2011 Jobs Bill

[AshburnerX]

Both approaches have their merits and work in different ways, but ultimately the Democrat plan improves the lives of workers more quickly, which is more attractive for the voting public.

People spend what they have... if they don't have it (or can't get more of it via loans/credit), they can't spend it. This is actually pretty simple. It only becomes complicated when you look at the business side of it, which is mainly complicated because of various boneheaded legal rulings we've had over the last hundred years.

 

[Mathias]

If a person making 34k a year pays 11% in taxes (about 4k) that money has more impact to that person's budget than 110k expected to pay at 11% from a person making a million a year. I'm pretty sure the super rich can get by without having to buy a new Mercedes. I love the cock and bull house republicans are spouting about "job makers" being under pressure if they're taxed. Folks, they've had the lowest tax rates since the 50's, and we're in an economic slump with no jobs being created. The money doesn't trickle down.

 

[GasBandit]

I object to the whole "pay their fair share" rhetoric being tossed around. When the top 5% of earners are paying more than 50% of the tax revenue, how are they not paying "their fair share?"

As for jobs going overseas, you don't think that might have something to do with the reign of an administration extremely hostile to business causing gobs and gobs of that which wall street hates most: uncertainty? Much as I hate to say it, even straight tax breaks aren't going to be enough on their own to reinvigorate the job market, and government spending another lump of "more-of-the-same" stimulus money isn't going to do it unless we're going to have new stimulus into perpetuity, otherwise the jobs are only short term. What's needed is a complete rethinking of how we do things, and a drastic reduction of the intrusiveness of government. If it didn't occur to you that maybe things have gone too far when even a little girl can't run a lemonade stand without the proper permits and kickbacks, then I think we need to check Lenin's tomb to see if the body is still there.

The whole Buffett thing is complete bullshit as well. Mr "Raise my taxes" is trying to dodge a billion dollar tax bill. And comparing capital gains tax to income tax isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. The fact of the matter is, if somebody thinks the government should be taxing them more, nothing's stopping them from writing a bigger check. But so far they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

 

[strawman]

There are no jobs in the US for $2/hour programmers. If we choose to force companies to pay $25/hour for their programmers, then we'd have less innovation - not hire more unemployed programmers. It wouldn't be cost effective to start some businesses.

Globalization is a reality. Blaming the economy on the companies outsourcing jobs, rather than understanding the issue and changing our economy to account for it is a fool's errand.

The huge taxes and import fees we placed on foreign automakers to try to prevent cars from being imported only made cars more expensive. Now all the foreign car makers are making their cars in the US. So forcing "fairness" on the autoindustry didn't make US cars cheaper, it made foreign cars more expensive, and now we all bear that burden. Further it didn't save the auto industry - it still collapsed and reformed itself, then collapsed again recently and reformed itself. The fun thing is that if we had merely let the situation be, we'd have cheaper cars now, and people would have chosen professions that didn't involve standing on an anti-fatigue mat screwing screws into sheet metal for $50/hour (including benefits). But that's what they know, and do, and we're paying through the nose so we can feel all warm and fuzzy about keeping these jobs on our soil.

Jobs we shouldn't need or want.

 

[GasBandit]

Do the rich avoid taxes?

 

[Necronic]

At least this sets the stage for the next Call of Duty

 

[PatrThom]

Do the rich avoid taxes?

I would like to see an additional graph illustrating disposable income as a percentage of pretax income. The poorer you are, the the larger the percentage of your income which must go towards essentials.

And before anyone dismisses this as totally unfair, remember that the richer folks are probably going to have higher mortgage payments, higher car payments, and even higher medical bills. After all this, I would still be willing to bet that their percentage of disposable income will be noticeably higher.

--Patrick

 

[Adam]

The economic argument made against taxing the rich at higher rates is it impedes them from hiring people. So my Jobs Bill includes tax breaks for the rich who hire Americans - a graduated scale starting at a relatively high rate, and decreasing as the number of employees gets higher.

"Wouldn't that just create a lot of minimum wage jobs per rich person?" you ask.

Not necessarily. Because the tax rate is tied to your employed numbers, you have to find a way to maintain your workforce and that means better salaries and better benefits in order to hang on to your employees. Jobs are created, taxes are siphoned, rich people get tax breaks.

 

[Mathias]

I would like to see an additional graph illustrating disposable income as a percentage of pretax income. The poorer you are, the the larger the percentage of your income which must go towards essentials.

And before anyone dismisses this as totally unfair, remember that the richer folks are probably going to have higher mortgage payments, higher car payments, and even higher medical bills. After all this, I would still be willing to bet that their percentage of disposable income will be noticeably higher.

--Patrick

Yes.

 

[Chibibar]

I wonder tho. What would happen if the economy is truly capitalism. The government only intervene on monopoly. Is it even possible?

 

[Mathias]

The economic argument made against taxing the rich at higher rates is it impedes them from hiring people. So my Jobs Bill includes tax breaks for the rich who hire Americans - a graduated scale starting at a relatively high rate, and decreasing as the number of employees gets higher.

"Wouldn't that just create a lot of minimum wage jobs per rich person?" you ask.

Not necessarily. Because the tax rate is tied to your employed numbers, you have to find a way to maintain your workforce and that means better salaries and better benefits in order to hang on to your employees. Jobs are created, taxes are siphoned, rich people get tax breaks.

Ha! You mean actually monitor that the "wealth trickles down" like it's supposed to? The far right would have a field day with all that crazy government regulation of the precious and supposed free market.

But yeah, anyone making the "rich people make jobs" ideal can blow it out their ass. We had a solid 8 years of Bush'o'nomics doing that. I don't see no stinkin' jobs.

 

[GasBandit]

Please to note: The Bush administration bloated the size of the government to proportions previously unseen and unimagined... until the Obama administration. You can freely and accurately criticize a great deal of the Bush era's policies, but to hold it up as an example of what happens under a conservative fiscal policy is intellectually dishonest.

In other words, Obama's even more Bush than Bush was, just with a tasty Marxist candy coating to disguise what's underneath.
Added at: 17:19
Furthermore, there will always be rich people, there will always be poor people, there will always be people who die needlessly in the gutter, no matter what kind of policy is enacted. This has always been true for every form of government and every form of economy from mercantilism to socialism to communism to capitalism. Until someone figures out cold fusion and energy-to-matter transfer, there will always be more people than resources. The easiest way for us to bankrupt ourselves into perpetuity is to try to make sure nothing bad ever happens to anyone for any reason.

 

[Mathias]

The only thing that really ever pisses me off about all this is the assumption that poor people are poor because they're lazy, and the super rich work super hard for their money, so they deserve tax breaks.

 

[GasBandit]

The only thing that really ever pisses me off about all this is the assumption that poor people are poor because they're lazy, and the super rich work super hard for their money, so they deserve tax breaks.

Not all rich people are hardworking, and not all poor people are lazy. But no matter what you do, you cannot legislate an equal outcome. I think the phrase is, some get rich in capitalism, but everybody gets poor under socialism.

People forget that the american dream isn't about the assumption that normalcy is having a house and a car and a dog - it was that it was the first country where you even had the opportunity to earn those things for yourself. Where you weren't in a caste, a peasant born to peasants who would give birth to peasants and die a peasant. We've gotten away from that, gotten a sense of entitlement and victimhood out of nowhere, believing that it doesn't matter what you earn, it matters what you "deserve."

But even under all that, even for all our flaws and shortcomings and alleged callous disregard for the poor and downtrodden... our definition of poverty still exceeds the definition of "average" in europe.

 

[Necronic]

The only thing that really ever pisses me off about all this is the assumption that poor people are poor because they're lazy, and the super rich work super hard for their money, so they deserve tax breaks.

It's not true for everyone, but.....yeah I will totally say that wealthy people are in general smarter and/or harder working than poor people.

Most of the rich people I know work their asses off. Actually they work hard enough that I decided I was totally ok with being middle class.

 

[AshburnerX]

It's not true for everyone, but.....yeah I will totally say that wealthy people are in general smarter and/or harder working than poor people.

Most of the rich people I know work their asses off. Actually they work hard enough that I decided I was totally ok with being middle class.

See, I've had the opposite experience. Pretty much all the rich people I've met are coasting along in life thanks to their family, put absolutely no effort into anything they do, and are completely unable to do anything on their own. They squander the gifts they have received through the efforts of others and are rewarded for doing so by society. Is it any surprise I'm a lefty?

 

[Mathias]

Not all rich people are hardworking, and not all poor people are lazy. But no matter what you do, you cannot legislate an equal outcome. I think the phrase is, some get rich in capitalism, but everybody gets poor under socialism.

People forget that the american dream isn't about the assumption that normalcy is having a house and a car and a dog - it was that it was the first country where you even had the opportunity to earn those things for yourself. Where you weren't in a caste, a peasant born to peasants who would give birth to peasants and die a peasant. We've gotten away from that, gotten a sense of entitlement and victimhood out of nowhere, believing that it doesn't matter what you earn, it matters what you "deserve."

But even under all that, even for all our flaws and shortcomings and alleged callous disregard for the poor and downtrodden... our definition of poverty still exceeds the definition of "average" in europe.

Buddy, if you're born to a poor urban family in America, you're pretty much certain to die in that social class even if you do bust your ass. You really buy that pull yourself by the bootstraps bullcrap? Working hard in America doesn't guarantee you shit, nor is there much opportunity to advance. It's all about luck here. Just like every other system out there.

As for the sense of entitlement and victimhood, you can blame that all on Capitalism and advertising. That's like the crux behind the driving force of how Capitalism works - the artificially placed desire for material wealth. That's how our society rates success.

Do you know anyone in Europe? Ever been there? Average in Europe (France, England, Germany, Finland, Denmark, etc...) far exceeds average in America, in terms of quality of life.

 

[strawman]

It's all about luck here.

You are a smart person, do I really need to go through the whole, "Do you really believe that effort makes no difference?" argument?

I'd agree that "luck" does play a part, especially in terms of into what situation a given person is born.

I disagree that it's even mostly about luck, nevermind "all".

Unfortunately many people believe exactly that, and expend no effort, fully believing that they will get whatever they're going to get regardless of the effort they put forth - I'd hate to find that this is your belief as well.

In fact, there's a recent baww thread wherein the op holds something akin to this viewpoint.

 

[Mathias]

You are a smart person, do I really need to go through the whole, "Do you really believe that effort makes no difference?" argument?

I'd agree that "luck" does play a part, especially in terms of into what situation a given person is born.

I disagree that it's even mostly about luck, nevermind "all".

Unfortunately many people believe exactly that, and expend no effort, fully believing that they will get whatever they're going to get regardless of the effort they put forth - I'd hate to find that this is your belief as well.

In fact, there's a recent baww thread wherein the op holds something akin to this viewpoint.

You're right, it's not all about luck. I retract that statement. It's about having the money and legacy to get accepted to an Ivy. Have the parents with the money and clout for paying tuition, meeting other folks in your same social caste, and graduating from Harvard. It's then about networking with those peers and their high powered positioned parents to give you an edge at getting a top tier business associate, or law position by getting direct emails from the CEO of the company to set up and interview where you can name drop and basically get the job. It's then all about making the million dollar salary to get your kids into Harvard and start the cycle over again.

You might have to work hard to keep your high end job, but don't tell me that's not the cycle most of the power-house business management people follow to get to where they are. A person coming from a low income family faces almost insurmountable odds to achieve that sort of status. It's doable, and they have to work hard, but the truth is that it's a rarity.

My point is that the American dream perpetuates that with a lot of hard work you can do anything and be anyone (and if you can't then you're not working hard enough); I'm saying that's bullshit. There is a reality to face that sometimes no matter how hard you work at something, you will fail at attaining that goal. Luck is the factor that separates those that have succeeded where others have failed. The success stories are the ones you hear about; not the failures. Unfortunately, the success stories are like lottery success stories.

 

[strawman]

You're right, it's not all about luck. I retract that statement. It's about having the money and legacy to get accepted to an Ivy.

Hrm. My best guess is that what you're essentially saying is, "You can't get into the upperclass with just effort." There are countless examples otherwise, but perhaps most of them can be chalked up to luck rather than perserverence and effort.

I'm talking about middle class - and middle class americans are very wealthy by global standards. It's not hard to become middle class through effort and perserverence, and even if you don't quite make it you can ensure that your children do if you provide them with the desire for continual self-improvement.

But I haven't looked at the upperclass much - is it really the case that 99% of the ivy league school students come from well-placed, wealthy families? Are all of the current millionaires second generation upper-class, or had an unusual amount of luck?

Meanwhile, even if I'm wrong, I'm still going to teach my kids that if that's the life they want, they can get it through hard work, and that while they should take advantage of spurious opportunities, they should not depend on, or wait for, luck.

A man's reach should exceed his grasp... (Robert Browning)

Also, a poem my parents made me memorize:

The heights by great men reached and kept
were not attained by sudden flight
but they, while their companions slept,
were toiling upward through the night.
(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Maybe I'm just a pollyanna personality, but this perspective has served me well.

 

[Mathias]

Hrm. My best guess is that what you're essentially saying is, "You can't get into the upperclass with just effort." There are countless examples otherwise, but perhaps most of them can be chalked up to luck rather than perserverence and effort.

I'm talking about middle class - and middle class americans are very wealthy by global standards. It's not hard to become middle class through effort and perserverence, and even if you don't quite make it you can ensure that your children do if you provide them with the desire for continual self-improvement.

But I haven't looked at the upperclass much - is it really the case that 99% of the ivy league school students come from well-placed, wealthy families? Are all of the current millionaires second generation upper-class, or had an unusual amount of luck?

Meanwhile, even if I'm wrong, I'm still going to teach my kids that if that's the life they want, they can get it through hard work, and that while they should take advantage of spurious opportunities, they should not depend on, or wait for, luck.

A man's reach should exceed his grasp... (Robert Browning)

Also, a poem my parents made me memorize:

The heights by great men reached and kept
were not attained by sudden flight
but they, while their companions slept,
were toiling upward through the night.
(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Maybe I'm just a pollyanna personality, but this perspective has served me well.

I'm talking about rich, not upper middle class.

 

[Necronic]

Going to Harvard for an undergrad simply identifies you as an idiot.

My point is that the American dream perpetuates that with a lot of hard work you can do anything and be anyone (and if you can't then you're not working hard enough); I'm saying that's bullshit

----------

Look. My girlfriend came from a lower middle class broken home where both parents had no college education. She graduated highschool from one of those "troubled girls" high schools. She then went on to her local community college. 2 years in she moved up to the local university. She is now in the first year of her PhD and is already published in one of the most prestigious Autism journals in the country.

Now, this doesn't mean she is rich (actually since she's a PhD student she is crazy assed poor). But it does mean she completely changed her class. And she did it by busting her ass.

----

Then there's my father. He loved planes since he was a kid, he always knew that was what he wanted. He got his degree in engineering and started working for McD or Bell (can't remember). Over the years he managed to get his masters and then his PhD while working with 3 kids and (in the case of the PhD) in a foreign country. Oh yeah and he has a learning disability.

But he was able to overcome that through VERY hard work.

-------

That's one thing I talked about with my dad recently. It's that intelligence helps success, but isn't a necessity and doesn't guarantee it. The only thing that is a complete necessity for success in life is a work ethic.

 

[Chibibar]

I am going by what my parents told me. Work smarter not harder.

Now in terms of effort it could mean physically or intellectually. Either way, a person could rise "above their station" when they see an opportunity and run with it (legally robbing banks is not an example)

 

[GasBandit]

Living in PA all this time, I can see why Matthias might think it's all futile and the american dream is dead/bs, but the truth is opportunity is out there, even during the current recession (it's just a great deal harder to come by, especially since we've apparently collectively decided none of us is allowed to own stuff that someone else doesn't anymore).

We all have personal stories and anecdotal evidence that speaks to the upward income mobility of americans. It's also easy to google up studies that show the evidence of income mobility. But I don't think we'll change his mind because this smacks of something deeply ingrained, possibly personal.

 

[Chibibar]

Living in PA all this time, I can see why Matthias might think it's all futile and the american dream is dead/bs, but the truth is opportunity is out there, even during the current recession (it's just a great deal harder to come by, especially since we've apparently collectively decided none of us is allowed to own stuff that someone else doesn't anymore).

We all have personal stories and anecdotal evidence that speaks to the upward income mobility of americans. It's also easy to google up studies that show the evidence of income mobility. But I don't think we'll change his mind because this smacks of something deeply ingrained, possibly personal.

Heh. Matthias does have some point in terms of
what if I can't move away from where I am now? This does limit your choice of income mobility (I like that phrase) Depending where you are, some jobs/opportunities is just no available. the question becomes why can't you move out of there?
Family? girlfriend/boyfriend? spouse? house? afraid? - some of the factor could hinder you in your chances in advancement Most humans are creature of comfort and patterns. People hate changes (generally) so doing something different or out of the pattern would be "bad" to that person (mentally)

You don't have to have IVY league college degree. You can get a degree anywhere, but what is important is networking. 20 years ago, I can see this to be VERY difficult. today? not so much.
The age of internet break down any distant barriers.

there are some success stories with ebay stores. A guy open a store with a credit card and selling stuff. He network and now making tons of money via his online store. There was another person made a lot of money via selling 99cent novels on kinda via ebook.

There are TONS of resources out there, but the trick is up to YOU to find it (or with luck find someone who can help you find it)

 

[Chad Sexington]

Chibi, I would like to ban you from using the smiley.

You use it too often and at inopportune places.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Chibibar]

Chibi, I would like to ban you from using the smiley.

You use it too often and at inopportune places.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

LOL. that smiley location on my last thread was intentional. It is my way of saying that some relationship may hinder your personal advancement. I know some "friends" who rarely let their spouse do anything out of the ordinary or risky and yet complain of being "poor" all the time.

Another example would be generation business. My great grandfather did it, my grandfather did it, my father did it, now I have to do it. Some people are so use to being in a certain form, that it is hard for them to break out and do something different.

 

[GasBandit]

My grandfather put 5 kids through college on an air force salary, grandma didn't work. They owned the biggest house I've ever been in that wasn't a historical monument... and my grandpa built it. Maybe you can argue that it's a different world today than it was 50 years ago, but it shows that if it's impossible now, it's only because we've chosen policies that make it so.

 

[MindDetective]

Actually, I might argue that as the world becomes more interconnected, social networks play a more important role than they used to. In the wild west days, for example, you had to rely on yourself more for surviving, succeeding in business, and prospering. But knowing people is very important in today's society. I'm not saying that people can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps but that it really is qualitatively different than it used to be.

 

[Chibibar]

My grandfather put 5 kids through college on an air force salary, grandma didn't work. They owned the biggest house I've ever been in that wasn't a historical monument... and my grandpa built it. Maybe you can argue that it's a different world today than it was 50 years ago, but it shows that if it's impossible now, it's only because we've chosen policies that make it so.

I have to agree. Today it is much harder to build a house on your own. (too many rules and policies and requirement) While some of the policies/laws are good cause they (the government) want people to built a safe home (I am in NO WAY saying your grandfather's house is not safe, it is probably more sturdy than modern home due to materials and such). Companies tend to go with "cookie cutters" and try to cut cost in home building to save money and thus laws are put into place to prevent "shoddy homes" (like the whole Chinese Sheetrock fiasco).

Same thing with business, so many laws are in place for the "greater good" cause many good to be just expensive. The cost has to be covered by someone right? usually the consumer. when a business expand and hire more people, all that cost trickle down to the final price of the product.

 

[GasBandit]

You want to know the punch line, too? That house he built? Is in Los Alamos, New Mexico - birthplace of the atomic bomb.

 

[PatrThom]

The only thing that really ever pisses me off about all this is the assumption that poor people are poor because they're lazy, and the super rich work super hard for their money, so they deserve tax breaks.

I think what I see is the general perception that rich people are deliberately holding onto their wealth and only sharing it amongst themselves, and spending time (and money) exerting influence on legislation/regulation so as to ensure the continuance of same ("keeping it all in the family," so to speak). The trouble there is that, unless the rich people population is contracting, they will need to accumulate more and more wealth to make sure the per capita wealth stays the same/increases.

Situations such as the home mortgage crisis stand out as a good example of people with money convincing other people with money to give up that money. The end result is that one group now has more money, and the other has less. That whole "too big to fail" thing really pissed a bunch of people off, one thing is leading to another, and the ones who are failing started to view the successful ones as having set them up (true or otherwise). Necessary or not, they just see that some people got handouts while they were forced to go bankrupt.

What most people are complaining about is the perception of an attitude of "What's mine is mine, and what's yours will be mine once I figure a way to take it from you/convince you to give it to me."

--Patrick

 

[Hailey Knight]

Am I the only one who wouldn't want a giant house? You gotta clean the damn thing, you know.

 

[Terrik]

Am I the only one who wouldn't want a giant house? You gotta clean the damn thing, you know.

Hired help!

 

[strawman]

Am I the only one who wouldn't want a giant house?

No, I also think, like you, that one should have several giant houses - a single giant house wouldn't nearly be enough.