Page 6 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 272
Thanks Tree153Thanks

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

  1. #51
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7,273
    Thanks
    4416

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There are a number of unjustified assumptions being made here.

    1. That people are buying expensive things they do not need - and that they have enough money or credit to buy expensive things they do not need.
    2. That people are building large amounts of debt by buying things they do not need.
    3. That people have enough money or credit to move at all, much less to move to where there are more jobs they qualify for.
    4. That people have any disposable income to begin with, such that they can save for retirement.

    Those are just the basic ones off the top of my head. In any case, when 3/4 of the population is stuck living paycheck to paycheck, it is not unreasonable to posit that the problem is socio-political, rather than that people are getting dumber.
    Since I got my first job out of the university environment I have lived in what would be classed as middle class areas. Surrounded by people moaning about their debt loads while both he and she had Beemers, plus the Urban Cowboy truck and big RV, the cabin at the lake and Hawaii or Eurpean vacations each year.

    That's anecdotal I'll admit, but the Canadian government regularly reports average debt load, excluding mortgages of the Canadian population. In Dec, 2016 it was $23k+. And given our banking regs, people on minimum wage have low limits on both bank loans and credit card limits.

    Yes, there are poor that probably spend their whole paycheck on essentials, but that is not the whole story either.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and boontito

  2. #52
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    47,953
    Thanks
    22510

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    All those are not assumptions, but rather, truisms.
    Which is to say they are cliches, platitudes, and therefore ideological statements that have no basis in fact.

    Uh huh. Read the article. It does not bear out your claim (or even its headline, really).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Boo hoo, verses living in squalor and staying put because you don't have the motivation to move?
    Motivation is irrelevant. If they can only afford to live in squalor, then they do not have the money to pick up and move even if they want to.

    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.
    If you do not have enough money for your necessities to begin with, then something has to go. Food and shelter come first. If you have nothing left over than the bare necessities of survival, there is nothing left for retirement. You cannot put away for retirement if you cannot pay for food, shelter, clothing, and the like.

    In other words, your entire position is bullshit ideology that has no basis in the real world.

  3. #53
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,838
    Thanks
    2126

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    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.
    High progressive tax rates didn't stifle anything the last time we had them, pre-1980. So that's obviously not true.

    We were better off when Wall Street and banks were regulated, bureaucratic waste included. So that's obviously not true, either.

    Last time I checked I paid quite a bit in taxes. So does the rest of the middle class. My taxes have never really gone down.

    So we fund tax breaks for the rich typically through reduced services or more costly services (which impacts people more the poorer they are), and also through endlessly spiraling national debt, which means the nation as a whole is in even worse shape than the old people with no retirement savings you've mentioned.

    All of this so that we can fund tax breaks for extremely wealthy people like you, corporations, banks, and Wall Street.

    I still haven't heard a good reason for why I would want to vote in that direction.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,483
    Thanks
    2500

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Your link refers to this as "dismal science" and goes on to explain where the flaws are in the analysis.
    Mr. splansing,

    Please don't tell me you are so ill-educated that you didn't know the study of Economics is called "the dismal science."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business...cience/282454/

  5. #55
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,838
    Thanks
    2126

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    From your link:

    "It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science..."

    I'm not sure you should keep citing that.
    Thanks from Isalexi

  6. #56
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    47,953
    Thanks
    22510

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Raising taxes will first stifle economic growth.
    Taxes were considerably higher many decades ago, yet economic growth was not a bit stifled. In contrast, the Bush tax cuts did not do what conservatives said they would do. We are still waiting for that, and it was considerably over a decade ago.

  7. #57
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,838
    Thanks
    2126

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. splansing,

    Please don't tell me you are so ill-educated that you didn't know the study of Economics is called "the dismal science."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business...cience/282454/
    No, I didn't know that. Go figure.

    The article goes on to explain the shortcomings of the analysis it is reporting on.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,483
    Thanks
    2500

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    High progressive tax rates didn't stifle anything the last time we had them, pre-1980. So that's obviously not true.

    We were better off when Wall Street and banks were regulated, bureaucratic waste included. So that's obviously not true, either.

    Last time I checked I paid quite a bit in taxes. So does the rest of the middle class. My taxes have never really gone down.

    So we fund tax breaks for the rich typically through reduced services or more costly services (which impacts people more the poorer they are), and also through endlessly spiraling national debt, which means the nation as a whole is in even worse shape than the old people with no retirement savings you've mentioned.

    All of this so that we can fund tax breaks for extremely wealthy people like you, corporations, banks, and Wall Street.

    I still haven't heard a good reason for why I would want to vote in that direction.
    Mr. Splansing,

    And yet, economic booms occurred every time the high progressive tax rate was lowered. So obviously it is true.

    And Wall Street and banks have been regulated for hundreds of years. Maybe you've heard of a little thing called the FTC.

    And with your example of funding tax breaks, again, your are confusing revenues with outlays. Like I said, that is like you saying you are funding my big Mac purchase by your buying French fries.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,483
    Thanks
    2500

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    No, I didn't know that. Go figure.

    The article goes on to explain the shortcomings of the analysis it is reporting on.
    Mr. Splansing,

    To be fair, Mathusian economic theory is, by definition, pretty dismal.

  10. #60
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    35,758
    Thanks
    37861

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There are a number of unjustified assumptions being made here.

    1. That people are buying expensive things they do not need - and that they have enough money or credit to buy expensive things they do not need.
    2. That people are building large amounts of debt by buying things they do not need.
    3. That people have enough money or credit to move at all, much less to move to where there are more jobs they qualify for.
    4. That people have any disposable income to begin with, such that they can save for retirement.

    Those are just the basic ones off the top of my head. In any case, when 3/4 of the population is stuck living paycheck to paycheck, it is not unreasonable to posit that the problem is socio-political, rather than that people are getting dumber.
    Absolutely. Some just like to assume Americans are outside the normal bell curve for intelligence and are just overall dumber than populations in countries with more equality, better education, lower poverty, higher wages, and better social safety nets. After all, they think the United States with the highest per capita GDP in the world cant afford UHC, or a decent minimum wage.

Page 6 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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, 01:46 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 4th October 2013, 12:56 AM
  3. anyone got a paycheck yet this year?
    By nonsqtr in forum Current Events
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 10th January 2013, 08:58 AM
  4. Half Your Paycheck To The Government In 2013
    By meridian5455 in forum Economics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20th November 2012, 10:52 AM
  5. Senate votes down Paycheck Fairness Act
    By HadEnough2 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11th June 2012, 11:46 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed