Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 272
Thanks Tree153Thanks

Thread: This is hard to believe: 76% of people live paycheck to paycheck

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,521
    Thanks
    20868

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I have to say that kind of course should be required. Taking my kid to buy her first car, oh my god, the stuff the dealer was pushing. Kids really need to learn how to buy cars, homes, write checks, pay bills etc. Banks, credit cards and scammers and such take them for a ride.
    I taught all that in my Family living / sex ed curriculum..I learned a lot. They were given a certain amount of money and it one month realized how difficult budgeting is.

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,521
    Thanks
    20868

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Ms. Isalexi,

    No, more like an I-phone, a fancy car, and designer clothes.
    Yes we all know how the poor have fancy cars and designer clothes. Saying that just makes it easier for you to have contempt for those who are just trying to eke out a living.phone is no longer a luxury, in today's world it is a necessity. Maybe they should dressed in rags and you would feel better
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and RedCloud

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,521
    Thanks
    20868

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Ms. Isalexi,

    If that is the case, then you know that your situation is a very rare example.
    Yes, like the fancy cars in the projects

  4. #44
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,750
    Thanks
    2570

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    That's exactly the problem. Savings and retirement is not disposable income, but rather, a necessity. If people would treat it like that, like food and shelter, there would not be such a great issue.
    But a rising tide raises all boats. If people making $40,000 or less per year decide to forego cell phones, you and all of your wealthy friends are going to have to take a huge pay cut. If people making $40,000 or less per year decide to descend into a third world bartering economy, you and your wealthy friends are going to go broke.

    The economy is about movement. When money and goods stop moving, that's bad. When money and goods move a lot, that's good.

    So why would we fund wealth concentration, which is anathema to a strong middle class and a vibrant, healthy economy?

    I don't want to fund something that not only I do not need, but that would actually hurt me.

    That would be stupid.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,145
    Thanks
    2646

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    If I fund a tax break for you and other very wealthy people, corporations and bankers, the government will have less money to fund its programs. That will mean fewer services for the population at large, or the costs of those services will rise. So as a class (poor or middle class), we are funding your tax break by paying more.

    You're fucking with me, right? You don't understand how me keeping more of my money helps me?

    I don't believe you.
    Mr. splansing,

    That assumes that government spends their funding well. Raising taxes will first stifle economic growth, but then, go to funding bureaucracy rather than programs to supposedly help who they are supposed to, creating more government which will such up more tax revenues.

    Second, the middle class, and especially the poor who pay no taxes do not fund tax breaks. That's were you have your basic economics wrong. That's like saying that when you go to McDonalds, your fund my cheeseburger purchase because you bought fries.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,195
    Thanks
    3813

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Maybe instead of poor people voting to raise taxes and lower services on themselves so rich people and corporations and bankers can get richer for really no reason at all, poor people should hire people to represent them to well...you know....represent them.
    People hire people to represent them by electing leaders to government positions. So you don't appear to actually be saying anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Another thought would be to support unions,
    That's hilarious. Unions are coming back to the private sector like manufacturing jobs are coming back from Asia.

    establishing a middle class in this country.
    Unions did not "establish the middle class." Why do you unquestioningly accept union talking points? Do you work for one?

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    No doubt. It's not like we haven't seen this before.

    #GildedAge
    Are you clinging to the past? Notice what millennium you're living in. Human labor was required en masse to do goddamn near anything during the Gilded Age.

    The need for human labor has nowhere to go but down, and likely in accelerating fashion, so the place for unions in the future (even if we were to tolerate them, which I don't think we should, but even if we did) would be representing an ever-shrinking number of increasingly skilled and relatively already well-off workers. This flies in the face of the talking points unions trumpet in defense of themselves. There is no "labor movement" looking forward, because there is going to be an ever-decreasing emphasis on labor to keep society stable and operational. The "bring unions back" mantra is delusional and conveys zero grasp on reality in the 21st century.

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    So why would we fund wealth concentration, which is anathema to a strong middle class and a vibrant, healthy economy?
    What are you claiming "funds wealth concentration?"
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 24th August 2017 at 02:42 PM.

  7. #47
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,257
    Thanks
    23758

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    I don't know why there is no Thanks button sometimes. So I'll just do this instead.
    When that happens to me, I just reload the page and it comes back. But thanks for the thanks.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,145
    Thanks
    2646

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    But a rising tide raises all boats. If people making $40,000 or less per year decide to forego cell phones, you and all of your wealthy friends are going to have to take a huge pay cut. If people making $40,000 or less per year decide to descend into a third world bartering economy, you and your wealthy friends are going to go broke.

    The economy is about movement. When money and goods stop moving, that's bad. When money and goods move a lot, that's good.

    So why would we fund wealth concentration, which is anathema to a strong middle class and a vibrant, healthy economy?

    I don't want to fund something that not only I do not need, but that would actually hurt me.

    That would be stupid.
    Mr. splansing,

    You are talking unrelated things. If a person making $40,000 a years decides to make wise financial choices, why would I have to take a huge pay cut? Maybe my Apple stock will take a hit in the short term, but in the long term, not as companies like Apple move to sell products that are needed.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,145
    Thanks
    2646

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    Yes, like the fancy cars in the projects
    Ms. isalexi,

    Sorry to ruin your premise:

    40% of America?s lowest-income families? consumption goes on luxuries - MarketWatch

  10. #50
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,103
    Thanks
    17859

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Maybe if greedy corporations were forced to pay a fair wage to their employees and offer a fair retirement plan people could afford to live.
    Rich/greedy bastards run these corporations and vote for the GOP to guarantee the rest of us will merely be their slaves.

    Unfortunately many of us slaves are easily convinced to vote against their own best interests and vote Republican.
    Thanks from RedCloud and Isalexi

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. People just want to collect a paycheck and do nothing
    By Dr Sampson Simpson in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 28th July 2014, 02:46 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 4th October 2013, 01:56 AM
  3. anyone got a paycheck yet this year?
    By nonsqtr in forum Current Events
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 10th January 2013, 09:58 AM
  4. Half Your Paycheck To The Government In 2013
    By meridian5455 in forum Economics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20th November 2012, 11:52 AM
  5. Senate votes down Paycheck Fairness Act
    By HadEnough2 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11th June 2012, 12:46 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed