Poverty Rate in US rises

[gbpfan1231]

Isn't advocating that others pay more a central plank of whatever it is that passes for a GOP plan?

Not sure??? All I am saying is that if someone spouts off that others should be kicking in a little extra I would sure hope the spouter is doing the same.

 

Like BP likes to keep reminding me - I don't like people living off of the govt drinking red bull and playing around with the fancy new Iphone.

 

If I lose my job and take unemployment and you see me drinking a red bull then feel free to rip me to shreds - I on the other hand do not think the rich should pay more just because they can and if I did subscribe to that theory I would also include myself in the giving more.

[Ursa Majoris]

How so? Even the most conservative plans just call for everyone paying the same percentage. Most see that as a pipe dream, and just want to keep it close to the way it is, where the "rich" still carry the overwhelming majority of the load, they just don't want to add to it like you do.

So, from your statement quoted above you will alter taxation such that everyone pays the same percentage (flat tax). You will craft it in such a way that "the rich" pay the same as they do now. However, your plan will raise overall revenues.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Because if it is, you are saying that you will raise taxes on the "non-rich" while leaving "the rich" the same. QED.

[SEC=UGA]

So, from your statement quoted above you will alter taxation such that everyone pays the same percentage (flat tax). You will craft it in such a way that "the rich" pay the same as they do now. However, your plan will raise overall revenues.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Because if it is, you are saying that you will raise taxes on the "non-rich" while leaving "the rich" the same. QED.

 

You can't itemize deductions under a flat tax.

[Ursa Majoris]

You can't itemize deductions under a flat tax.

Obviously. Nevertheless, if revenues increase because of it and the "rich" end stays the same (per Perch), then equally obviously the taxes on all the others go up, yes?

[Perchoutofwater]

So, from your statement quoted above you will alter taxation such that everyone pays the same percentage (flat tax). You will craft it in such a way that "the rich" pay the same as they do now. However, your plan will raise overall revenues.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Because if it is, you are saying that you will raise taxes on the "non-rich" while leaving "the rich" the same. QED.

 

 

Obviously. Nevertheless, if revenues increase because of it and the "rich" end stays the same (per Perch), then equally obviously the taxes on all the others go up, yes?

 

As I said that was a pipe dream. Still the rich would be paying way more for less services, and when you eliminate deductions that many of the rich now take advantage of you would effectively be raising their rate as well. Still I would like to see taxes raised on the poor so that everyone is a net income tax payer, so they have some skin in the game when they vote idiots in that want to go on spending sprees. Maybe if they were spending some of their money to instead of just the money of the "rich" people most of these bloated government spending programs would go by the wayside.

[SEC=UGA]

Enjoy

 

CNN) -- According to new data released by the U.S. Census Bureau this week, median household incomes adjusted for inflation declined by 2.3% in 2010 over the previous year. The data also showed that 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty in 2010 -- the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been tracking such data. But that data is even more depressing in contrast to the skyrocketing fortunes of America's super-rich.

 

Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, our nation's total income rose by $528 billion. Of that economic growth, $464 billion went to pretax corporate profits. Just $7 billion went to wages and salaries. In other words, 88% of the brief recovery went to corporate profits and just 1% -- that's right, 1% -- went to workers, according to a study by economists at Northeastern University. By contrast, when the United States was recovering from a downturn in the early 1990s, 50% of the growth in the national income went to wages and salaries. (And actually, in that period leading up to the tech boom, average corporate profits declined 1%.)

 

It's not that working Americans aren't working hard. Worker productivity has risen steadily, but wages have still been stagnant. But the income of the top 1% of Americans? Rapidly rising.

 

At what point do we realize enough is enough -- that giving more and more money and power to big business and the super-rich will never translate into more jobs, better wages and a better economy but simply more yachts and luxury villas? At what point do we realize that conservative anti-tax extremism is nothing but blatant greed masquerading as lousy economics? At what point do we realize that class warfare isn't a liberal goal but in fact a conservative reality, advanced through decades of policies that help the rich cheat the middle class?

 

According to Republican economist and former White House adviser Bruce Bartlett, the actual tax rate paid by the wealthy and big business is the lowest in several generations.

 

 

Sally KohnThanks to the Bush tax cuts, the super-rich paid an average of 17% on their federal income tax in 2007 -- less than many middle class Americans paid. For instance, multibillionare Warren Buffett pays a lower percentage of income tax than everyone else in his office, including the secretaries. In 1992, the rich averaged a 26% income tax.

 

A study earlier this month reported that 25 of the largest and most profitable corporations in the United States paid their CEOs more money than their entire corporations paid in taxes. Meanwhile, corporations are earning record profits and sitting on record cash reserves -- upwards of $2 trillion dollars.

 

Anyone who can look at these numbers and think the rich need more help is crazy. Stop calling big business the "job creators." They have all the resources imaginable and they're still not creating jobs. It's time to put more money in the pockets of working Americans so they can spend it, create demand and finally kick-start the economy.

 

President Barack Obama has proposed a comprehensive plan that will create good jobs while rebuilding America's infrastructure for the 21st century. In the president's plan, a portion of the costs will be offset by reducing the tax-deductible exemptions for well-off families, taxing hedge fund manager income as income rather than discounted capital gains, closing loopholes that give government handouts to the oil and gas industry and taxing corporate jets with the same depreciation schedule as personal jets. For crying out loud, why not? Why we should continue to let working Americans suffer while helping the super-rich get richer?

 

Most Americans agree with the president. Almost three in four Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy so we can put government to work getting all of America working again, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. In fact, even among Republican voters, raising taxes on the rich is more popular than cuts to Social Security or Medicare -- putting the leading Republican presidential candidates squarely out of touch even with their own base.

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We've already drastically cut taxes for the rich and corporations, which has only made them richer while our economy remains in the gutter and no jobs are created. But in light of the depth and breadth of our economic crisis, continuing to put the interests of a few wealthy people and big corporations ahead of the needs of millions and millions of struggling and suffering Americans isn't just insane. It's immoral.

 

Other than the obvious flaws in this article (who the fu(k do you think builds airplanes, yachts and villas. Who do you think produces all of the parts that go into building yachts, villas and private jets... who do you think works on boat engines, aircraft maitnenance and home repiars...) The author, and most liberals fail to realize that there are THOUSANDS of corporations that are not currently profitable, THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of the wealthy that are not currently making millions, and threfore we are in a serious mess.

 

Let's say there was a company who in 2004 - 2007 was averaging about $35 million in sales per year, employed 40+ people at any one time and was profiting tot he tune of about $4 million a year. Through those years this compay put money aside, waiting for the rainy day.

 

Well the recession hit and in 2008 sales dropped to $17 million and due to lack of demand the company cut back to 20 "essential" employees. 2009 rolls along sales drop to $4 million and the company, still trying to hang on to people, doesn't layoof anyone. Due to this the company is bleeding cash, but it is a recession and this is why the company put money aside. 2010 sales drop to a shade over $2million, still sitting at 20 employees, still bleeding cash. Things must improve in 2011, they do, but cash flow is still negative.

 

But, this company is still sitting on a pile of cash, roughly $4 million for operations, god, it should have the ability to hire more employees. Not so. THis is the position MANY small corporations are in and this is why many small business owners are unimpressed by people screaming that CORPORATIONS ARE SITTING ON RECORD PROFITs AND NOT HIRING ANYONE Have to agree here!!!!!!!!

 

Small businesses make up the bulk of the employers. Many of the owners were (and are if they planned accordingly) rich. But, the owner's net worth is tied to that company. Every penny that his company bleeds comes directly out of his pocket. Well these owners have an obligtion to themselves and their current employees first, weather this storm and get back to a point of profitability, get back to a point where you see a recovery around the horizon. Small business owners don't see this recovery coming, they don't see record profits, they aren't sitting on the piles of cash they once had, they are hanging on.

 

You want to tax these people, the $250K and over crowd, this money comes directly out of their operating budgets and stalls them hiring more people.

 

We have two big problems that are going to protract this recession: the housing inventory and the reticence of banks to lend (I guess really there are three fi you include the spectre of increased taxes on the small businesses owners.)

 

It is going to tak another 3 to five years to absorb the housing inventory in this country. This means very few construction jobs in this segment of the industry, tens of thousands of people to remain unemployed. Similarly, commercial construction is at a low point and will not fully rebound until we see positive signs of life. This lack of employment in these sectors has a heavy impact on other sectors from steel manufacturers to tar companies.

 

Currently the banks are not willing to lend monies for many commercial projects. They have put developers in a very bad position, the developer needs to come up with a 30+% equity position (which isn't too outlandish) and must sign a full recourse note in most cases. THis ain't gonna happen, these guys will sit on their money or deploy it in other, less productive, ventures.

 

Also, businesses that need cash/loans to continue tooperate don't have a chance of accessing funds. There is not a bank in the world that is going to make a business loan to some guy that has been losing $300 to $2 million a year over the past three years. Doesn't matter what his credit looks like, doesn't matter what his business model is... The banks don't see a recovery quick enough where the guy will have the opportunity to repay the loan.

 

These are the reasons why businesses aren't hiring, there is no silver lining, there is no robust recovery on the horizon and we are at a time line where we should be entering into a mini recession following the economic recovery (though it may not happen because the recovery has not been robust.) Businesses need to sit on every penny they have to ride this out.

 

So, keep hammering on the rich. Scold them for buying yachts and private jets and villas with their money. While your scolding them just think about how many more jobs would be lost if they weren't buying villas, private jets and yachts. Or if they weren't paying their country club dues, buying golf clubs, computers, etc...

 

Now, if you truly want something to complain about complain about the American public needing to be retrained to be able to work on a caterpillar assembly line, complain about the banks getting bailed out while the average joe got a 900 dollar tax rebate, complain about the govt. making it so cumbersome to build a manufacturing facility that it costs twice as much and twice as long to build here than it does in Mexico, complain about the government sinking half a billion dollars into a company that was financially unfit when the loan was awarded. But , don't complain about all of the small business owners, the evil rich who won't hire, that want to keep some of the money the earn when trying to recover from annual seven figure losse for three years during this recession.

[SEC=UGA]

Obviously. Nevertheless, if revenues increase because of it and the "rich" end stays the same (per Perch), then equally obviously the taxes on all the others go up, yes?

 

They go up even more on the rich. The people who get by on all those loopholes and deductions.

[bpwallace49]

Enjoy

 

 

 

Other than the obvious flaws in this article (who the fu(k do you think builds airplanes, yachts and villas. Who do you think produces all of the parts that go into building yachts, villas and private jets... who do you think works on boat engines, aircraft maitnenance and home repiars...) The author, and most liberals fail to realize that there are THOUSANDS of corporations that are not currently profitable, THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of the wealthy that are not currently making millions, and threfore we are in a serious mess.

 

Let's say there was a company who in 2004 - 2007 was averaging about $35 million in sales per year, employed 40+ people at any one time and was profiting tot he tune of about $4 million a year. Through those years this compay put money aside, waiting for the rainy day.

 

Well the recession hit and in 2008 sales dropped to $17 million and due to lack of demand the company cut back to 20 "essential" employees. 2009 rolls along sales drop to $4 million and the company, still trying to hang on to people, doesn't layoof anyone. Due to this the company is bleeding cash, but it is a recession and this is why the company put money aside. 2010 sales drop to a shade over $2million, still sitting at 20 employees, still bleeding cash. Things must improve in 2011, they do, but cash flow is still negative.

 

But, this company is still sitting on a pile of cash, roughly $4 million for operations, god, it should have the ability to hire more employees. Not so. THis is the position MANY small corporations are in and this is why many small business owners are unimpressed by people screaming that CORPORATIONS ARE SITTING ON RECORD PROFITs AND NOT HIRING ANYONE Have to agree here!!!!!!!!

 

Small businesses make up the bulk of the employers. Many of the owners were (and are if they planned accordingly) rich. But, the owner's net worth is tied to that company. Every penny that his company bleeds comes directly out of his pocket. Well these owners have an obligtion to themselves and their current employees first, weather this storm and get back to a point of profitability, get back to a point where you see a recovery around the horizon. Small business owners don't see this recovery coming, they don't see record profits, they aren't sitting on the piles of cash they once had, they are hanging on.

 

You want to tax these people, the $250K and over crowd, this money comes directly out of their operating budgets and stalls them hiring more people.

 

We have two big problems that are going to protract this recession: the housing inventory and the reticence of banks to lend (I guess really there are three fi you include the spectre of increased taxes on the small businesses owners.)

 

It is going to tak another 3 to five years to absorb the housing inventory in this country. This means very few construction jobs in this segment of the industry, tens of thousands of people to remain unemployed. Similarly, commercial construction is at a low point and will not fully rebound until we see positive signs of life. This lack of employment in these sectors has a heavy impact on other sectors from steel manufacturers to tar companies.

 

Currently the banks are not willing to lend monies for many commercial projects. They have put developers in a very bad position, the developer needs to come up with a 30+% equity position (which isn't too outlandish) and must sign a full recourse note in most cases. THis ain't gonna happen, these guys will sit on their money or deploy it in other, less productive, ventures.

 

Also, businesses that need cash/loans to continue tooperate don't have a chance of accessing funds. There is not a bank in the world that is going to make a business loan to some guy that has been losing $300 to $2 million a year over the past three years. Doesn't matter what his credit looks like, doesn't matter what his business model is... The banks don't see a recovery quick enough where the guy will have the opportunity to repay the loan.

 

These are the reasons why businesses aren't hiring, there is no silver lining, there is no robust recovery on the horizon and we are at a time line where we should be entering into a mini recession following the economic recovery (though it may not happen because the recovery has not been robust.) Businesses need to sit on every penny they have to ride this out.

 

So, keep hammering on the rich. Scold them for buying yachts and private jets and villas with their money. While your scolding them just think about how many more jobs would be lost if they weren't buying villas, private jets and yachts. Or if they weren't paying their country club dues, buying golf clubs, computers, etc...

 

Now, if you truly want something to complain about complain about the American public needing to be retrained to be able to work on a caterpillar assembly line, complain about the banks getting bailed out while the average joe got a 900 dollar tax rebate, complain about the govt. making it so cumbersome to build a manufacturing facility that it costs twice as much and twice as long to build here than it does in Mexico, complain about the government sinking half a billion dollars into a company that was financially unfit when the loan was awarded. But , don't complain about all of the small business owners, the evil rich who won't hire, that want to keep some of the money the earn when trying to recover from annual seven figure losse for three years during this recession.

 

I think you need to read the Jobs bill.

 

Reducing payroll tax . . incentives for hiring long term out of work people . . infrastructure projects to put people to work . .

 

When people talk about record profits and cash, it aint about the mom and pop hardware store across the street, or about any small business. It is about the huge banks that aint lending to small businesses that are sitting on cash or massive multi-national businesses like GE downsizing but hiring in Punjab for a buck a day while raking in massive massive profits.

[westvirginia]

Enjoy

 

 

 

Other than the obvious flaws in this article (who the fu(k do you think builds airplanes, yachts and villas. Who do you think produces all of the parts that go into building yachts, villas and private jets... who do you think works on boat engines, aircraft maitnenance and home repiars...) The author, and most liberals fail to realize that there are THOUSANDS of corporations that are not currently profitable, THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of the wealthy that are not currently making millions, and threfore we are in a serious mess.

 

Let's say there was a company who in 2004 - 2007 was averaging about $35 million in sales per year, employed 40+ people at any one time and was profiting tot he tune of about $4 million a year. Through those years this compay put money aside, waiting for the rainy day.

 

Well the recession hit and in 2008 sales dropped to $17 million and due to lack of demand the company cut back to 20 "essential" employees. 2009 rolls along sales drop to $4 million and the company, still trying to hang on to people, doesn't layoof anyone. Due to this the company is bleeding cash, but it is a recession and this is why the company put money aside. 2010 sales drop to a shade over $2million, still sitting at 20 employees, still bleeding cash. Things must improve in 2011, they do, but cash flow is still negative.

 

But, this company is still sitting on a pile of cash, roughly $4 million for operations, god, it should have the ability to hire more employees. Not so. THis is the position MANY small corporations are in and this is why many small business owners are unimpressed by people screaming that CORPORATIONS ARE SITTING ON RECORD PROFITs AND NOT HIRING ANYONE Have to agree here!!!!!!!!

 

Small businesses make up the bulk of the employers. Many of the owners were (and are if they planned accordingly) rich. But, the owner's net worth is tied to that company. Every penny that his company bleeds comes directly out of his pocket. Well these owners have an obligtion to themselves and their current employees first, weather this storm and get back to a point of profitability, get back to a point where you see a recovery around the horizon. Small business owners don't see this recovery coming, they don't see record profits, they aren't sitting on the piles of cash they once had, they are hanging on.

 

You want to tax these people, the $250K and over crowd, this money comes directly out of their operating budgets and stalls them hiring more people.

 

We have two big problems that are going to protract this recession: the housing inventory and the reticence of banks to lend (I guess really there are three fi you include the spectre of increased taxes on the small businesses owners.)

 

It is going to tak another 3 to five years to absorb the housing inventory in this country. This means very few construction jobs in this segment of the industry, tens of thousands of people to remain unemployed. Similarly, commercial construction is at a low point and will not fully rebound until we see positive signs of life. This lack of employment in these sectors has a heavy impact on other sectors from steel manufacturers to tar companies.

 

Currently the banks are not willing to lend monies for many commercial projects. They have put developers in a very bad position, the developer needs to come up with a 30+% equity position (which isn't too outlandish) and must sign a full recourse note in most cases. THis ain't gonna happen, these guys will sit on their money or deploy it in other, less productive, ventures.

 

Also, businesses that need cash/loans to continue tooperate don't have a chance of accessing funds. There is not a bank in the world that is going to make a business loan to some guy that has been losing $300 to $2 million a year over the past three years. Doesn't matter what his credit looks like, doesn't matter what his business model is... The banks don't see a recovery quick enough where the guy will have the opportunity to repay the loan.

 

These are the reasons why businesses aren't hiring, there is no silver lining, there is no robust recovery on the horizon and we are at a time line where we should be entering into a mini recession following the economic recovery (though it may not happen because the recovery has not been robust.) Businesses need to sit on every penny they have to ride this out.

 

So, keep hammering on the rich. Scold them for buying yachts and private jets and villas with their money. While your scolding them just think about how many more jobs would be lost if they weren't buying villas, private jets and yachts. Or if they weren't paying their country club dues, buying golf clubs, computers, etc...

 

Now, if you truly want something to complain about complain about the American public needing to be retrained to be able to work on a caterpillar assembly line, complain about the banks getting bailed out while the average joe got a 900 dollar tax rebate, complain about the govt. making it so cumbersome to build a manufacturing facility that it costs twice as much and twice as long to build here than it does in Mexico, complain about the government sinking half a billion dollars into a company that was financially unfit when the loan was awarded. But , don't complain about all of the small business owners, the evil rich who won't hire, that want to keep some of the money the earn when trying to recover from annual seven figure losse for three years during this recession.

 

You sound like you might know something about this.

[bpwallace49]

..Economist Osterman: Quality of Jobs Matters as Well as Quantity

By Daniel Gross

 

On Monday, the Census Bureau released a sobering new report on poverty and income in the U.S. The grim news: there's been very little income growth since 1997, and in recent years the number of people without insurance and living in poverty has risen.

 

While it's easy to pin much of the poor news on the high rate of unemployment, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of American adults in the workforce do have jobs — and are simply not getting ahead. A job today is less likely to come with good wages, and benefits like health insurance and pensions than it was in recent years. At a time when a great deal of attention is focused on how we can create more jobs, Paul Osterman, economist at Sloan School of Business at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says we should be worried about quality as well as quantity. "The quantity of jobs is important. But it's also important to care about how good those jobs are."

 

Osterman, the co-author, with Beth Shulman, of Good Jobs America: Making Work Better for Everyone¸ was my guest on the Daily Ticker. His systematic investigation into the ravages of low-paying work yielded several interesting conclusions.

 

Osterman and Shulman define a good job as one that pays two-thirds of the median wage, or about $11.61 per hour. And so they find, that 27.8 million adults earn less than two-thirds of the median wage (or 24 percent), while 22 million, or 19 percent, have wages that "put them below the poverty line for a family of four." (The poverty line is $20,000 a year for a family of four) What's more, people in low-wage jobs have more difficulty getting insurance, access to child care, and tend not to have pensions.

 

Americans have tended to dismiss such alarming data because people frequently start at the bottom of the wage scale and work their way up. But the data show that mobility isn't what it used to be. Many of these jobs are traps, Osterman says. "We have this image of mobility. Most people in these poverty jobs stay there." As he and Shulman write: "Of children born in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution in the late 1960s, 41 percent remained there as adults in the late 1990s." Worse, long periods of economic growth don't inflate the problems away.

 

Osterman cites several other myths surrounding popular perception of low-wage jobs. Among them: it's all China's fault. "A lot of them [low-paying jobs] are in service sectors where we aren't competing with China, like health care and restaurants." Thirty-one percent of the low-wage workers are in the retail and food/drink industries. "Whereas in the past poverty was associated with agricultural work and grinding factory jobs, today many low-wage workers are found in service and white-collar jobs," they write.

 

And while private-sector companies are more likely than government or non-profits to pay lower wages, it's not true that all government jobs come with high pay and posh benefits. "People who work in the cafeterias in school systems, or do landscaping in them, are paid minimum wage," Osterman said. "Too many public sector jobs are low-wage jobs, and too many companies to whom the public sector outsources work pay low wages."

 

This is not an ideologicial, mono-causal book. Osterman and Shulman note that immigration of low-skilled workers — legal and illegal — play a role. They note that companies that pay above-market wages for less-skilled work don't always get rewarded with greater productivity and higher profits. While companies have built business models around paying the lowest possible cost for labor, in ways that violate policies and occasionally the law, "I don't want to attack greedy bosses," Osterman said. "Most companies are under intense pressure and trying to do their best." They acknowledge that low wages at Wal-Mart ultimately benefit many consumers. But the reality is that a general decline in labor market standards — brought about by competition, the decline of labor unions, out-of-date regulations, and a general societal indifference — is causing a race to the bottom in several large industries.

 

As is the case with many books about tough-to-solve problems, Good Jobs America is better on diagnosing the problem than it is on prescribing solutions. The authors note that society needs simultaneously to pressure companies and provide them with tools and incentives that enable them to treat workers better. They cite examples of employers who have "career ladders," that allow people to progress through training and education — so that, say, housekeepers at hotels, can ultimately be trained to be line chefs; or hospital janitors can be trained to become lab technicians. But such examples are relatively few and far between. In the battle between the good intentions of employers and policymakers, on the one hand, and the vast structural forces arrayed against workers without highly valuable skills, on the other, the impersonal forces seem to be winning.

 

Daniel Gross is economics editor at Yahoo! Finance

[Perchoutofwater]

Enjoy

 

 

 

Other than the obvious flaws in this article (who the fu(k do you think builds airplanes, yachts and villas. Who do you think produces all of the parts that go into building yachts, villas and private jets... who do you think works on boat engines, aircraft maitnenance and home repiars...) The author, and most liberals fail to realize that there are THOUSANDS of corporations that are not currently profitable, THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of the wealthy that are not currently making millions, and threfore we are in a serious mess.

 

Let's say there was a company who in 2004 - 2007 was averaging about $35 million in sales per year, employed 40+ people at any one time and was profiting tot he tune of about $4 million a year. Through those years this compay put money aside, waiting for the rainy day.

 

Well the recession hit and in 2008 sales dropped to $17 million and due to lack of demand the company cut back to 20 "essential" employees. 2009 rolls along sales drop to $4 million and the company, still trying to hang on to people, doesn't layoof anyone. Due to this the company is bleeding cash, but it is a recession and this is why the company put money aside. 2010 sales drop to a shade over $2million, still sitting at 20 employees, still bleeding cash. Things must improve in 2011, they do, but cash flow is still negative.

 

But, this company is still sitting on a pile of cash, roughly $4 million for operations, god, it should have the ability to hire more employees. Not so. THis is the position MANY small corporations are in and this is why many small business owners are unimpressed by people screaming that CORPORATIONS ARE SITTING ON RECORD PROFITs AND NOT HIRING ANYONE Have to agree here!!!!!!!!

 

Small businesses make up the bulk of the employers. Many of the owners were (and are if they planned accordingly) rich. But, the owner's net worth is tied to that company. Every penny that his company bleeds comes directly out of his pocket. Well these owners have an obligtion to themselves and their current employees first, weather this storm and get back to a point of profitability, get back to a point where you see a recovery around the horizon. Small business owners don't see this recovery coming, they don't see record profits, they aren't sitting on the piles of cash they once had, they are hanging on.

 

You want to tax these people, the $250K and over crowd, this money comes directly out of their operating budgets and stalls them hiring more people.

 

We have two big problems that are going to protract this recession: the housing inventory and the reticence of banks to lend (I guess really there are three fi you include the spectre of increased taxes on the small businesses owners.)

 

It is going to tak another 3 to five years to absorb the housing inventory in this country. This means very few construction jobs in this segment of the industry, tens of thousands of people to remain unemployed. Similarly, commercial construction is at a low point and will not fully rebound until we see positive signs of life. This lack of employment in these sectors has a heavy impact on other sectors from steel manufacturers to tar companies.

 

Currently the banks are not willing to lend monies for many commercial projects. They have put developers in a very bad position, the developer needs to come up with a 30+% equity position (which isn't too outlandish) and must sign a full recourse note in most cases. THis ain't gonna happen, these guys will sit on their money or deploy it in other, less productive, ventures.

 

Also, businesses that need cash/loans to continue tooperate don't have a chance of accessing funds. There is not a bank in the world that is going to make a business loan to some guy that has been losing $300 to $2 million a year over the past three years. Doesn't matter what his credit looks like, doesn't matter what his business model is... The banks don't see a recovery quick enough where the guy will have the opportunity to repay the loan.

 

These are the reasons why businesses aren't hiring, there is no silver lining, there is no robust recovery on the horizon and we are at a time line where we should be entering into a mini recession following the economic recovery (though it may not happen because the recovery has not been robust.) Businesses need to sit on every penny they have to ride this out.

 

So, keep hammering on the rich. Scold them for buying yachts and private jets and villas with their money. While your scolding them just think about how many more jobs would be lost if they weren't buying villas, private jets and yachts. Or if they weren't paying their country club dues, buying golf clubs, computers, etc...

 

Now, if you truly want something to complain about complain about the American public needing to be retrained to be able to work on a caterpillar assembly line, complain about the banks getting bailed out while the average joe got a 900 dollar tax rebate, complain about the govt. making it so cumbersome to build a manufacturing facility that it costs twice as much and twice as long to build here than it does in Mexico, complain about the government sinking half a billion dollars into a company that was financially unfit when the loan was awarded. But , don't complain about all of the small business owners, the evil rich who won't hire, that want to keep some of the money the earn when trying to recover from annual seven figure losse for three years during this recession.

 

People that have never run a business have no idea what factors are considered when running a business. All they see it the pay check the evil rich man gives them.

[Ursa Majoris]

They go up even more on the rich. The people who get by on all those loopholes and deductions.

Perch specifically stated that he would ensure that removal of deductions was equal to the lowering of the rate so as not to add to the tax burden on what he described as "the rich".

 

He is therefore in favor of raising taxes on the "non-rich", a fact that he explicitly states in his post immediately before your lengthy one critiquing the article.

[Yukon Cornelius]

if we could just go back to the the good old 1890's we could all be liven the dream

[Ursa Majoris]

if we could just go back to the the good old 1890's we could all be liven the dream

That's what I'm hearing too. How much better things were when life expectancy was 48, child mortality was 25% and people shared one bathroom between 15 families. Awesome.

[Pope Flick]

That's what I'm hearing too. How much better things were when life expectancy was 48, child mortality was 25% and people shared one bathroom between 15 families. Awesome.

 

 

Let's not forget child labor and half the country not being able to vote because they are women.

 

Wait a sec...

[Grande F'n Juan]

That's what I'm hearing too. How much better things were when life expectancy was 48, child mortality was 25% and people shared one bathroom between 15 families. Awesome.

 

Si, that is when our great savior Señor Ronald Raygun swoops in and gave me amnesty.

[WaterMan]

Could you smart guys explain this to me?

 

It's not that working Americans aren't working hard. Worker productivity has risen steadily, but wages have still been stagnant. But the income of the top 1% of Americans? Rapidly rising.

 

Do you have any stories about how your job tripled your pay rate in the past 15 years?

Edited September 15, 2011 by WaterMan

[Perchoutofwater]

if we could just go back to the the good old 1890's we could all be liven the dream

 

 

That's what I'm hearing too. How much better things were when life expectancy was 48, child mortality was 25% and people shared one bathroom between 15 families. Awesome.

 

And what we hear from your side is longing for the days of the Soviet Union.

[Rovers]

As I said that was a pipe dream. Still the rich would be paying way more for less services, and when you eliminate deductions that many of the rich now take advantage of you would effectively be raising their rate as well. Still I would like to see taxes raised on the poor so that everyone is a net income tax payer, so they have some skin in the game when they vote idiots in that want to go on spending sprees. Maybe if they were spending some of their money to instead of just the money of the "rich" people most of these bloated government spending programs would go by the wayside.

 

You want to see taxes raised on the poor. Brilliant.

[Perchoutofwater]

You want to see taxes raised on the poor. Brilliant.

 

Yes I do. I think everyone should be a net tax payer, or they should not be allowed to vote. I'm sick and tired of people who take more than they give to the government telling me I need to give more so that government can do this or that. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to take care of the poor but I'd rather do it voluntarily through charity, rather than have the poor elect someone to take money out of my pocket and give it to them.

[Rovers]

Yes I do. I think everyone should be a net tax payer, or they should not be allowed to vote. I'm sick and tired of people who take more than they give to the government telling me I need to give more so that government can do this or that. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to take care of the poor but I'd rather do it voluntarily through charity, rather than have the poor elect someone to take money out of my pocket and give it to them.

 

Look, you want to get rid of food stamps? Fine. Nothing frosts my boner more than these govt funded ads trying to get more people to apply for food stamps. You want to stop section 8 money? Fine. You want to deny health care to illegals? Fine.

 

You want to raise taxes on the poor? Idiotic idea. Most of the poor are illegals, and not paying any taxes. Raising taxes isn't gonna entice the illegals to become tax payers.

 

Raising taxes on tax paying poor (not illegals) is a moronic idea. They do deserve food and shelter if they work and pay taxes. You are worse than an elitist. You are a greedy wealthy man with no compasion. Let 'em starve, right? The ones who are poor and pay taxes, let 'em starve, that is your position?

[Perchoutofwater]

Raising taxes on tax paying poor (not illegals) is a moronic idea. They do deserve food and shelter if they work and pay taxes. You are worse than an elitist. You are a greedy wealthy man with no compasion. Let 'em starve, right? The ones who are poor and pay taxes, let 'em starve, that is your position?

 

Not at all. My position is if you are not a net tax payer you should not be able to vote to spend other peoples money. I'm all for charity, and am heavily involved in several. I just prefer to take care of the poor voluntarily rather than be threatened with jail time. See I believe in free will rather that coercion.

[Rovers]

Not at all. My position is if you are not a net tax payer you should not be able to vote to spend other peoples money. I'm all for charity, and am heavily involved in several. I just prefer to take care of the poor voluntarily rather than be threatened with jail time. See I believe in free will rather that coercion.

 

What is a "net tax payer"? And you made me laugh out loud.... you think having the right to vote determines how to spend tax payer money? Holy moly. What voter told the fed to advertise to the "poor" that they might be eligable for food stamps? Encourages them to apply? No, it's the pols who do this. Voting is an impotent voice. It means near nothing anymore.

 

Charity? Fine, it has it's place. I'd rather encourage and support the working, tax paying poor. You have somne delusional idea of what it means to be the working, tax paying poor. Raising taxes on these people (who DO pay taxes) is elitist. LOWER their taxes, cut the food stamps, the section 8 money, the entitlement programs, and save FAR more than you will burdening the poor with more taxes.

[Perchoutofwater]

What is a "net tax payer"? And you made me laugh out loud.... you think having the right to vote determines how to spend tax payer money? Holy moly. What voter told the fed to advertise to the "poor" that they might be eligable for food stamps? Encourages them to apply? No, it's the pols who do this. Voting is an impotent voice. It means near nothing anymore.

 

Charity? Fine, it has it's place. I'd rather encourage and support the working, tax paying poor. You have somne delusional idea of what it means to be the working, tax paying poor. Raising taxes on these people (who DO pay taxes) is elitist. LOWER their taxes, cut the food stamps, the section 8 money, the entitlement programs, and save FAR more than you will burdening the poor with more taxes.

 

A net tax payer is an individual that pays more in federal income tax than they receive in services from the federal government. By cutting the programs you suggest you would accomplish the same thing I'm suggesting by raising their taxes, just in a different way. So I guess you are delusional as well.

[Ursa Majoris]

You want to see taxes raised on the poor. Brilliant.

Welcome to Perch's Hobbesian Hell.