So when the payouts change tomorrow or whenever, change the FICA contributions appropriately. If we already know there will be shortfalls, why aren't we increasing the contributions? Politics is the answer! The wealthy already pay 85% of the income taxes and now you want them to pay 85% of the FICA withholding? The wealthy are not the answer! What does it say about our citizenry when they can't, or refuse, to fund the government which they demand, or fund the medical care and retirement they demand? We have a $4 trillion government today and yet we have all these financial issues, plus...we have deficit spending, so in order to balance the books and pay for SS shortfalls and other financial issues, Americans need to cough up another trillion$ or so. If you believe the wealthy are going to pay this trillion$ then I suggest your odds are very long. We have a government with out of control spending and Americans who refuse to fund that government...this is not a path that is going to work...
The wealthy already pay 85% of the income taxes and now you want them to pay 85% of the FICA taxes...don't you see anything wrong with this picture? How is it fair to the USA for 50-100 million Americans to pay nothing towards funding the government which they demand? The demand on government never lowers with annual expenditures constantly increasing, while deficit spending is creating more and more debt, with fewer and fewer Americans paying the bills...
It helps the wealthy when this stuff is funded. They get the largest benefits from government, they should be good with paying for government, especially when they have the means and it won't hurt them.
Please don't assume the so-called 'wealthy' benefit in any way that can be stereotyped. What is wealthy? Anyone earning over how much? Please provide a few examples of the benefits the wealthy get from government that is not available to everyone? Lastly, the wealthy already are paying 85% of the personal income taxes so enough is enough. The wealthy are not the problem or the solution...
The wealthy, if they pay at higher rates, is their part in keeping the US a prosperous place for them to do business in. And, with corporate welfare, they should help to pay for it. They've gotten banksters and corporate bailouts, get the farm subsidies, see their overhead lowered in the example of Walmart paying employees crap wages, then the government picks up the tab for healthcare through Medicaid. The military keep markets open, particularly for oil companies to profit from.
All Americans can prosper from the economy if they choose to be involved...the economy is not solely for the wealthy. You call it corporate welfare but governments are doing their best to keep industry in the US and to create jobs, etc. Walmart and ALL companies pay wages which are indicative of the local wage environment. Why would anyone work at a place if they did not like the wages? Don't tell me...employees have a gun to their heads? The government has always picked up the tab for Medicaid...what's new? The government just created Obamacare which greatly increases Medicaid...had nothing to do with Walmart or the other millions of companies across the USA who pay the same wages and benefits as Walmart. Oil companies will profit no matter the government or military...
Providing they can participate in the prosperity. The problem has been falling wages (in real dollars) and fewer jobs. Not to mention, much of the. US labor law is still barely coming into 20th Century standards, when we're in a 21st Century economy. The loss of labor unions has seen the corporate nanny state come back into power. The use of propaganda by the mainstream media and news, to spew right wing nonsense, and seeing people accepting it as fact, and voting or working against their own prosperity by seeing right wing lunatics elected to office is ridiculous when you see it, provided you understand the economics and civil rights American cede to large companies. Someone needs to tell the majority of the wealthy that. They seem to think other than you do. Not really. Much of the corporate welfare we have becomes profits, with little benefit to American workers. Look at how the GOP fought tooth and nail to keep the tax deductions for off shoring and outsourcing to other nations. What American jobs were saved or created from that? http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...-money-that-he-and-ge-get-from-the-government Look at the numbers. More tax dollars going out than coming in for Immelt's bonuses. I'm sure you're familiar with Riever's comments about monopsony in labor markets for large employers. People take those jobs because they have to, not because they want to. When Walmart opens in a local community, jobs are lost more than are created. Anyway, Walmart is one of the largest welfare recipients we have, directly and indirectly, and a major source of American jobs being outsourced. Walmart offered expensive healthcare options, with low quality coverage, which forced many into Medicaid. They also pay crap wages that the average employee can barely get by one, let alone buy an insurance policy before the ACA. Not to mention the large use of part time employment, when full time employment doing the same amount of work would have seen Walmart picking up more of their own tab for employee healthcare. You should look at some world history from at least post WWII to now, to see that our military and intelligence communities have gotten many American companies into oil producing nations, and able to get revenues from oil production they might never have gotten without the use of, or threat of, force.
Once again, the economy does not discriminate against anyone...it is there for everyone to participate at whatever levels they wish...whether as an employee, business owner, consumer. Each person decides their involvement in the economy. It makes no difference what wages are or how many jobs are available...the only thing that matters is how each individual positions themselves. If a person does not like their current situation, then take personal steps to change it. There is always more workers than jobs so anyone who wishes to earn more than $35K must compete for the better jobs...must obtain more education, more skills, and higher performance. People can whine and blame others but it cannot be disputed...each person 100% controls their future. Your facts on Walmart are incorrect?? For every Walmart which opens there will be more jobs and more economy in those areas...
There's a lot of evidence showing you to be wrong. Just the credit taters see that inequality is harming the nation's economy, since the only democratic seeing income and wealth growth is the top portion of the top 1%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8cdc52-231b-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html No. Of course my facts are not incorrect. Otherwise I wouldn't state them, unless I make an occasional mistake, which I would own up to. But, nothing wrong with my statements here. http://t.washingtonmonthly.com/wash...t-doesnt-create-jobs,5206abaeda27f5d9d008ddc5 Anyone who has been politically aware the last ten years or so should know that Walmart is a drag on employment and reduces it, instead of expanding it.
Able bodied people, who refuse to take personal steps and make better decisions, to obtain more and/or a better life for themselves, yet continue to whine and beg from government, are failures. Each person must put forth whatever efforts required to move them out of their ruts. Not government and not wealthy people and not corporations, etc...each person must take steps to do better. If they refuse, then they have no one to blame but themselves and have no right to expect others to support them. This surely will seem harsh to you and others but no matter these are the facts of life. The difference between the failures and the 1% can be found by looking at the personal efforts which are invested. Regarding Walmart, wherever they open a store, that area becomes a business hub which never would exist without Walmart...prove this wrong...
When there's no jobs to go to? It's probably not quite this bad now, but we're not totally out of the woods. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...are-3-unemployed-people-every-job-opening-ob/ What you're insinuating, doesn't seem to be the case. I don't see you saying the facts of life here. In fact, the facts seem to say you're being quite wrong about a lot of things. Most of the wealthy come from wealthy and upper middle class families. You're more apt to get rich by hitting the semen lottery than through working your way up the ranks of the corporate ladder, or hit it big as an entrepreneur. The best way to wealth for the poor and middle class is often being able be an entertainer or sports star. Let's do a little math and logic practice here... Before Walmart, unemployment is lower in those areas without it. Walmart moves in, and forces other smaller stores to close, and the business hub created sees some hiring, but more people losing jobs. Walmart creates two jobs, three jobs are lost in those communities. The other big box stores come in, and exacerbate the problems. If you have any facts to counter, please show them. You would have to show how Walmart comes in, and adds jobs without forcing other jobs to be lost. You wanting it to be the way you say doesn't cut it. Show me the stats.
What do you mean no jobs?? There are a minimum of 4.5 million open jobs in the USA today plus many more which are not on the radar of government surveys. I'm not insinuating...I stating as a fact; anyone who desires more must take personal steps to achieve more...it is 100% their responsibility. You won't even define 'wealthy' so don't stereotype that 'they' come from wealth. Who cares how people achieve their wealth...are you jealous of them? Whining about people not being able to earn million$ or billion$ is meaningless dialogue. Being jealous of the wealthy is meaningless dialogue. People need to focus on themselves, take steps to achieve more and stop worrying about others. http://unemploymentdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Employment-1939-2014_Jul.jpg Employment continues to rise so it's hard to imagine Walmart is a problem? Where I live, in a rural area there was nothing but fallow fields, and now there is a Walmart. In the SAME parking lot as Walmart, there is a Home Depot, Office Depot, Napa auto parts, independent tire company, cell phone outlet...ALL of which compete directly with Walmart...but there they are only a few feet from the place which you say closes down all these businesses? In that shopping center, there are another 20 stores from medical care to restaurants, etc. all enjoying the economy in the business hub which was created by Walmart. Another Walmart location in the SAME parking lot area is a competing grocery store. Both of these examples have been in business for at least 10 years now and none of them are complaining! You whine about Walmart as it they are evil yet over 100 million Americans shop there every week...and Walmart employs 2 million workers...and millions more employees exist in companies which service Walmart. Within 10 miles of any Walmart are hundreds of so-called mom-pop stores doing just fine. Meanwhile, which you ignore, hundreds of thousands of convenience stores paired with gas stations did what to the old local corner stores? What did the thousands of corporate drug stores do to your local one-man pharmacies? What did thousands of Discount Tire and BigO tire stores do to gas stations? What did thousands of Jiffy-Lube places do to your old gas stations? Lastly, you talk about Walmart as if they are unique in their business models, wages and benefits, and foreign content, yet Target, Sears, Macy's, K-Mart, Dollar stores, Ace Hardware, Sports Authority, and basically every retail store in every mall across the USA, are the same as Walmart...
Most of them requiring experience in the fields, or paying far lower than the going rate for the jobs offered. And a job opening in Philadelphia doesn't mean squat to an unemployed person in Atlanta, and vice versa. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/unemployed-and-job-openings-by-industry/ up to the point where opportunities can take them. What has happened in the economy is that Americans as a whole, including people in your own demographic, are hitting ceilings placed there by the collusion of large businesses and government. Why would I be jealous? I was on a path to moderate wealth, and walked away from it. I don't know who was whining. I'm not a right wing nut, and so I'm not prone to whining. I am stating facts about trends and economic data. And the fact is that as there is less investment in education, infrastructure and more of the tax burden of the nation placed on the middle class, and opportunities being lessened because big nanny state corporatism is taking the rights of people away to bargain for their wages and benefits, it's having an adverse effect on the economy. I get the feeling you don't understand the chart. I'll give a hint to you: what was the population growth during those times, and how much higher would employment growth and wages have to rise to keep pace? I guess you're in the one place where Walmart hasn't hurt the economy because there wasn't much of one to begin with. Of course, your anecdotal evidence isn't going to trump empirical evidence. That said, Walmart, and other big box stores have not been able to be a positive influence on US jobs or employment, generally. Plus, they are taking money out of the economy by paying (*)(*)(*)(*) wages.
If people cannot obtain employment because they lack experience...then they must obtain more education/skills to qualify for appropriate jobs. Wages are wages and are determined by the local supply and demand of labor...there's no conspiracy. If people are unwilling to relocate permanently or temporarily to obtain appropriate jobs, this is fine but don't expect government support and the can stop whining. There is no "collusion of large businesses and government" and if you believe this then you need to spend more time in the conspiracy section of PF. There is no such thing as "big nanny state corporatism is taking the rights of people away to bargain for their wages and benefits". More conspiracy! Makes no difference the population because according to you Walmart (and a thousand other businesses just like them) create negative job numbers therefore the charts should show either no or negative job growth. IMO Walmart is one of the greatest economic success stories of the past century. Wouldn't it be great if Walmart decided to increase all their wages to an average of $20/hour to make you happy. Too bad you can't fathom what will happen shortly after this is implemented...
Education opportunities have to be available. They aren't always, and often the wages offered aren't commensurate with the education or experience levels. Not really. Labor market monopsony is highly distorted by employers. The problem with this approach is two-fold. One is, it leaves behind communities that fall apart from large migrations. Look at how conservative policies created today's Detroit. The city is emptying itself because Neo-Classical economics tells conservatives in both parties that we should have free and open trade with trading partners who are not trading in free and open ways with the US. In the meantime, communities are seeing the destruction of those policies. And, let's face it... Almost no one in Atlanta will know of a position opening in Philadelphia, be able to just fly or drive around the country to interview, then get the job, when your home is 750 miles away. It's just not realistic. What conspiracy? It's not even a secret that the Koch, Walton and Adelson's of the world are buying the government. Citizens United isn't a secret. Neither is ALEC, CrossroadsGPS, Mercatus, Cato, Heritage, Right To Starve, or the other groups and foundations put together to limit the freedom of workers to bargain for wages. They're open about it. You're changing my words. I pointed to the facts that Walmart is a drag on job creation, nationally, by showing studies that show the median region that experiences job losses when Walmart shows up. That said, other companies might have enough growth not effected by Walmart to steer the country into positive growth. It's not like you posted any facts to counter my assertions that are backed by facts. If lowering overall economic growth, lowering job growth and lowering wages, while promoting poverty is your idea of success, then your opinion won't have much weight with most people's ideas of success. Economic growth would happen, overall. I'm not proposing Walmart jump to $20/hour all at once, but the results would be to reverse many of their negative externalities, and turn them positive. And frankly, I wouldn't want them to lose profitability. But, there's a huge chance they could be more profitable, from having less turnover, and saving on training new people all the time, and making their customers happier with a workforce that isn't just punching a clock until they can get a new job.
All people have opportunities...they just need to get off their Barcalounger and pursue them. Either people wish to work or not? If they want to work then get a job...if they don't like the wages then get promoted or find another job. Apparently you have never been involved in hiring employees? As an employer you can seek to set the wages for each job description, but this only works as long as the employer can hire and maintain appropriate employees. There is no wage conspiracy by employers! Regarding Detroit, and all other US companies who outsource, this has been going on for decades. Detroit did not turn to (*)(*)(*)(*) overnight! The people who live in that area saw the writing on the wall but ignored these ominous signs. Once again, it is 100% the responsibility of every individual to take steps to move forward, and this does not include blaming others. Again, every person must place themselves where the jobs are located or stop whining! Do you expect the jobs to relocate to all the people who are unemployed? No one is buying the government? Which do you believe has more votes; a lobbyist or corporation...or voters? Obviously the answer is the 'voters'. The ONLY possible way the voters cannot be in control is if voters are too lame to take control. In this case they should stop blaming others for their lack of forcing productive change. I guess you don't understand what an 'economic success story' might be? Walmart is one answer. Walmart paying $20/hour for unskilled labor would do what to the hundreds of thousands of mom-pop businesses? Do you think this would cause inflation? Do you think raising the entire US wage scales by 100% will help the US compete in the global marketplace?
Not everyone has hit the uterus lottery, and had a rich daddy have sex with a rich mommy. Some of the problem is a lack of educational opportunities for people to take advantage of. The deemphasized approach to education in recent years, by attacking teachers and programs in many states keeps rich kids from having to compete against kids who don't have trust funds. If jobs are available. As pointed out, there are more unemployed than there are job openings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...are-3-unemployed-people-every-job-opening-ob/ Yes, I have hired employees, in two different businesses (one I was a partner, the other as a sole proprietor), in two different sectors of the economy. What you just described was the labor market monopsony. Employers set the wages, and in too many cases keep the wages too low. And the result has been large scale failure of conservative economic policies. And people are leaving, slowly. And left behind is a devastated city that has people left behind who may not be able to move. Another failure has been the way the US takes no interest in land-use. One tax incentive should be to draw manufacturing back into inner-cities, and dissuade urban sprawl. Voters are marketed to by the media, pushing right wing economics on every single major news outlet. And too often Americans don't understand the economics the right is pushing, even though it produces failure. The right has convinced people to vote against their own interests, and against the interests of the nation, overall. Look at your own words in opposition to your own interests (assuming you're just a regular guy, and not one of the wealthiest 1%). I understand that Walmart has been a success in corporate welfare, and a success for the Walton family in getting that welfare, and harming the economy in many aspects. for many Mom & Pop businesses, it would see more business for them from the additional consumer dollars that would be in the economy. It would also see those smaller businesses made to raise their wages to compete for good employees. For Walmart, it would mean far less turnover, lower costs on training new employees constantly, and likely far better productivity showing in better customer relations, as there would be continuity in Walmart's employees.
If the USA is such a horrible place as you subscribe, then the only answer is to relocate to some other nation which provides the political panacea you and others desire. Your position is to blame others, make excuses for able bodied people, and demand the wealthy pay even more taxes and charitable giving than they currently do, while 100 million Americans do nothing...no taxation...no productivity...just take...
Where did I say the USA was horrible? And let's get this straight... This is my country. I'll work to improve it, and bring back American ideals, God willing. If you want to work against that, be my guest. Liberals gave you a right to dissent against America. My position is to assign blame where it lies. There may be some few people who are too lazy to get a job. But instead of you blaming others for reality being out of the control of those without jobs, why not work to improve the US and bring back the American dream? I don't see why anyone would work against it. Maybe it's something you disagree with on some ideological premise.
You make it sound like people are completely helpless when in fact they are not and every person 100% owns the decisions they make in life...no one at any time is holding a gun to people's head making them do things they don't wish to do. The American Dream has no meaning today because kids today have different priorities than people in the 50's and 60's...smart kids remain mobile, are not having kids at young ages, are not getting married early, are living more frugal lives, etc. Today there is no such thing as working for the same employer until retirement. People not voting, people not paying taxes, people being unnecessary burdens on society, people involved in crimes, etc. are the ones who are working against the system you desire. You cannot 'fix' the USA until you see a cultural change in those who choose to be uneducated and unskilled. Good luck!
... to abandon morality, ethics, compassion and the sense that they have any obligations at all to anyone or anything in their single minded psychopathic pursuit of wealth, especially to the nation and its people that allowed them the opportunity to do so. Those are the people in need of a cultural change. If not then the people may change their attitudes about wealth and the wealthy and direct the government to do something about it. After all, the US is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. If you would like a nation that is about something else, like perhaps being all about the wealthy instead of all the people you are welcome to leave, and take your money with you.
What's so silly about your comments is that millions of Americans demand that others (the wealthy) pay for the government which they themselves demand. If you are going to demand the wealthy pay the lion's share of the taxes which support this nation, then the wealthy become the focus of the nation. You can't ask for more and more from the wealthy without yielding more to the wealthy...this is logic. If you want the USA to be a 'nation of the people, by the people and for the people', then you need to get tens of millions of Americans paying their fair share and voting...this is how your 'people' find more priority...
If the government needs money it has to get it from people who can afford to pay taxes, not from people who cannot. It seems that this simple logic is beyond the ability of many people to understand. If the wealthy do not want to pay the burden of government all by themselves they should consider investing their wealth so that the benefits of investment are more widely shared. That way more people will be able to afford to pay taxes and the undue burden of taxation on the wealthy will be relieved. This is entirely up to the wealthy, their free choice. If they wish to continue to receive all of the income gains from economic growth and increase their share of the nations wealth then they can expect to pay more taxes because it is their decisions that are creating fewer and fewer people able to pay a share of the tax burden every year. Nevertheless the wealthy make huge demands on the government, to subsidize their underpaid workers and operate a pension and disability and survivor scheme because they are unwilling to pay their workers a decent wage or provide them with a pension or disability or survivor benefits. They demand a robust military and government engagement all over the planet to protect their overseas ventures. They demand local police and fire services and a national highway system to move their goods about and a first class air transportation system to move their people. They demand massive tax breaks, government investments in infrastructure and subsidies on the promise of long term investment and job creation and then walk away from them just a few years later. They think that other people should pay for it. They think that they are not the ones who should pay for it all even though they have all the money and gain all the benefit. They take all the income and gain all the wealth and believe that they owe nothing. They talk about the takers and the makers, wealthy people gambling their fortunes in the markets makes not one single useful thing but when the markets crash they take from everyone.
If you try to take a majority of the tax revenues from only 15% of Americans, eventually they will rebel and seek other options...this is called diminishing returns. Please explain why the 50-100 million Americans who today pay $0 income taxes...why they can't pay $100 each per year? BTW...approximately 145 million Americans who are not considered wealthy hold jobs and are benefiting from the economy. I'm thinking 100% of your diatribe above is politically motivated which means we cannot discuss reality...
Why should they pay income tax when they are already spending a higher percentage of their income on all the other taxes than people who pay income tax? Besides, it makes no sense to tax poor people's incomes just to make a political point and then give it back to them via less efficient social services. It is far better to just let them keep their money to spend as they see fit. My so called diatribe is absolutely political, we are having this discussion in politicalforum.com after all. Your remark seems to come with the implication that your position is somehow non-political, which is completely ridiculous. But anyway, my position is that taxes should come from those who can afford to pay them. Your position seems to be that everyone should pay an income tax regardless of their ability to afford it while hinting that people who cannot afford to pay income tax should be disenfranchised. If I am somehow mistaken about your position perhaps you could supply some clarification.
