Agree with it all, but I'm just making an additional point, and that point is, the middle class aren't the only ones in the game. No, they don't need all those things, but are continually bombarded with the thinly veiled suggestive advertising of what failures they are if they don't have all those things. By the time they figure it out, it's usually too late as they're buried in debt having bought things they didn't need, with money they didn't have, to impress people they don't know. It's a which came first, chicken or egg kind of argument, but in my mind it's pretty obvious the working class aren't the ones driving this scam. In many cases willfully ignorant victims, but victims none the less.
America is a country which punishes the middle-class
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
Agree with it all, but I'm just making an additional point, and that point is, the middle class aren't the only ones in the game. No, they don't need all those things, but are continually bombarded with the thinly veiled suggestive advertising of what failures they are if they don't have all those things. By the time they figure it out, it's usually too late as they're buried in debt having bought things they didn't need, with money they didn't have, to impress people they don't know. It's a which came first, chicken or egg kind of argument, but in my mind it's pretty obvious the working class aren't the ones driving this scam. In many cases willfully ignorant victims, but victims none the less.
those are all good points about the middle class being irresponsible with their money, and getting into too much debt etc.
But the article still makes an important point. Regardless of how responsible a person is, it's still messed up (at least I think so) that the family making $60,000 has less disposable income. I'm assuming that the article's calculation is correct, and I hope other sources check it out. If it's correct, then I think it's obvious there is a big flaw in the system. The system cannot reward those who underachieve.
Also, the issue of the distribution of wealth can not be ignored. Once you get it to the point that the very few control all the wealth, there will be a revolution. A healthy country has to address the distribution of wealth.
But the article still makes an important point. Regardless of how responsible a person is, it's still messed up (at least I think so) that the family making $60,000 has less disposable income. I'm assuming that the article's calculation is correct, and I hope other sources check it out. If it's correct, then I think it's obvious there is a big flaw in the system. The system cannot reward those who underachieve.
Also, the issue of the distribution of wealth can not be ignored. Once you get it to the point that the very few control all the wealth, there will be a revolution. A healthy country has to address the distribution of wealth.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3015616&highlight=1900#post3015616
.she has a steady income for 99 weeks from unemployment. that alone would make her attractive to alot of men. the pt. is how much more does a regular job have to pay for her to get a job. it is 1900 a month for staying at home and doing nothing.
will a job playing $2000/ month be an incentive? how about $3000/month? how about $4000/month maybe $6000/month is necessary?
thx for answering the above question.
unemployment benefits is the scam of the middle class.
bottom line is the US has become a scam for all classes. Europe is the same. that's why the euro is collapsing,
.she has a steady income for 99 weeks from unemployment. that alone would make her attractive to alot of men. the pt. is how much more does a regular job have to pay for her to get a job. it is 1900 a month for staying at home and doing nothing.
will a job playing $2000/ month be an incentive? how about $3000/month? how about $4000/month maybe $6000/month is necessary?
thx for answering the above question.
unemployment benefits is the scam of the middle class.
bottom line is the US has become a scam for all classes. Europe is the same. that's why the euro is collapsing,
And can you blame these people?
We all read the news stories about the CEOs doing God's work, and the politicoes trying to do the same, while they're all lining their pockets, at the expense of, mostly, the disappearing middle class...
Gonna end? Never, looking at the Federal government and most states...Yes, indeed, it's good to be a socialist...err...I mean capitalist
We just have to send some more of our hard earned $$$ to those people, Tea Party or not...
We all read the news stories about the CEOs doing God's work, and the politicoes trying to do the same, while they're all lining their pockets, at the expense of, mostly, the disappearing middle class...
Gonna end? Never, looking at the Federal government and most states...Yes, indeed, it's good to be a socialist...err...I mean capitalist
We just have to send some more of our hard earned $$$ to those people, Tea Party or not...
You are making a good point. However, I don't think it's relevant to the opening post. A table that calculates disposable income after taxes and benefits doesn't include any debt payments. So, whether they have debt burden or not, a middle class household have less aftertax income to spend (on goods, rent, mortgarge or credit card payments) compared to household that taps benefits.
The real scary part is such a benefit system removes any incentive for a person on benefits to get a proper job. A person should be crazy (or have impenetrable job ethics) in order to work more to get less money.
The sad part is those who spend moderately and save will see that they are who ultimately pays for excesses of people who spend recklessly. It's not only bailout to banks that financed reckless spending. It's also paying for childrens' education where students whose parents have certain amount of saving are not eligible for financial help.
So, whether they have debt burden or not, middle class household have less aftertax income to spend:
HUH? Middle class is in the 19-28% tax bracket. Upper Class is in the 30plus Tax bracket, up to 39% if obama has his way.
Numbers do not lie....36% of X is still more than 19-28% of X.
If the middle class wants more money, then find a job, start a business that will give them more money.
The argument is flawed and not logical.
It isn't because of Taxs the middle class fucked themselves. It's because of their "WAGES". A flat tax, which I love, would not solve the problem of the middle class. It would give them more "Disposable Income" but it would not give them the type of Disposable Income the "Rich" have.
So, fucking do something else in a field that will earn them more in wages. It is all about WAGES not TAXES. Those who make more PAY MORE. Even with the "Writeoffs" they may have in the higer tax bracket, which is very few now.
Stop the nonsense argument that the Middle Class take more of the burden of the TAX hike. BULLSHIT argument, from Progressive's who lack basic math skills.
The idea of such an argument is to have the population drink the coolaid and blame the Rich and Producers for having "Too much Money" and not taxed enough.
Wait, Hey I have an idea....why not tax the middle class at all. Fuck, lets just tax those who work their arses off and make half to a million a year. That's right, lets go after them. That would free up the middle class to spend far more beyond their means. Shit, they would have way more money to spend as their wages would be higher because of ZERO TAX.
70% of GDP in the US is consumption people. WAKE THE FUCK UP! It isn't the rich consuming all 70% of shite.
HUH? Middle class is in the 19-28% tax bracket. Upper Class is in the 30plus Tax bracket, up to 39% if obama has his way.
Numbers do not lie....36% of X is still more than 19-28% of X.
If the middle class wants more money, then find a job, start a business that will give them more money.
The argument is flawed and not logical.
It isn't because of Taxs the middle class fucked themselves. It's because of their "WAGES". A flat tax, which I love, would not solve the problem of the middle class. It would give them more "Disposable Income" but it would not give them the type of Disposable Income the "Rich" have.
So, fucking do something else in a field that will earn them more in wages. It is all about WAGES not TAXES. Those who make more PAY MORE. Even with the "Writeoffs" they may have in the higer tax bracket, which is very few now.
Stop the nonsense argument that the Middle Class take more of the burden of the TAX hike. BULLSHIT argument, from Progressive's who lack basic math skills.
The idea of such an argument is to have the population drink the coolaid and blame the Rich and Producers for having "Too much Money" and not taxed enough.
Wait, Hey I have an idea....why not tax the middle class at all. Fuck, lets just tax those who work their arses off and make half to a million a year. That's right, lets go after them. That would free up the middle class to spend far more beyond their means. Shit, they would have way more money to spend as their wages would be higher because of ZERO TAX.
70% of GDP in the US is consumption people. WAKE THE FUCK UP! It isn't the rich consuming all 70% of shite.
Quote from shfly:
And can you blame these people?
We all read the news stories about the CEOs doing God's work, and the politicoes trying to do the same, while they're all lining their pockets, at the expense of, mostly, the disappearing middle class...
Gonna end? Never, looking at the Federal government and most states...Yes, indeed, it's good to be a socialist...err...I mean capitalist
We just have to send some more of our hard earned $$$ to those people, Tea Party or not...
You know, it's kind of amusing to me that a lot of the unemployed who are milking the system (and I'm not saying they all are) are also attacking corporate greed, or the greedy wealthy for going after as much as they can. I'm not sure which one is worse. And I'm about as poor as they come right now. I've struggled for this whole past year, but no unemployment
EMRGLOBAL, it would be helpful if you quoted which post you are replying to. Otherwise, it is hit and miss.
As I mentioned, the crazy part this system removes any incentive for people who work part-time or don't work at all to get a proper job... because they will loose out on money.
The argument doesn't compare middle class to the rich. The middle class is compared to families who receive state benefits because they are too poor. The crazy part is "head of household" who occasdionally tales a minimal wage job gets less disposable income (after Medicaid, Utility bill assistance National School Lucnh Program and other benefits) than a person on respectable £60k p.a. salary.
As I mentioned, the crazy part this system removes any incentive for people who work part-time or don't work at all to get a proper job... because they will loose out on money.
You are the first to mention this argument in this thread.