeled as not “paying their fair share” have income flux year-to-year. They can also control income levels and defer taxes.
Not to mention “eating the rich” only adds in an incentive to send more investment money out of American markets, and stop foreign investment from coming here. Shitty growth, inflated “value” based on Fed actions and more friendly investment atmospheres in other nations…