Poverty in the US

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Yes, The Gates Foundation does also commit a great deal of money to programs around the world that promote health and reduce AIDS/HIV, Meningitis, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. AIDS/HIV on the continent of Africa today is perhaps the greatest health crisis in the history of the world.

As for your personal situation, there are wonderful programs provided by most states and the federal government to assist you in 'Getting on your Feet'. If you are looking for a job microwaving hamburgers at the local BK, while you have several years of managerial experience, I would suggest you are looking in the wrong place for a job. Expecting some fat cat to just hand you $20,000.00 is foolish. How could we know that you would use that money responsibly? Maybe you would just use it buy some Mad Dog, and where would that get us.

Looking on the bright side, just think about all the money you are not paying in Federal Income tax. That's the beauty of a Progressive Tax structure, if you don't make any money, you don't pay any taxes. As Rush Limbaugh would say, you get to live of the teet of Government.

Peace - Mike

Well it's good to know that I'm still ignorant of many things in the world about folks. Thanks for clairifying that info.
It's obvious that the poverty trouble in the U.S. is so big that even Gates can't make a dent in it with his contributions. Okay. So it's up to the war-hungry guys in Washington to back off and focus here.

Well you don't know that I wouldn't go spend that money on a bag of dope a case of beer a hooker and a great one nighter Vegas. But I can honestly attest that I do not drink, do drugs nor gamble... and I find hookers to be a waste of time and money since they don't give a darn about me or even if I'm enjoying myself with them... at least from my past experiences anyway.
No, arbitrarily giving out money isn't the answer but knowing and making sure that the individual with his/her hand out is going to do what he/she says they're going to do with it does help.

I've been recipient of the Government "help find a job" programmes and I do not ask for the bosses' position when I'm applying anywhere. With every company I've ever worked for I've started at the bottom and worked my way up. I tend to go faster than most when I do that. Being a jack of all trades and a master of none it does put a damper on being more specific in my job search... but I assure you that I'm not looking in the wrong place. I apply for entry level positions when-ever possible. I believe in being realistic.

I'm just speaking for me and it's all that I can speak for. My observations and opinions are my own and I am responsible for only unto myself.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I do not like Bill Gates as a person form what I have seen him say and do in the press and in public.

Yet, he has set up this foundation and he does commit a huge amount of money to charities and resources to help others. Not trying to throw mud in his face, I wonder how much of this was due to his wife and maybe finding a different perspective to life.

I do respect his donations. I just may not like everything he says.

:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

I don't know if Gates is a good person or a bad person. I know his company has changed the way the world works ... and I think the jury is still out on whether that is a good thing or not. I know he used to get a bad rap about not donating more of his money to charities. Yes, the Gates Foundation was not setup until after Bill and Melinda got married. Yes, there is probably a change in focus after getting married and having a couple of children.

My comments were not about Bill or Melinda specifically. They were more to counter the proposition that the rich don't do anything to alleviate the suffering and poverty in the Good Ole' US of A.

I chose the Gates Foundation, because I am familiar with their initiative to get the Libraries across America connected to the internet. I did not research what king of charitable activities are supported in the US by Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and the rest of the super rich in this country; but, I bet they all have similiar activities underway to support the citizens of the country in which they make most of their fortune.

I also wanted to comment on how the recent tax law changes affect these members of the 'Super Rich' society. The tax law changes over the last three years have been a tremendous charitable gift to the members of this elite group (those with incomes greater than 3 million dollars a year).

OK ... got to run ... got to go fix a WinTel Computer, oh, JOY!

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Mike,

I did not mean my post to be an attack on you or your comments.

I would post from what I know also.

Bill gates since his marriage and children has had less public displays of his personality. If his wife caused the change or is he did it himself, so be it. Good for him and them.

As to the donations, yes he is one of the biggest donaters through his foundation and his foundations is actively trying to make a difference.

As to everyone wanting to be "Rich"? I have no idea why anyone would want to be me . It is not easy being me :rofl: I could not resist a little humor.


As to poverty, I think education is the most important step, in the process if we are to eliminate poverty or even seriously reduce it. Yet, we must look at our sub cultures and try to make it reasonable for people to do well in school and to succeed and to learn more. I know may teachers personally that try. I just do not think or kno how to change this attitude or way of life for some. Others try and are denied, or not given a fair chance, or they are not given proper tools, such as books, and they are lost in the system.

I know I have no solutions.

 

[michaeledward]

Rich ... I didn't take your post for an attack of any kind.

I don't mean the tone of my post to sound so mean or condescending, if it does, I apologize. I know there is poverty in our society. And I think it does not need to exist to the extent that it does. I think, we the people, through our government, can enact programs that reduce poverty.

What angers me is that dollar for dollar, I get taxed more heavily than Bill Gates, or any of the super rich. I pay Social Security taxes (FICA) on every dollar I earn, but the super rich do not. (hell, even the moderately rich do not). The political spin meisters for all of the presidential candidates talk about 'Income Taxes' and how a person making $24,000 / year won't pay any income tax ... and make it sound like a big deal. That $24,000 will be subject to 'Payroll Taxes'. Which hit the lower income people hard.

One way to address the poverty in the country is to create a tax structure that provides enough money for program that do provide a social minimum. And yet, Bush still wants Stock Dividends to be TAX FREE. That's a friggin' crime. Last year, my wife and I earned about $14.00 in stock dividends. Woo Woo 14 dollars tax free. And Bill Gates holds over 1 billion shares of MSFT stock ... if they ever pay stock dividends, Gates is going to be rolling more dough.

OK .. enough of a rant.

MACaver .... really, I wasn't trying to scold you earlier. I really just wanted to suggest that you look for available programs in your area, and look for the right level of work ... perhaps at this point in your career, you shouldn't be looking for 'Entry Level' work; your experience puts you beyond that.

Peace - Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Rich ... I didn't take your post for an attack of any kind.

Peace - Mike

Mike, I was not upset by your tone nor your words. I try to make sure I try to communicate if there is a possibility of . . . .


Peace
:asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Even if the tax structure was changed and people got to keep more of what they earned, does anyone think that it would matter in the long run?

Sure, if a new tax bill passes tomorrow, let's say the following happend:

Original takehome: New Takehome

24,000: 29,000
40,000: 50,000
90,000: 120,000

So all of a sudden everyone is taking home more money. Good for the short term, and on its principles, it's the right thing to do.

But don't you think that eventually the companies, state/local taxes, insurance rates will all go up because they KNOW we are all making more money. They know how much money it takes to live, and what the average family has left over.

I'm certainly no expert on economics but I think the poor would have an even tougher time at that point than the rich. It just seems the rift is always widening.

 

[michaeledward]

MisterMike ... you raise some very good questions. Questions I hope that more people think about as we approach the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Originally posted by MisterMike
Even if the tax structure was changed and people got to keep more of what they earned, does anyone think that it would matter in the long run?

The current policies are proposing that those who get to keep more of what they earn are the 'super-rich'. In the 1990's, if you owned stock in a company, and that company paid dividends on your shares of stock, that dividend income was taxed at the taxrate of your Adjusted Gross Income. After the Bush tax cuts (I'm not sure which round of cuts changed this rule), the dividend income is taxed at 15%. Here's how that works.

If you own, let's say 1000 shares of ADP stock (the company I work for), they pay $0.56 per share per year. You will earn $560.00 on you stock. Let's say, you and your wife file joint return and have an adjusted gross income of $100,000.00

Before: 560.00 x 25 percent tax rate = $140.00 in taxes
After : 560.00 x 15 percent tax rate = $ 84.00 in taxes

You get to keep more of your money. Great. Question, who holds most of the stock in the country. Who gets to save that $56.00 savings? People who own stock. I hope all of us do. But in order to realize that 56.00 tax benefit, you have to own $42,000.00 worth of ADP stock.

I'm not sure that savings makes a big difference to someone who can hold 42k in stock. This tax cut benefits those who can hold stock, and a lot of it.

Sure, if a new tax bill passes tomorrow, let's say the following happend:
Original takehome: New Takehome
24,000: 29,000
40,000: 50,000
90,000: 120,000

So all of a sudden everyone is taking home more money. Good for the short term, and on its principles, it's the right thing to do.

But don't you think that eventually the companies, state/local taxes, insurance rates will all go up because they KNOW we are all making more money. They know how much money it takes to live, and what the average family has left over.

Here, you are assuming that entities charge for services on the ability to pay. While certainly, that is the way capitalism works, that is not the way most governments work. States and cities raise funds to pay for services. Balancing the desired/required services against the ability to raise funds is the struggle most governing bodies face annually.

I want my child to go to a good school. I want to have parks available in town in which to walk my dog, or play softball. I want to have trash picked up from my house, rather than me bringing it to the 'transfer station' or dump. For these services, I need to pay taxes to my town and state. The state is not trying to make a profit, they are trying to balance services with revenue.

As for insurance companies, and businesses of the like, they are profit making ventures. In these instances, compitition is important. A competative market place will be sure that each business venture measures its costs against the going market price for a good or service. If Liberty Mutual increases my home owners insurance rate, I can take my business to Allstate. These companies pay actuaries a lot of money to measure how risky I am to insure. Those risks should not change according to the profit margin desired by the company.

Some goods and / or services are 'natural monopolies', and should be treated as such (in my opinion). Some goods and / or services are not natural monopolies, and should be subject to the open market. (Monopolies - telephone company, cable company, electric company : Non-Monopolies - hardware store, food store, insurance)

How we, as citizens of the country, state, or municipality are taxed should not be evaluated as an 'either open market or socialist' discussion. That is why the current administration angers me so much ... it seems to be a one note program - Tax Cuts Good! (Actually two notes - Tax Cuts & Military Spending)

I'm certainly no expert on economics but I think the poor would have an even tougher time at that point than the rich. It just seems the rift is always widening.

Well certainly in the last 25 years, the rift has widened, and looks to continue widening. It is the difference between a PROGRESSIVE tax structure or a REGRESSIVE tax structure.

Progressive taxes are paid according to the ability to pay. If you have less, you pay less. If you have more, you pay more. Some people think the 'PAY MORE' is unfair, but think of it this way; if one of the functions of government is to provide for the safety of the citizenry, those who HAVE MORE, have more that needs protecting, therefore, they should pay more for that service.

Regressive taxes require even payment. This could be a head tax. If you live in the country, you pay this tax of xxxx number of dollars. It is called a regressive tax because it is more difficult for those of a lesser income to pay. Let's posit the head tax is $1000.00 per person per year. If a person earns $10,000.00 a year, that is a 10% tax. If a person earns $100,000.00 a year, this tax is a 1% tax. If a person earns $1,000,000.00 a year, it is a 0.01% tax. Regressive taxes are wonderful if your filthy rich. (Not you - Rich). You will remember, it was Steve Forbes (the guy with the rich people magazine named after him) that proposed a 17% flat tax. He would have made out like a bandit.

OK ... I hope this wasn't too preachy. I perhaps typed it all out more to hear myself talk. But when you hear about any tax proposal, evaluate it based on how does it hit me now versus, how would it hit me if I won Powerball?

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by michaeledward
MACaver .... really, I wasn't trying to scold you earlier. I really just wanted to suggest that you look for available programs in your area, and look for the right level of work ... perhaps at this point in your career, you shouldn't be looking for 'Entry Level' work; your experience puts you beyond that.
Peace - Mike

No offense taken because there was none given...
Well as to date I've just about nearly exhausted every available state sponsored "find-a-job" programme here. There are a few other (unmentioned) factors involved that may or may not be hampering my success rate. Either way, applying for "anything I can get" doesn't work whether it'd be entry level or asst. manager or whatever. Most of the jobs I've had were from those who I knew the "hiring" person or recommended by a friend who knew the hiring person.
My experience doesn't seem to count for nothing.

Wait a tic... am I whining? Ahhh I'll shut up... I'll just keep trying as many different ways as I can until I succeed.
Love to go back to school but gotta have money and to have money ya gotta work... don't cha just LOVE "catch-22's"??? :rofl: