america's middle class is dying

[meesterperfect]

Actually the tax credit i got from the Obama stimulus was $11.

no matter who is president the gov sends single mothers who are usually with one of the babies daddies just not married a check each year for 2,500 for each kid up to i believe 5 grand.
these are people who already live for free all year long.

I've seen it so many times.
they get the money and piss it away on themselves within a week.
but its " for the children".

but where does the money come from?
well think about the people who work their asses off every day and earn about 30 or 40k per year, thats about the same amount the pay in just federal tax each year.

so for all the millions of people who get the tax credit aka free gift each year the same amount of poor bastards had to work all year for it.
I call it slavery........being forced to work for free or go to jail.
What a country!

If people had to personally send in all their tax money each year there would be a tax revolt.
but the GOV forces employers to act as agents for the irs and steal it from the middle class each week this way you dont have a choice and also because you wont mind 500 bucks a week as much as 20,000 in one lump sum


fuckin genious.

 

[vodkazvictim]

no matter who is president the gov sends single mothers who are usually with one of the babies daddies just not married a check each year for 2,500 for each kid up to i believe 5 grand.
these are people who already live for free all year long.

I've seen it so many times.
they get the money and piss it away on themselves within a week.
but its " for the children".

but where does the money come from?
well think about the people who work their asses off every day and earn about 30 or 40k per year, thats about the same amount the pay in just federal tax each year.

so for all the millions of people who get the tax credit aka free gift each year the same amount of poor bastards had to work all year for it.
I call it slavery........being forced to work for free or go to jail.
What a country!

If people had to personally send in all their tax money each year there would be a tax revolt.
but the GOV forces employers to act as agents for the irs and steal it from the middle class each week this way you dont have a choice and also because you wont mind 500 bucks a week as much as 20,000 in one lump sum


fuckin genious.

So, the rich never stole anything from society? Didn't your american banks get bailed out as well?

So because you're poor you're not allowed to enjoy yourself or have a drink every so often? I suspect that you only notice WHEN they have a beer. I suspect that whenever you see a poor guy working hard it never cross your mind that it's a poor guy working hard, but the moment a poor person dares to have a drink, I bet you notice.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[dongkong]

I didn't get into proportions. I just said they're were credits and cuts..(on top of the Bush era cuts) in and effort to further counter the notion we're paying 'high' taxes.

Okay.:dunno: The other guy did. I agree that 'high' taxes might slow a recovery.

I haven't studied this but in just briefly looking at the anecdotal evidence, results are inconclusive at best on short or long term stimulus and recovery. And that's looking at major cuts (Reagan era from 69.5 to 50%). People like to credit Reagan's cuts but it's really unclear what eventually spurred growth in his economy, his cuts or his spending.

The last decade is certainly evidence that nominal cuts didn't do much. Especially when you're borrowing to provide for them. I admit there were additional pressures on the economy (gas/oil prices, dollar devaluation, etc.) but the effect of those cuts didn't appear to have as positive impact as the negative of borrowing to sustain them.




Well, I'm not stiff-arming the debate here but frankly, I didn't post the graph in order to debate the historical intricacies of our economy. Nor the effect of ancillary taxation. I posted it to back up the claim I made that we were paying some of the lowest marginal rates in our tax history. And if I'm not mistaken the lowest marginal rates of any developed country.

Well with tax cuts, you got to look at the economy as a whole. THe tax issue is only a small aspect of it. One of the mistakes i feel many people make while looking at the economy is that they look at it through the lens of political parties and presidential terms. While in reality the economy often pans out over a long term period that could span the terms of two or three presidents. Its often not as fast and clear as "X did this so economy is now at Y". What Reagan was able to do was reduce inflation with his monetary policy which eventually lead to a growing economy. The effects of that growth can be seen long after Reagan left office.

Also i would argue that recent history is evidence which proves the point that tax cuts can get an economy growing again. Many people forget that the US experienced a recession after 9/11. I would argue that the lower tax forcasting played a big role in getting us out of that recession quickly enough (quickly enough that people often dont even remember it anymore).

Lastly, i understand your point on why you posted the graph and really im not blaming you for the graph. I was just saying it would have been more helpful if it provided the other info also, but oh well. In regards to the developed country debate, recently i was discussing taxation with a friend of mine whos father is from Sweden. The problem we kept coming up against when we discussed the tax policy of Sweden to the US was that there are so many differences between the two. At the end of the day its like comparing apples to oranges. The same can be said about England where the people pay close to what would be 6 or 7 $ in gas prices. But if you look the taxes that go into that and the other factors you see tha the set up is completly different. Again its apples and oranges and at the end of the day saying "other developed countries pay more" really dosnt mean much.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well with tax cuts, you got to look at the economy as a whole.

No I don't. I simply argued we are paying some of the lowest marginal tax rates in our history. I supported the claim with the previous graph and link. Now you'll find that to be either relatively true or relatively untrue.

If you think that's relatively untrue then show me where I'm wrong. If you agree with me and think that it is relatively true then the rest of what you're pointing out in the context what I stated is moot.

 

[dongkong]

No I don't. I simply argued we are paying some of the lowest marginal tax rates in our history. I supported the claim with the previous graph and link. Now you'll find that to be either relatively true or relatively untrue.

If you think that's relatively untrue then show me where I'm wrong. If you agree with me and think that it is relatively true then the rest of what you're pointing out in the context what I stated is moot.

Oh no, i was never saying your graph was untrue in what it presented. I just wanted to point out that on the whole tax rates inflation or deflation is meaningless on its own. It has to be looked at in terms of the larger economy if any meaningful conclusion is to be reached.

 

[dongkong]

no matter who is president the gov sends single mothers who are usually with one of the babies daddies just not married a check each year for 2,500 for each kid up to i believe 5 grand.
these are people who already live for free all year long.

I've seen it so many times.
they get the money and piss it away on themselves within a week.
but its " for the children".

but where does the money come from?
well think about the people who work their asses off every day and earn about 30 or 40k per year, thats about the same amount the pay in just federal tax each year.

so for all the millions of people who get the tax credit aka free gift each year the same amount of poor bastards had to work all year for it.
I call it slavery........being forced to work for free or go to jail.
What a country!

If people had to personally send in all their tax money each year there would be a tax revolt.
but the GOV forces employers to act as agents for the irs and steal it from the middle class each week this way you dont have a choice and also because you wont mind 500 bucks a week as much as 20,000 in one lump sum


fuckin genious.

I do agree that if people actually had to write a check each year to the govt there would be a tax revolt.

But on the issue of welfare. You cant blame welfare recipients for taking advantage of the programs in place. Is it fair to the middle class as we know it to pay for people on welfare? No, its not fair, but the blame in my opinion dosnt sit on the welfare recipients. But rather on the politicians who promise these programs. Welfare recipients are just taking advantage of the policies put in place by the politicians. As someone recently told me, that they get more money in unemployment than they do actually working a min wage job. Now, im all for working hard, but most people would rather get unemployment check for a year instead of working at some crap job and getting payed less. More money is a motivator dont ya think.

 

[Hot Mega]

I do agree that if people actually had to write a check each year to the govt there would be a tax revolt.

They probably would revolt but it wouldn't be because of the amount they see they have to pay. They already can see that on each of their earnings statements attached to their pay checks. But never mind that fact, there many many people who already actually cut a check to the g'ment for taxes quarterly or annually..

The reason people would revolt is because they would be too financially undisciplined to set aside the money for the bill.

People go out all the time and create their own debt but don't have the discipline to pay for it on time or at all. There is a good basis for why the default situation for most hourly wage earners is their taxes are withheld. Otherwise instead of them paying some goober to calculate what they paid over and getting a check in return or cutting a relatively small check for the remainder of what they owe...many of them would be paying what they owe plus interest on some payment plan to the g'ment.

Nothing's stopping anyone from changing their W4 and have nothing withheld in order to cut the check themselves at the end of the year as an experiment. I think after that experiment, they'll be more apt to return to having what they owe withheld as opposed to revolt.

As someone recently told me, that they get more money in unemployment than they do actually working a min wage job. Now, im all for working hard, but most people would rather get unemployment check for a year instead of working at some crap job and getting payed less. More money is a motivator dont ya think.

Well, a person making the top end of unemployment off of an example former $100k per yr. job would be a complete and utter fool to take a job to pay them equal or even slightly more than u/e was paying them.

First of all, if anything ever happened with the lesser job they took and they became unemployed again...their new u/e claim is now going to be based on that lesser job's wages and probably not even a fraction of what their old claim was.

Secondly, if they were to take min wage job...they'd likely have to be working full time plus. Making it impractical in some case to have absences from work (on theoretically a new job) in order to call, apply and interview for jobs that are in their actual career field and pays them what they're worth.

That person is far better off focusing their efforts on jobs in their career field while they collect on their u/e insurance claim. The economy would be better for it too.

Besides when you worked for a company, they pay your u/e insurance for a reason.

 

[dongkong]

They probably would revolt but it wouldn't be because of the amount they see they have to pay. They already can see that on each of their earnings statements attached to their pay checks. But never mind that fact, there many many people who already actually cut a check to the g'ment for taxes quarterly or annually..

The reason people would revolt is because they would be too financially undisciplined to set aside the money for the bill.

People go out all the time and create their own debt but don't have the discipline to pay for it on time or at all. There is a good basis for why the default situation for most hourly wage earners is their taxes are withheld. Otherwise instead of them paying some goober to calculate what they paid over and getting a check in return or cutting a relatively small check for the remainder of what they owe...many of them would be paying what they owe plus interest on some payment plan to the g'ment.

Nothing's stopping anyone from changing their W4 and have nothing withheld in order to cut the check themselves at the end of the year as an experiment. I think after that experiment, they'll be more apt to return to having what they owe withheld as opposed to revolt.


Well, a person making the top end of unemployment off of an example former $100k per yr. job would be a complete and utter fool to take a job to pay them equal or even slightly more than u/e was paying them.

First of all, if anything ever happened with the lesser job they took and they became unemployed again...their new u/e claim is now going to be based on that lesser job's wages and probably not even a fraction of what their old claim was.

Secondly, if they were to take min wage job...they'd likely have to be working full time plus. Making it impractical in some case to have absences from work (on theoretically a new job) in order to call, apply and interview for jobs that are in their actual career field and pays them what they're worth.

That person is far better off focusing their efforts on jobs in their career field while they collect on their u/e insurance claim. The economy would be better for it too.

Besides when you worked for a company, they pay your u/e insurance for a reason.

I think there would be a tax revolt based on the volume that people have to pay for taxes (if they had to pay a lump sum amount each year). In my view the tax that goes out from peoples pay check is a bit of a learned responce now. Everyone is a bit shocked at how much money goes out when they get that first job. But in time they kinda learn to ignore it. I remember thats how i was with my first job, every check id be like "fuck the govt is taking so much of my pay check". I remember hearing about a psy study they were doing about money that kinda related to this subject at hand. I wonder what that study concluded, ill search for it online if i can find it.

Lastly, while i agree with most of what you said about unemployment. Id have to disagree with the last bit about the economy being better off for it. The economy is certenly not better off with people sitting and collecting unemployment no matter how much it is. Thats becuase people who are unemployed are unproductive. And having a large segment of society being unproductive can lead to some long term economic problems no matter how much immediate cash is being spend through unemployment. My point being that a productive worker working for less money is still better for the economy long term than an unproductive worker collecting more money through unemployment.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think there would be a tax revolt based on the volume that people have to pay for taxes (if they had to pay a lump sum amount each year). In my view the tax that goes out from peoples pay check is a bit of a learned responce now. Everyone is a bit shocked at how much money goes out when they get that first job. But in time they kinda learn to ignore it. I remember thats how i was with my first job, every check id be like "fuck the govt is taking so much of my pay check". I remember hearing about a psy study they were doing about money that kinda related to this subject at hand. I wonder what that study concluded, ill search for it online if i can find it.

At what point in our tax history are you referring to?? The rates have been high and they've been low. Therefore, the theory you assert here isn't a constant. For it to apply, the rates would have excessively high enough for a practical, realistic person to react that way. Of course nowadays it wouldn't make sense for someone to react that way if they are sophisticated enough to know the current rates are some of the lowest in our history and the lowest of any developed country in the world.

Lastly, while i agree with most of what you said about unemployment. Id have to disagree with the last bit about the economy being better off for it. The economy is certenly not better off with people sitting and collecting unemployment no matter how much it is. Thats becuase people who are unemployed are unproductive. And having a large segment of society being unproductive can lead to some long term economic problems no matter how much immediate cash is being spend through unemployment. My point being that a productive worker working for less money is still better for the economy long term than an unproductive worker collecting more money through unemployment.

A grossly under employed person defaults on loans, doesn't consume goods and services at the rate they would making what they're worth and limits their opportunity to get regain employment commensurate with their earning potential. And other trickle downs of the circumstance..

A person with good earning potential doesn't sit on unemployment. It should be and represents a stop-gap to help among other things stave off burrowing into a lesser job or worse. At least on u/e a person still recycles some dollars back into the economy.

In a normal economy it should be expected that employable people's stay on u/e would be less than if in a worse economy.

The current economic problems are by most accounts the worst since the great depression. It should be something of common what that circumstance begets.

 

[meesterperfect]

So, the rich never stole anything from society? Didn't your american banks get bailed out as well?

So because you're poor you're not allowed to enjoy yourself or have a drink every so often? I suspect that you only notice WHEN they have a beer. I suspect that whenever you see a poor guy working hard it never cross your mind that it's a poor guy working hard, but the moment a poor person dares to have a drink, I bet you notice.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

drink all you want, just don't expect me to pay for it if i don't wanna.
but It doesnt matter if I want to or not, the GOV forces me to and if I refuse they strip me of all earthly belongings and put me in jail with thieves and killers.

hey, have you ever been in a supermarket line and the old lady in front of you is buying ramen noodles 8 for a dollar for dinner for the next week while youre buying everything on sale and not buying a lot of the things you want because you ain't got the money because you gotta pay rent, utilities, insurance, car payment so you can get to work, taxes when you earn it and when you spend it even though you work 6 days a week?
Meanwhile the welfare crew in front of you but behind the old lady are buying all named brand things with their family first card even though they already get reduced rent or free rent, reduced or free utilities and free taxi service to go to the doctor for free and to the welfare and ss office.
with all those bennies cant they at least pay for their food?

Have you ever noticed that vodka?
Have you ever walked through a welfare project in the bitter cold of winter and noticed how many apartments have a window open?
it don't matter because the heat is turned up all the way and they ain't paying for it anyway.

Maybe its me I'm a little fucked up but theres something that just doesnt seem fair about all that.
" families First" card,,,,,,,,,,who's family?

I just don't think people realize just how many people live off the system in the USA and how it effects them, the economy and society.
To me that is obviously the biggest reason why the country is going down the shitter.

 

[Trident1]

The welfare crowd loves to be in the wagon while everyone else is out front pulling.

 

[Will E Worm]

as much as i normally cant stand most of the BS you spew, the whole civil war argument is gaining some ground with me. slowly, but its there. that being said, it wont be like our first civil war, itll be completely different. and who knows what itll look like

You love me and you know it. :1orglaugh :tongue:

I hope you are being persuaded to the truth.
Get ready.

:hatsoff:

 

[Facetious]

fairly disturbing stats to be found here

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...le-class-crisis-sobering-facts-141947274.html
the report itself:
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/26-04-11 Middle Class Under Stress.pdf

Those are disturbing stats for certain!

In the meantime, obama was in El Paso the other day, riding high off of the killing of osama, pushing his amnesty agenda. I'm sorry, but does this really make sense during a time of stagnant economic growth?
What in the hell are we going to do with all of these unemployed people? FUCK ! The bureau of conservation just idled about 260,000 acres of farmland just because they could, and obama, the reckless sophomore senator 'transnationalist' potus wants to further impose upon the working taxpayer(s) of this country in footing the bill for more unnecessary subsidies just so that he can secure the vote for his second term in office? :dunno: That's what it's all about, it's as obvious as the day is light!

More than that, the obama administration has imposed severe restrictions on domestic oil production during a time when oil prices are skyrocketing, does that makes sense? Why should the reset of the world provide for our energy needs? What kind of message does that send to the world, are we reserving our natural resources while depleting the resources of other nations?

It would seem to me that the best time to develop renewable energy resources would be a time of economic growth and stability, not during a time of inflation and expensive energy resources!

president amabo, you have it all backwards

jackass!

 

[dongkong]

At what point in our tax history are you referring to?? The rates have been high and they've been low. Therefore, the theory you assert here isn't a constant. For it to apply, the rates would have excessively high enough for a practical, realistic person to react that way. Of course nowadays it wouldn't make sense for someone to react that way if they are sophisticated enough to know the current rates are some of the lowest in our history and the lowest of any developed country in the world.


A grossly under employed person defaults on loans, doesn't consume goods and services at the rate they would making what they're worth and limits their opportunity to get regain employment commensurate with their earning potential. And other trickle downs of the circumstance..

A person with good earning potential doesn't sit on unemployment. It should be and represents a stop-gap to help among other things stave off burrowing into a lesser job or worse. At least on u/e a person still recycles some dollars back into the economy.

In a normal economy it should be expected that employable people's stay on u/e would be less than if in a worse economy.

The current economic problems are by most accounts the worst since the great depression. It should be something of common what that circumstance begets.

Im not saying that we would have a tax revolt because the taxes are to high or to low. Im saying that if people had to pay a lump sum no matter how low the taxes , they would still dislike the idea of pay that amount. In other words im saying it would be more of a psychological responce. But i dont know i could be wrong, im no psy expert.

Your second explanation didnt make much sense to me to be honest. I mean you said a whole lot, but in my view it was a whole lot of meaningless word play with little foundation in actual economics. My statement still holds an underemployed productive person is still better for the economy than an unemployed unproductive person.

I mean i dont want to be disrespectful. But id like to ask if you have an educational background in economics or not. I ask becuase if you dont have an economics background, id try to explain my points a bit better becuase i dont think your understanding them.

 

[Trident1]

Your second explanation didnt make much sense to me to be honest. I mean you said a whole lot, but in my view it was a whole lot of meaningless word play with little foundation in actual economics.

But id like to ask if you have an educational background in economics or not. I ask becuase if you dont have an economics background, id try to explain my points a bit better becuase i dont think your understanding them.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

 

[meesterperfect]

I do agree that if people actually had to write a check each year to the govt there would be a tax revolt.

But on the issue of welfare. You cant blame welfare recipients for taking advantage of the programs in place. Is it fair to the middle class as we know it to pay for people on welfare? No, its not fair, but the blame in my opinion dosnt sit on the welfare recipients. But rather on the politicians who promise these programs. Welfare recipients are just taking advantage of the policies put in place by the politicians. As someone recently told me, that they get more money in unemployment than they do actually working a min wage job. Now, im all for working hard, but most people would rather get unemployment check for a year instead of working at some crap job and getting payed less. More money is a motivator dont ya think.

everything you said is true.
but I do feel the recipients are also to blame also..
I just wish more people realized how many people are getting entitlements in the usa.......couples dont get married so the mother can collect from every angle she can.
able bodied people on disabilty and social security.
Illegal immigrants on the take also.
and other scammers, human paraquats all over
Its a big portion of society who live in the states today and its surely a big reason that taxes are higher and higher , social security is busted and the economy is bad.
The GOV has gotten too big, too many people have gotten too dependent on it...... it was never meant to be like this.
Thats my only point really,its not to demean anybody.

 

[bostonkid9]

Politics confuses me.

 

[D-rock]

I do agree that if people actually had to write a check each year to the govt there would be a tax revolt.

But on the issue of welfare. You cant blame welfare recipients for taking advantage of the programs in place. Is it fair to the middle class as we know it to pay for people on welfare? No, its not fair, but the blame in my opinion dosnt sit on the welfare recipients. But rather on the politicians who promise these programs. Welfare recipients are just taking advantage of the policies put in place by the politicians. As someone recently told me, that they get more money in unemployment than they do actually working a min wage job. Now, im all for working hard, but most people would rather get unemployment check for a year instead of working at some crap job and getting payed less. More money is a motivator dont ya think.

Why are you comparing unemployment, a system where people pay into it (or really the companies would pay people more if they didn't have to pay into it [or so many companies claim that anyway] so people that benefit from it really have paid into it de facto.) with welfare? I don't totally blame people for not just wanting to work a job that they can't even get by with when they paid into a system so they would have a backup so they could look for a comparable job. In fact that makes perfect, fair, ethical, logical sense to me. Even more so if they did take a job that was far below what they could then sustain themselves with in a job market right now that might very well take a job away from somebody that desperately needed it and could help more.

As far as welfare I don't know what reality your living in, but I have never known anybody on welfare that liked their life or were happy where they were at in it. I'm sure it happens, but in reality it's a rarity. I don't know about you, but if you live any decently adequate lifestyle and have a reasonable middle of the road paying job at all I would bet the overwhelming majority of the people on welfare would trade situations with you in a second, and be willing to do your job and work just as hard as you or at least try at a reasonable level. I don't know if people that think otherwise have any idea what it's like but living on welfare is a very crappy ass life. It's not fun or enjoyable at all.

I'm not saying you think like this but if anybody else out there for some unfathomable reason thinks the people on welfare have it so great I'm sure you would be willing to do that and make that trade since there are so many people that for some silly reason or another think the welfare people have it soooooooo good. What's also ridiculous about a lot of this is that at points in my life I've been a small step away from being homeless, and I don't and didn’t even come close to qualifying for welfare where I'm at then or now, with the sole exception of maybe some food benefits.

If you want to eliminate people on welfare, other than us as a society devolving to the point where we are willing to just leave people out on the street to die, the ONLY way to reliably do it is to eliminate the reason and the need for welfare in the first place. That means insuring that everybody that needs one has a decent and fair paying job where they can earn a living wage (Notice I said living wage, a real living wage, not a barely surviving and hanging on wage that we for some reason call a living wage now.), earn an honest day's pay for an honest days work, and has all the adequate support elements necessary to go along with that like retirement and health benefits. If that means the government has to do that or has to become the employer of last resort, then in my opinion, so be it. Only if after all of that if there is somebody that blatantly doesn't want to be functional part of society and wants to abuse the government and his fellow citizens by not caring and not wanting to work then and only then would some people in this thread have a case about all those lazy people on welfare that they seem to think have it so great.

What some people seem to want is to just make it harder for people to get anything. They want to be selfish and just keep what they have for themselves, even though as a society we benefit and have gained from each other. Despite what some people think nobody has ever did it by themselves. In some way they have always had the benefit for the rest of society backing them up. With what they want there is no actual fixing of the problem. Some things in this thread remind me of the equivalent of some plans I have heard that try to solve the homelessness problem. In one way or another the plan usually ends up by the officials going out and forcing all the homeless to move from an area to someplace else on some other threat or another, and while they are doing that they somehow totally fail (or just don’t give a damn) to grasp they didn't actually reduce the number of people that are homeless, at all, they just forced the problem on other people than themselves and probably people that can't even handle the problem as well, and most sadly, they didn't solve any problem at all with the exception of the short term personal ones for selfish reasons.

I swear the way I hear some people talk out there their next idea for eliminating poverty and things like welfare will be to just say it's illegal for people to be poor. I mean sure it's ridiculous and the logical fallacy of it is so strikingly obvious, but that's pretty much the logical conclusion to the nonsensical thought patterns some people have on the issue. Of course then they will wonder why their plan failed spectacularly and didn't achieve anything at all. After all to them all those poor people should just quit choosing to be poor, especially after the people that don't like that said to quit it and threatened them with retaliation of some sort.

 

[Hot Mega]

Im not saying that we would have a tax revolt because the taxes are to high or to low. Im saying that if people had to pay a lump sum no matter how low the taxes , they would still dislike the idea of pay that amount. In other words im saying it would be more of a psychological responce. But i dont know i could be wrong, im no psy expert.

You don't need to be a psy expert. All you need is everyday experience in real life situations to understand NO ONE likes to pay a lump sum for ANYTHING. That isn't a tax specific circumstance.

In almost any situation the average person is naturally unwilling or simply unable to pay a lump sum bill. Isn't that the whole basis for paying for things over time?

People have their home insurance and taxes impounded because it saves them the trouble, discipline and probably bill shock of paying that in a lump sum too.

If for example, a person never knew what it was like to write a check for their rent but had it automatically deducted from their pay...I'm sure paying rent for the first time in lump sum would be something they'd need to get used to as well.

Point is, people are able to see exactly what they pay per pay period when they get their earnings statement attached to their checks. And exactly what they pay per year when they file their taxes.

I think we're both suggesting people if forced to pay in lump sum once a year would have a problem with it. Where we part ways is, you think they would have a problem paying it because of the amount they now actually see. I think they would have trouble paying it because the average person wouldn't be disciplined enough to have it to pay ultimately costing them more money.

My point here (dovetailing into my next point) is that this theory is just another belief or saying held by tax and econ intellectual types who have apparently never played the practicality of it out in their minds.

Your second explanation didnt make much sense to me to be honest. I mean you said a whole lot, but in my view it was a whole lot of meaningless word play with little foundation in actual economics. My statement still holds an underemployed productive person is still better for the economy than an unemployed unproductive person.

I mean i dont want to be disrespectful. But id like to ask if you have an educational background in economics or not. I ask becuase if you dont have an economics background, id try to explain my points a bit better becuase i dont think your understanding them.

Fair enough..and for the record I don't have a background in Econ. But sometimes that exactly the problem with those who do. Intellectuals get mired in the minutia of theory without ever spending much time examining the reality.

First, a person looking for work in their career field to maximize their earning potential is being productive. That is their new job. Secondly, u/e claims are based on insurance paid for by an employer for the employment of a worker. So in a normal claim circumstance the u/e claim paid to a claimant should have no impact on the g'ment aside from the paper pusher they employ to waste time processing the claims. While the claimant is still consuming, spending and recycling money into the economy.

I tried to articulate my last response in clear, concise paragraphs but if you didn't get it no need in me reiterating it this time.

But suffice it to say in practical terms it would be beyond foolish for a person to forgo a u/e claim to take a job making close to what u/e would be paying them. They would be better off focusing all of their energy on getting a job commensurate with their earning potential. Underemployment is a last resort...not something (if you have any sense) you'd do in lieu of a u/e claim.

It's better for the person and the economy that they get back to earning their potential asap as opposed to languishing in underemployment undermining their career field opportunity. Lastly an underemployed person kills two unfortunate birds with one stone. They're not focusing on earning their potential and therefore consuming accordingly if they did and there's the potential they are keeping some other person with the appropriate talent level for the lesser job from getting it.:2 cents:

There are only 2 ways ever it would make sense to accept underemployed in lieu of u/e IMO; if someone had a high earning potential and the underemployment was still significantly higher than u/e. Or a person accepts some type of internship work where they're effectively being retrained in lieu of being commensurately paid.

Now of course I wouldn't expect you'd find any of this between the pages and theories of some Econ book but these are most certainly the practical realities.

 

[meesterperfect]

you are seriously misguided Mr D.
reality: most of the people, damn near all who live off the system are very content with it.
they choose to live like that.
And ask any of them- whats better, work a job all day 6 days a week or get pretty much the same money free from the government for doing nothing ?
9 out of 10 will give you the same answer.

They want to be selfish and just keep what they have for themselves,
selfish?
Its selfish to want to keep the money you earned for yourself and your family instead of the gov giving it to some stranger who chooses to live that way?

did you ever think it is selfish to have children you can't support and demanding that people you don't know give you a free ride for life from their hard work?
I bet you never have.

yeah, misguided is putting it nicely.
so how much you get each month?

btw if the government really wanted to decrease poverty they would cut people off after 6 months, watch how fast they start looking for a job.
that would reduce poverty, lower taxes and bring the economy up.
I mean if you really care about the poor.