Azazello1313 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 What happens if you have a lot of entrepreneurs retiring at 40 instead of 50 or 60? What does that do to the tax base? What does it do to the SS pool? well, if markets work as well as many people pretend they do, the overall impact will be minimal as new entrepreneurs spring up to create businesses that fill the gaps left by the retiring entrepreneurs if they're retiring that early, I think the presumption is that the incentives to entrepreneurship are drying up. that, it seems obvious, is perch's point. incentives to entrepreneurship would affect new entrepreneurs as surely as old ones, wouldn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think you should read this. Good lord, there's some contentious claptrap in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Where exactly are they going to go? This argument works fine in state vs state discussion but it decidedly does not work in nation vs nation discussion. So a company doing this would be criminal or "price gouging" but when the gov't does it then it's OK? There are still plenty of places to go in the world, where a little bit of money goes a lot further than it does here. Once we get our libertarian island built we'll show you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I see an element of unfairness in Obama's desire to redistribute wealth. I certainly understand that a substantial proportion of the richest in the US (with annual income >$1M for example) were born with the money. So, do I cry for them? Depending on how they got their money and what they are doing with it, probably not. However, in my experience, many people making incomes in the range of $200-500K/year made good life decisions. They worked hard and continue to work hard, saved, delayed gratification, etc. I have a lot of friends in this category (health care professionals, lawyers, business people, entrepreneurs) and I admire them. From that perspective, haven't these people "earned" the right to accumulate wealth? In my experience, many people making <$#/year (can set where you want) or those who now find themselves without useful job skills made bad life decisions, screwed around in school, did not work hard, lived for the moment, etc. Should those who have lived "right" pay for those who have not? OTOH, I realize that if class warfare breaks out, nobody wins. Edited September 14, 2011 by MojoMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I see an element of unfairness in Obama's desire to redistribute wealth. I certainly understand that a substantial proportion of the richest in the US (with annual income >$1M for example) were born with the money. So, do I cry for them? Depending on how they got their money and what they are doing with it, probably not. However, in my experience, many people making incomes in the range of $200-500K/year made good life decisions. They worked hard and continue to work hard, saved, delayed gratification, etc. From that perspective, haven't these people "earned" the right to accumulate wealth? In my experience, many people making <$#/year (can set where you want) or those who now find themselves without useful job skills made bad life decisions, screwed around in school, did not work hard, lived for the moment, etc. Should those who have lived "right" pay for those who have not? OTOH, I realize that if class warfare breaks out, nobody wins. Edited September 14, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I see an element of unfairness in Obama's desire to redistribute wealth. I certainly understand that a substantial proportion of the richest in the US (with annual income >$1M for example) were born with the money. So, do I cry for them? Depending on how they got their money and what they are doing with it, probably not. However, in my experience, many people making incomes in the range of $200-500K/year made good life decisions. They worked hard and continue to work hard, saved, delayed gratification, etc. I have a lot of friends in this category (health care professionals, lawyers, business people, entrepreneurs) and I admire them. From that perspective, haven't these people "earned" the right to accumulate wealth? In my experience, many people making <$#/year (can set where you want) or those who now find themselves without useful job skills made bad life decisions, screwed around in school, did not work hard, lived for the moment, etc. Should those who have lived "right" pay for those who have not? OTOH, I realize that if class warfare breaks out, nobody wins. I think there are elements to the questions and problems that go to the heart of whether we are truly a nation or not. "Class warfare" is a two-way street......and what a shame that the word "class" is even used in what should be a democratic meritocracy that produces the most benefit for the most people. There are also some real fundamentals to be considered, such as the fact all that we (in the broadest sense) want and have isn't being paid for by what we are forking over. Some think only stuff that doesn't affect them personally (or affect their own personal shibboleths) should be cut to match what is currently collected in taxation while others think what we have is fine but we all need to fork over more to sustain it. For sure we can't do both. Most are somewhere between these two positions, obviously. The fact remains that we are a nation and therefore we need to consider all elements of that nation, powerful and weak, rich and poor. It seems obvious to me that, as our wars have decidedly not involved shared sacrifice, the approaches being taken to the economic issues also don't involve shared sacrifice. I don't see either party really doing much more than trying to curry favor with it's own constituencies. I see no grand plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I think there are elements to the questions and problems that go to the heart of whether we are truly a nation or not. "Class warfare" is a two-way street......and what a shame that the word "class" is even used in what should be a democratic meritocracy that produces the most benefit for the most people. There are also some real fundamentals to be considered, such as the fact all that we (in the broadest sense) want and have isn't being paid for by what we are forking over. Some think only stuff that doesn't affect them personally (or affect their own personal shibboleths) should be cut to match what is currently collected in taxation while others think what we have is fine but we all need to fork over more to sustain it. For sure we can't do both. Most are somewhere between these two positions, obviously. The fact remains that we are a nation and therefore we need to consider all elements of that nation, powerful and weak, rich and poor. It seems obvious to me that, as our wars have decidedly not involved shared sacrifice, the approaches being taken to the economic issues also don't involve shared sacrifice. I don't see either party really doing much more than trying to curry favor with it's own constituencies. I see no grand plan. So what you're saying is that those who made bad life decisions or were lazy need to be supported by those who made good decisions and worked hard because we are all one nation? Edited September 14, 2011 by MojoMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 So what you're saying is that those who made bad life decisions or were lazy need to be supported by those who made good decisions and worked hard because we are all one naton? Do you truly think that it is as simplistic as putting people into broad generalizations of "more money=good at life, less money=bad at life"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 So what you're saying is that those who made bad life decisions or were lazy need to be supported by those who made good decisions and worked hard because we are all one nation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) Do you truly think that it is as simplistic as putting people into broad generalizations of "more money=good at life, less money=bad at life"? If you read the title of the thread, we're talking about how Obama wants to pay for Stimulus 3. My comments pertain to how people lead their financial lives and how they either contribute to society financially or take from society financially. What people add or subtract from society non-financially/spiritually is not relevant here. And, if you want to argue that some people who may be "takers" financially are "givers" non-financially, how exactly does that work? Most of the people I have known (albeit tangentially) who are being supported by the gummint, are not leading Habitat for Humanity or volunteering for Medecins Sans Frontieres. This is my anecdotal evidence but I would like to hear about your anecdotal experience and we can judge for ourselves. Edited September 14, 2011 by MojoMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 BTW I haven't had a job since April, and have yet to locate the unemployment office. Good for you if you didn't need unemployment (not sure you would qualify anyway, I know I couldn't collect when I closed up shop...even though I paid in for YEARS when I didn't own my own business).....do you really think that the majority of people can be out of work for 5 months or more and be ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Good for you if you didn't need unemployment (not sure you would qualify anyway, I know I couldn't collect when I closed up shop...even though I paid in for YEARS when I didn't own my own business).....do you really think that the majority of people can be out of work for 5 months or more and be ok? I think you would be surprised what people can do when they delay gratification and make sensible decisions, such as putting money into a prudent reserve for negative turns in life, rather than buying the next great gaming system, eating out every other night, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I thought as an owner of a business you have to voluntarily pay unemployment insurance to receive unemployment benefits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I thought as an owner of a business you have to voluntarily pay unemployment insurance to receive unemployment benefits? I'm 99% sure I qualify, but have no intention of collecting. You see unlike some that complain about needing to increase taxes but are unwilling to voluntarily give more, when I complained about almost 2 years of unemployment being ridiculous I decided not to collect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I'm 99% sure I qualify, but have no intention of collecting. So, if Texas laws for the self-employed are consistent with what I believe is the case in WY or WA, you knowingly and voluntarily paid into the state's unemployment system with no intention of ever using it? Edited September 14, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I'm 99% sure I qualify, but have no intention of collecting. You see unlike some that complain about needing to increase taxes but are unwilling to voluntarily give more, when I complained about almost 2 years of unemployment being ridiculous I decided not to collect. How will you eat or keep a roof over your head till you find a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 So, if Texas laws for the self-employed are consistent with what I believe is the case in WY or WA, you knowingly and voluntarily paid into the state's unemployment system with no intention of ever using it? Because I was in the process of buying the business, I did not own a majority of it, so I was still forced to pay it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 How will you eat or keep a roof over your head till you find a job? Well when my play station broke 3 years ago, I didn't go right out and buy a new one. We never eat out more than two times a week. However the most important thing is my parents taught me to budget. They suggested I tithe 10% of my income and put 10% into savings. While I haven't done it all the time, I have for most of the last 19 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Well when my play station broke 3 years ago, I didn't go right out and buy a new one. We never eat out more than two times a week. However the most important thing is my parents taught me to budget. They suggested I tithe 10% of my income and put 10% into savings. While I haven't done it all the time, I have for most of the last 19 years. I see. Well then I commend you for not being a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Most of the people I have known (albeit tangentially) who are being supported by the gummint, are not leading Habitat for Humanity or volunteering for Medecins Sans Frontieres. Undeniably there is a core of lazy shiftless bastards who are managing to game the system. No doubt about it. But we have had this discussion over and over and over here. Earlier it was said that even if the rich were taxed 100%, the government would only be paid for for a few hours. That figure may be up for debate but the point is that taxing the rich is seen by people against such a move as pointless (as well as immoral). In exactly the same way, the same people see this mythological army of people all battened on to the poor taxpayer. The fact is that removing that "army" is like taking a leak in the Pacific - meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Well when my play station broke 3 years ago, I didn't go right out and buy a new one. We never eat out more than two times a week. However the most important thing is my parents taught me to budget. They suggested I tithe 10% of my income and put 10% into savings. While I haven't done it all the time, I have for most of the last 19 years. Pretty damn difficult to save 10% and tithe 10% when your income is $18k and you'd like your family to both eat and sleep in the dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Pretty damn difficult to save 10% and tithe 10% when your income is $18k and you'd like your family to both eat and sleep in the dry. Yeah it might be a little harder for the person you describe to take a stand against collecting unemployment. Personally, if I were laid off I'd collect the unemployment checks even if I had money saved up. I'd try like hell to find a job though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Pretty damn difficult to save 10% and tithe 10% when your income is $18k and you'd like your family to both eat and sleep in the dry. For the first year and a half we were married, we were living on 19K a year (first year teacher's salary), and were able to do it. It's called living in a chit hole apartment, ramen noodles, no cable, no internet, and no frills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Pretty damn difficult to save 10% and tithe 10% when your income is $18k and you'd like your family to both eat and sleep in the dry. Difficult but not impossible. Fresh out of college my wife and I made it by on little more than that for a while, and still had the discipline to save some money (granted, out charitbale contributions weren't much). It's called living below your means. It was having a small one bedroom apartment, not a McMansion, driving used vehicles not getting new ones every 18 months, not eating out very often, having basic cable not every channel under the sun, etc. and also choosing to not have children until we could actually afford to have children. So while I do feel for people living in poverty, more and more those that I see in it brought it upon themselves with their life decisions. That's not to say I don't think we should help take care of the poor and underprivileged, I just must be turning into a cold heartless bastard because I really think that perhaps in order to collect welfare, unemployment, etc. we should expect these people to be giving to the community, even if it is something simple like 10-15 hours a week performing community service like cleaning litter in parks, etc. Now, the kids I think deserve the assistance more than the adults, they did not make the choices that put them in that situation. I don't pretend to know a proper solution to the problem, and I feel I may be jaded from past stories I have shared of first hand experience of people abusing the system and being excited that their 17 year old high school dropout daughter got pregnatn because it meant a bigger check from the state. Just disgusting and really turned me off to the way the current system can be abused and worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Difficult but not impossible. Fresh out of college my wife and I made it by on little more than that for a while, and still had the discipline to save some money (granted, out charitbale contributions weren't much). It's called living below your means. It was having a small one bedroom apartment, not a McMansion, driving used vehicles not getting new ones every 18 months, not eating out very often, having basic cable not every channel under the sun, etc. and also choosing to not have children until we could actually afford to have children. So while I do feel for people living in poverty, more and more those that I see in it brought it upon themselves with their life decisions. That's not to say I don't think we should help take care of the poor and underprivileged, I just must be turning into a cold heartless bastard because I really think that perhaps in order to collect welfare, unemployment, etc. we should expect these people to be giving to the community, even if it is something simple like 10-15 hours a week performing community service like cleaning litter in parks, etc. Now, the kids I think deserve the assistance more than the adults, they did not make the choices that put them in that situation. I don't pretend to know a proper solution to the problem, and I feel I may be jaded from past stories I have shared of first hand experience of people abusing the system and being excited that their 17 year old high school dropout daughter got pregnatn because it meant a bigger check from the state. Just disgusting and really turned me off to the way the current system can be abused and worked. BC, the issues of chronic poverty dont change from child to adult. People that live in poverty generally are raised in poverty and simply dont have the chances to get themselves out. You have poor people teaching the kids that grow up to be adults in poverty. It is convenient to be dismissive of people by saying that they "made poor life choices" when they have been raised in a environment that doesnt show any hope or way out of their station in life. I am sure that many people here can think of examples when they have had to cut corners and scrimp on budgets. But did any of us REALLY grow up in the kind of poverty that is indicative of these examples? Who here has lived in the "projects", went to an inner city school where the teaching and education was crap, had to deal with gang influences, and were raised by people that had very rudimentary educations at best and minimum wage jobs? How many of us had to work on family farms rather than do homework or study? How many of us at the huddle really came from that background and now are shining beacons of the American ideal? (Y'know, stuff that after school TV specials are made of?) You said "fresh out of college". How many of the people we are talking about will never get an opportunity to graduate high school, let alone attend college? No one likes abuses of the system, be it from any form of fraud or abusing benefits. But until there is a way to break the cycle of poverty, (maybe education grants, better and more targeted use of subsidies to impoverished schools, hell even parenting classes required of you accept child welfare checks) this will remain. You will continue to have children of janitors raising kids to be janitors or fast food workers or landscapers or cashiers or whatever dead end job you want to name. I agree with you on the community service idea, and think that more needs to be done for actual job training to get people OFF public assistance. It certainly doesnt help when there are not jobs to be had that do not pay more than minimum wage and even those jobs are hard to come by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.