U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty

[Thin Lizzy]

married couples filing jointly earning up to 61000 only pay 15% in taxes.  those earning over 336000 pay 35%.   you can earn up to 15100 and pay zero taxes. Obviously those who earn the most pay the most.

I had this argument with someone on another forum who said the low income people are overtaxed. I'm a certified tax preparer, so I know a bit about taxes. I did a mock tax return for a couple, with two kids, that earns 50K a year. It turned out that they pay about 25 dollars a week in federal taxes.

The feminazi I was arguing with couldn't believe it, as she's had it drilled into her head over and over that lower income people are overtaxed.

Granted, it's not easy to support a family on 50K, but that doesn't mean they're overtaxed.

[240 is Back]

middle class is dissapearing?
where do you get this rubbish.  more people own their own homes today (% and total)  than ever before.  more people have college education then ever before. middle class is doing just fine

No offense dude, but real estate market is highly overvalued (the moment fed changes rates - it will bomb)

the more college degrees = every one is less valuable.

and the middle class is shrinking.  upper class and bottom class is growing.  if you don't know this, it's hard to discuss anything

[kh300]

who gives a shit,, you want to be upper class- you have to work for it,, middle class is disapering? well people are also fat and lazier then ever so it wouldnt suprise me. are the rich really becoming richer, or are the poor just getting dumber and lazier? you are what you make of yourself, if the rest of the country s getting poorer- o'well, your fault

[Debussey]

who gives a shit,, you want to be upper class- you have to work for it,, middle class is disapering? well people are also fat and lazier then ever so it wouldnt suprise me. are the rich really becoming richer, or are the poor just getting dumber and lazier? you are what you make of yourself, if the rest of the country s getting poorer- o'well, your fault

kh300 = correct.

Poor people waste their money and time, while successful people put their money + time to good use.

Poor people are trained to be losers from day 1.

Well well. 

[OzmO]

who gives a shit,, you want to be upper class- you have to work for it,, middle class is disapering? well people are also fat and lazier then ever so it wouldnt suprise me. are the rich really becoming richer, or are the poor just getting dumber and lazier? you are what you make of yourself, if the rest of the country s getting poorer- o'well, your fault

You might be confusing "rich" with upper middle class.  However, you should give a shit.  America is a powerful and rich nation solely because of it's large middle class.  It's where the vast majority of taxes come from, consumer goods are purchased by, investment capital comes from etc...   

The more the middle class shrinks the less powerful we are economically in the world.

Grow up, and grow above the fog of brainwashed political blabber.

It not about giving hand outs to worthless lazy pieces of trash.

It's about the inability of a hard working husband and wife to make ends meet because they can't get a job that pays enough to afford them a decent house in the current market combined with the relative high price of other goods and necessities.  This the area that's growing.  And that means the area it's being taken away from is the middle class.

Of course you have to be slightly more intelligent than and average person to see and understand this.  Otherwise you'll beat the "poor people are losers" drum.  which is true for some.  But not all.

[Debussey]

It's about the inability of a hard working husband and wife to make ends meet because they can't get a job that pays enough to afford them a decent house in the current market combined with the relative high price of other goods and necessities.  This the area that's growing.  And that means the area it's being taken away from is the middle class.

In all seriousness, what do you think is the underlying reasons for this trend?

[OzmO]

In all seriousness, what do you think is the underlying reasons for this trend?

A economics expert should know the answer to this. I myself, am not sure.  but i suspect these things:

The breakdown of the family unit in the USA:  More divorce, more single parent families etc.  Single moms have it the worse.  It is so hard for them.

The best paying jobs require a college education and or a trade or skill.  If you don't have a trade or skill what can you do then?  Before you could work in a factory starting with little or no skill and that pay go afford you a good life.  not that same as it was

The shrinking of small businesses.   To me owning a small business is the true American dream.  But "main street" is disappearing.  Family owned business such as restaurants, dry cleaners, convenience stores, auto repair tire etc...  are being systematically shut down but large corporations like wal mart,  micky dee's, Big O  etc....  they simply can't compete.

Any legislation that gives large corporations advantages and takes away any tax breaks for small businesses etc...

[Dos Equis]

You might be confusing "rich" with upper middle class.  However, you should give a shit.  America is a powerful and rich nation solely because of it's large middle class.  It's where the vast majority of taxes come from, consumer goods are purchased by, investment capital comes from etc...   

The more the middle class shrinks the less powerful we are economically in the world.

Grow up, and grow above the fog of brainwashed political blabber.

It not about giving hand outs to worthless lazy pieces of trash.

It's about the inability of a hard working husband and wife to make ends meet because they can't get a job that pays enough to afford them a decent house in the current market combined with the relative high price of other goods and necessities.  This the area that's growing.  And that means the area it's being taken away from is the middle class.

Of course you have to be slightly more intelligent than and average person to see and understand this.  Otherwise you'll beat the "poor people are losers" drum.  which is true for some.  But not all.

I agree with much of this, except for the part about taxes.  Here is a story (that's about 5 years old), which is consistent with most of what I have read and experienced when it comes to taxes.  (I also have a book on my office shelf, Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," that talks about this.):

Who Pays What Taxes ... the Latest
Neal Boortz
Thursday, Jan. 17, 2002
The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on just what segment of our population pays what share of our income tax burden. As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts it, this is excellent anti-class-envy material.

Over the years there has been a steady progression in the shift of the responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to high-achievers. As I have told you countless times, this is all according to plan – the plan to shift the entire responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to a minority of the taxpayers.

This, of course, leaves the class-warfare party, the Democratic Party, free to soak the rich minority, who pay all the taxes, for the benefit of the lower- and middle-income majority, which pays virtually none of the income taxes. A sure vote-buying formula.

OK ... here's the latest from Bruce Bartlett's column (linked below):

For some historical reference Bartlett points out that in 1975 the top 1 percent of income earners in this country paid about 18.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Keep that figure in mind.

Now ... the figures for 1999. The top 1 percent of income earners now pay 36.2 of all federal income taxes. For those of you who attended government schools, that's over one-third. This is double their share of the tax burden from 1975.

If you have any brains at all, you will want to know just what share of total income this top 1 percent earned. After all, if they're earning 36.2 percent of the income, then they should be paying 36.2 percent of the income taxes. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?

Well, the fact is that this evil top 1 percent of income earners only earned 19.5 percent of the income in 1999. As Bartlett points out, their share of the income taxes exceeds their share of the income by almost 17 percent.

Now for some other income-earning segments.

If you're in the top 5 percent of income earners, your share of the income taxes paid went from 36.6 to 55.5 percent from 1975 to 1999.

The top 10 percent saw their share increase from 48.7 percent to 66.5 percent.

If you're in the top 25 percent, you're now paying 83.5 percent of the income taxes. In 1975 you paid 72 percent.

How about the top half? Your share is now at 96 percent. The bottom half pays 4 percent.

Guessing game. Of all the segments I mentioned above, which segment saw their share of the total income taxes paid actually go down in the last 25 years? You're right. Only one segment. The bottom 50 percent.

Another question. Which segment listed above has an income share that exceeds their share of the income taxes paid? Again, only one. The bottom 50 percent.

When these figures first came out in 1975, liberal Democrats in Congress denied them. They refused to believe the figures could be correct. They demanded that the Congressional Research Service develop the correct figures. After their own study was done, they found the figures were correct.

These figures never fail to amaze those who actually see them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this country don't listen to talk radio and don't study Treasury publications. So, since these figures certainly aren't going to be featured on ABC News or "Entertainment Tonight," most people will never know.

Bottom line? The evil, hated rich most certainly are paying "their fare share" of the taxes and are richly deserving of a tax cut. Just try to say it ain't so.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/17/153409.shtml

[Dos Equis]

A economics expert should know the answer to this. I myself, am not sure.  but i suspect these things:

The breakdown of the family unit in the USA:  More divorce, more single parent families etc.  Single moms have it the worse.  It is so hard for them.

The best paying jobs require a college education and or a trade or skill.  If you don't have a trade or skill what can you do then?  Before you could work in a factory starting with little or no skill and that pay go afford you a good life.  not that same as it was

The shrinking of small businesses.   To me owning a small business is the true American dream.  But "main street" is disappearing.  Family owned business such as restaurants, dry cleaners, convenience stores, auto repair tire etc...  are being systematically shut down but large corporations like wal mart,  micky dee's, Big O  etc....  they simply can't compete.

Any legislation that gives large corporations advantages and takes away any tax breaks for small businesses etc...

I completely agree with all of this, except for the last line.  I agree tax breaks for small business are important, which is something Bush has done, but I don't think they have to come at the expense of tax breaks for "large corporations."  Well run corporations will never pay large amounts of taxes anyway.  This doesn't really matter much, because the shareholders and employees pay taxes on income received from the corporation.   

[Thin Lizzy]

The best paying jobs require a college education and or a trade or skill.[/b]  If you don't have a trade or skill what can you do then? 

You get a job that requires little or no skill. From there, you can better yourself by taking classes, or learning a trade. Then, you can get a better job. The opportunities are out there. You just have to want it bad enough.

You seem to want to make everyone into a victim, when, in fact, you have a lot of control over your life and your future.

[OzmO]

You get a job that requires little or no skill. From there, you can better yourself by taking classes, or learning a trade. Then, you can get a better job. The opportunities are out there. You just have to want it bad enough.

You seem to want to make everyone into a victim, when, in fact, you have a lot of control over your life and your future.

I completely agree with you.  on the bold stuff.   I did pretty much what you outlined there and i've prospered as a result.  I believe virtually ANYONE can succeed and change their life,  the problem is many of the willing lack the skills and attitude it takes to do that.  Also some face much tougher challenges than others that are more difficult to overcome.  For example:  Single unskilled mothers without a  support system (family members who help with baby sitting etc..)

But, you are getting the wrong idea about my intentions.  I'm not making people victims.  All i'm saying is that the "problem exists" and that we've had better poverty rates in the past with a different economy.

[Hedgehog]

who gives a shit,, you want to be upper class- you have to work for it,, middle class is disapering? well people are also fat and lazier then ever so it wouldnt suprise me. are the rich really becoming richer, or are the poor just getting dumber and lazier? you are what you make of yourself, if the rest of the country s getting poorer- o'well, your fault

This is a good principle for the individual.

Legislators and politicians in a society has to look for ways to optimize the national economy.

The issue isn't whether people are poor, lazy or whatever.

The issue is that not enough people are highly educated and are not as productive as they should be.

Most mainstream politicians agree that USA would be best off if everyone would get a qualified education and the usual stuff re: low crime rate, good health, et al.

What differs is only the ideas on how to get there.

-Hedge

[Debussey]

One of the main problems is the education system itself. The teaching methods are outdated, and the resources are lacking. -> The result: Many people drop out.

One can create a fortune without any education, but statistically speaking, education is needed for success, both on the individual plan and for the society as one unit.

There are cultural aspects needed to be addressed here. In some cultural segments of society, school is not highly valued ("keep it real nugga"...). The education system must find a way to combat these negative influences by installing a feeling of mastery and pride in every student.

Whenever a problem is to be solved, the first step is always to identify: "What is the unknown?" (in other words: Defining and comprehending the problem in detail). Sometimes there are many unknown factors.
Here we have a complex issue, determining the unknown factors and quantities that makes the entire school system unable to maximize individual potential and belief in almost every individual. (and this is where society really grows: By promoting self confidence, work ethic aso. on the individual level).

The normal "classroom" teaching is an incredibly inefficient way to teach most kids. There = a pile of research describing much better ways to teach, yet still: nothing is done.

Conclusion: Even though there are many factors contributing to the rise in poverty, one of the best places to start is by reforming the education system, to make sure each individual can maximize his/hers potential instead of producing a large quantity of people with no belief in themselves. By empowering children as early as possible, there is a way.

Reforming the education system is not easy, but if nothing is done, we have a recipe for disaster.


Debussey/Gary Busey has spoken.

[OzmO]

One of the main problems is the education system itself. The teaching methods are outdated, and the resources are lacking. -> The result: Many people drop out.

One can create a fortune without any education, but statistically speaking, education is needed for success, both on the individual plan and for the society as one unit.

There are cultural aspects needed to be addressed here. In some cultural segments of society, school is not highly valued ("keep it real nugga"...). The education system must find a way to combat these negative influences by installing a feeling of mastery and pride in every student.

Whenever a problem is to be solved, the first step is always to identify: "What is the unknown?" (in other words: Defining and comprehending the problem in detail). Sometimes there are many unknown factors.
Here we have a complex issue, determining the unknown factors and quantities that makes the entire school system unable to maximize individual potential and belief in almost every individual. (and this is where society really grows: By promoting self confidence, work ethic aso. on the individual level).

The normal "classroom" teaching is an incredibly inefficient way to teach most kids. There = a pile of research describing much better ways to teach, yet still: nothing is done.

Conclusion: Even though there are many factors contributing to the rise in poverty, one of the best places to start is by reforming the education system, to make sure each individual can maximize his/hers potential instead of producing a large quantity of people with no belief in themselves. By empowering children as early as possible, there is a way.

Reforming the education system is not easy, but if nothing is done, we have a recipe for disaster.


Debussey/Gary Busey has spoken.

Agreed.

Sounds like a far better place to spend 400 billion!

[Debussey]

Agreed.

Sounds like a far better place to spend 400 billion!

Remember: Bush receives his strategy from God. Either you are with him, or you are a terrorist.

And do not even think about being a bit progressive. That is evil. (Like actually changing the way the educational system operates).

 

[Camel Jockey]

There are cultural aspects needed to be addressed here. In some cultural segments of society, school is not highly valued ("keep it real nugga"...). The education system must find a way to combat these negative influences by installing a feeling of mastery and pride in every student.

Whenever a problem is to be solved, the first step is always to identify: "What is the unknown?" (in other words: Defining and comprehending the problem in detail). Sometimes there are many unknown factors.
Here we have a complex issue, determining the unknown factors and quantities that makes the entire school system unable to maximize individual potential and belief in almost every individual. (and this is where society really grows: By promoting self confidence, work ethic aso. on the individual level).

I don't agree. The problem is that the education system tries to find a way around the whole "school and hardwork are not cool" mentality, when they shouldn't be doing so. I may sound harsh, but not every child in the average highschool class is created equally. The educational system needs to lose it's politically correct mentality of giving idiots chances. Schools are under funded and that's a problem, however, the bigger problem lies within the culture. Instead of trying to adapt to the culture, the schools ought to have a strict policy where they give harsh treatment to kids that want to "keep it real" by chucking them out. Once they're out on their own, some will never realize what needs to be done, others certainly will and will work hard for a second chance at life.

I live in NYC and we have the largest public university system in the United States, called the City University of NY. CUNY had very low standards in the 90's and a diploma from CUNY was worthless. But in the late 90's CUNY upped its standards up to that of Private universities in terms of course difficulties, admission and graduation standards. These days a CUNY diploma is of good value and people usually find employment within monts of gradution, some even go on to graduate studies at IVY league schools. What was the reason for CUNY's transformation? Well first they stopped trying to adapt to the students and made students adapt to the University.

[Debussey]

I don't agree. The problem is that the education system tries to find a way around the whole "school and hardwork are not cool" mentality, when they shouldn't be doing so. I may sound harsh, but not every child in the average highschool class is created equally. The educational system needs to lose it's politically correct mentality of giving idiots chances. Schools are under funded and that's a problem, however, the bigger problem lies within the culture. Instead of trying to adapt to the culture, the schools ought to have a strict policy where they give harsh treatment to kids that want to "keep it real" by chucking them out. Once they're out on their own, some will never realize what needs to be done, others certainly will and will work hard for a second chance at life.

I live in NYC and we have the largest public university system in the United States, called the City University of NY. CUNY had very low standards in the 90's and a diploma from CUNY was worthless. But in the late 90's CUNY upped its standards up to that of Private universities in terms of course difficulties, admission and graduation standards. These days a CUNY diploma is of good value and people usually find employment within monts of gradution, some even go on to graduate studies at IVY league schools. What was the reason for CUNY's transformation? Well first they stopped trying to adapt to the students and made students adapt to the University.

In a way you are correct.

Debusseys argument regarding "instilling the feeling of mastery ++" = something that should be done at a very early age. Call it brainwashing of young kids. THat is OK. A 6 year old kid can be influenced a lot if the correct methods = used.

When the kids are older, the ability to influence diminish. Trying to tell a 16 year old gangbanger to do his homework = wasted resources (yet, there exists studies that show otherwise, yet, this is not done by normal teachers). Then the strategies you talk about could be used.


What matters is not what strategies = used. What matters is that measurable results are achieved asap.

Today, school is a place where kids "hang out", not a place to be fascinated with the world of learning. Call it idealism, but human beings natural state is to be fascinated with the world.
Something = failed.

[tu_holmes]

Low income earners don't really pay much in taxes.  The Earned Income Tax Credit often takes care of that.  It is actually higher income earners who need the most tax relief. 

This is not entirely true... The highest income earners have benefited more from this country than any other, and as such SHOULD pay more... I know I do and it doesn't really bother me so much.

See, you're looking at the WHOLE group... sure, the top 10% pay most of the taxes, but they have the most disposable income... If you make 50K and they take 20% in taxes, that leaves you with 40K... If you make 20K and pay 10%, that leaves you with 18K... 40 is still much larger than 18 and you can live very well off of that.

As a group sure, but as an individual who makes 18K... they need the tax break MUCH more just to survive than someone making 50K.

[Dos Equis]

This is not entirely true... The highest income earners have benefited more from this country than any other, and as such SHOULD pay more... I know I do and it doesn't really bother me so much.

See, you're looking at the WHOLE group... sure, the top 10% pay most of the taxes, but they have the most disposable income... If you make 50K and they take 20% in taxes, that leaves you with 40K... If you make 20K and pay 10%, that leaves you with 18K... 40 is still much larger than 18 and you can live very well off of that.

As a group sure, but as an individual who makes 18K... they need the tax break MUCH more just to survive than someone making 50K.

Oh I don't think we will see eye-to-eye on this.     You're talking about the classic redistribution of wealth.  I don't believe in the Robin Hood approach.  I favor cutting taxes across the board and not punishing success.  Everyone should be allowed to keep more of their own money instead of giving it to the government, which has historically not managed our money very well.     

Also, I doubt a person making 20K a year pays taxes at the end of the day, with credits, deductions, etc.   

[Hedgehog]

In a way you are correct.

Debusseys argument regarding "instilling the feeling of mastery ++" = something that should be done at a very early age. Call it brainwashing of young kids. THat is OK. A 6 year old kid can be influenced a lot if the correct methods = used.

When the kids are older, the ability to influence diminish. Trying to tell a 16 year old gangbanger to do his homework = wasted resources (yet, there exists studies that show otherwise, yet, this is not done by normal teachers). Then the strategies you talk about could be used.


What matters is not what strategies = used. What matters is that measurable results are achieved asap.

Today, school is a place where kids "hang out", not a place to be fascinated with the world of learning. Call it idealism, but human beings natural state is to be fascinated with the world.
Something = failed.

Debussey speaks words of wisdom.

Debussey makes Hedge read and approve. Hedge thinks Debussey has a good understanding of the problems in the schools today.

Individual tutoring, and keeping the kids learning throughout the whole K-12, looking for ways to stimulate learning.

The traditional scheduling isn't optimal, just compare it to how any weekend workshop for company suits is set up, usually one event before lunch and one after.

Let me give y'all an example:

Traditionally, kids are in a 50-60 minute class, eg Math. After that, they'll change to something else, eg American History. It will take at least 5 minutes for the teacher to get the kids going, and he needs to stop cerca 3-5 minutes before the end to round up, that's 8-10*5 =40-50 minutes in a week. If math would be once i a week, you would lose only 8-10 minutes every week.

If the classes were longer, it would allow the teacher to include different kind of special events related to math, get out of the classroom.


It's never about making it easier on the student, rather keep stimulating the student, finding new challenges.

To give a test with 200 yes/no answers is bullshit.

That doesn't challenge the student to think.

A test with five questions, asking the student to explain certain events is a much bigger challenge, eg:

"What ramifications did Gavrilo Princip's actions in Sarajevo have, and why do you think the actions had such impact?"



-Hedge

[tu_holmes]

Oh I don't think we will see eye-to-eye on this.     You're talking about the classic redistribution of wealth.  I don't believe in the Robin Hood approach.  I favor cutting taxes across the board and not punishing success.  Everyone should be allowed to keep more of their own money instead of giving it to the government, which has historically not managed our money very well.     

Also, I doubt a person making 20K a year pays taxes at the end of the day, with credits, deductions, etc.   

We might not agree... I consider myself in the higher end of the scale, not rich by any means, but I do ok... If it weren't for Mortgage interests and child credits, I'd never break even come tax time... I pay plenty.

I think the real issue, and I think we can agree with this point, is that the government wastes money...

You know, there was not a Federal Tax until the early 1900s... There was no IRS, the Government made it's money on Tariffs and other things.

See, what we have is government that is too large, that gets money from Citizens and doesn't provide much of a return for that investment.

I'm all for defense and stuff... maybe even roads, but the government spends entirely too much money and that money comes out of the pockets of the citizens.

I would love to see the IRS abolished along with most Federal taxation, but we know that won't happen because the people who make money from it want to keep their jobs.

Federal Government is big business now.

[Dos Equis]

We might not agree... I consider myself in the higher end of the scale, not rich by any means, but I do ok... If it weren't for Mortgage interests and child credits, I'd never break even come tax time... I pay plenty.

I think the real issue, and I think we can agree with this point, is that the government wastes money...

You know, there was not a Federal Tax until the early 1900s... There was no IRS, the Government made it's money on Tariffs and other things.

See, what we have is government that is too large, that gets money from Citizens and doesn't provide much of a return for that investment.

I'm all for defense and stuff... maybe even roads, but the government spends entirely too much money and that money comes out of the pockets of the citizens.

I would love to see the IRS abolished along with most Federal taxation, but we know that won't happen because the people who make money from it want to keep their jobs.

Federal Government is big business now.

Mortgage interest and child deductions help me too, but I still pay through the nose.  It sucks.   

Yes, we agree on how the government wastes our hard earned money.  I am in favor of either abolishing the IRS or significantly changing how we deal with taxes. 

I was talking to someone from Wyoming a while back.  He said they don't have any state income taxes.  Oregon and Texas are the same way.  And yet their governments survive.  I am hoping someone like Steve Forbes comes along again reinvigorates the tax discussion.  It's really a burden.   

[tu_holmes]

Mortgage interest and child deductions help me too, but I still pay through the nose.  It sucks.   

Yes, we agree on how the government wastes our hard earned money.  I am in favor of either abolishing the IRS or significantly changing how we deal with taxes. 

I was talking to someone from Wyoming a while back.  He said they don't have any state income taxes.  Oregon and Texas are the same way.  And yet their governments survive.  I am hoping someone like Steve Forbes comes along again reinvigorates the tax discussion.  It's really a burden.   

Most of those states have higher sales taxes and what not, but that is included in the purchase of an item similarly to a tariff or what have you.

The fed could easily do the same thing, but it's a business... You don't even want to get me started on the whole "Federal Reserve" thing... That's nothing but corporate greed.

[tu_holmes]

middle class is dissapearing?

where do you get this rubbish.  more people own their own homes today (% and total)  than ever before.  more people have college education then ever before. middle class is doing just fine

It's not complete rubbish, it's just not seen yet. Yes, more people have homes, and where 50 years ago a single income could keep you in middle class, often today it can not.

Many people are also busy running up record amounts of debt to maintain their middle class status.

While it may not just be "disappearing"... It will erode because eventually, someone must pay the bills.