Earned Income Tax Credit/Making Work Pay

[jwoodie]

How are the Muslims in France and the UK doing?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Merle Haggard representing the one percent. Talk about out of touch.

 

[Andylusion]

Grandma I am disappointed in you saying some people are untrainable. If you were to say that some people are forever irresponsible, undisciplined, and yes lazy I would agree with you. But all those drawbacks are a function of the environment they grew up in and can be remedied. As someone who deals with the dregs of society every day, it can tell you that everyone, including the worst drug addicts, have something they can teach you and many have a gift for something. From women with potential who stay in abusive relationships to boys who just don't have the self esteem to follow their dreams the problem is with an entitlement society that preaches surrender instead of an American society that preaches individualism and self reliance. Will they all make it? No. But that is life. Our job is to give everyone a chance not a check, but the majority are all capable of economic redemption.

I don't know about that. You seem to be painting everyone with a broad brush, and I'm not convinced that absolutely everyone can be taught.

I also am against this idea that everything negative in a person's character is exclusively due to environment.

In every human civilization, there have been lazy and poor people. I can find no example, even down to the most primitive tribal societies, in which there were not those who put in the least amount of effort, and resulting in the least amount of wealth.

At a prior job, I knew a guy who worked consistently since high school, had over $20K saved up, while going to college, and at the same time was taking a class in EMT.

Meanwhile his brother, worked a minimum wage part-time job at movie theater, cleaning floors. He spent most of his day playing video games.

Both of these people grew up in the same environment. Both lived in the same house. Had the same parents, went to the same schools. Yet one was lazy irresponsible, and the other highly motivated and successful.

Now on to you Oldfart. I get all the name dropping to prove your bono fides as an intellectual elitist and good for you, but you also seem to reinforce the stereotype of the academic liberal drowning in his own ideology and pretty much disconnected from reality and reason.

I was thinking it, even if I didn't post it.

 

[Grandma]

...

The government supports millions of people now. At any time over a million are incarcerated at a cost substantially above what would provide a liveable income, 60% of them non-violent offenders, who often are sentenced to lengthy terms as part of a failed policy on drugs. The criminal justice system offers little drug rehabilitation or job training, educates them in criminal enterprise by contact with violent offenders, and renders them unemployable when released. All this is a dead weight loss on society.

We spend about one trillion dollars a year on tax breaks and subsidies to rich individuals and corporations, most of it industry specific so it benefits politically powerful interests. Add to this the amount spent on defense contractors and the garrison state/intelligence operation, and it adds up.

A nation that built possibly the best infrastructure, public education system, and research universities in the world cannot now afford to properly train and employ its workforce? I don't see how it can afford not too. We simply have allowed narrow interests to capture our government and sell our society a false bill of goods.

Employment at a living wage is a far bigger expense than what goes towards the income prisoners and welfare recipients get.

During the Clinton Administration and the early Dubya Administration there were more than enough public and private sector jobs for everyone. This is not the case now.

And then there's the issue of partisan governors that returned stimulus money or gave it to their cronies, aggravating the unemployment problems in their states.

I agree that not everyone can become a high skill worker. But as I have noted before, a large part of the problem is that we have an educational system that produces too many functional illiterates and unemployables. This can be fixed. We could also do a better job of integrating public education and job training for many who have low skill levels. Finally, we could pay low skill employees in necessary jobs better.

I have a real problem with the idea that 98% of German kindergarten students will become productive workers producing and earning more per hour that American workers while we are lucky if 80% of a similar American kindergarten class can do so. Why do we accept that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Germans, French, Swedes, Danes, Finns, and a raft of other nationalities are doing a better job of preparing their work forces?

I agree with you there.
There's no real national standard for education here, the Department of Education needs to be given more power than religious regressives and helicopter moms.

(For those that don't know, a helicopter mom is one that hovers over their kid throughout its life, doing all the work for the kid, and fighting all the kid's battles. Not only do these kids wind up less educated than their peers, they have fewer social skills and a huge sense of entitlement.)

 

[Andylusion]

Oh come on! You can't possibly be that stupid. What makes you think that public employees automatically cost more than they produce? How lazy is your fire department? How bad was your kindergarten teacher? I take the last back, she obviously failed you.

Really. So your claim is that a fire department employee produces just as much wealth for society, as someone who builds cars, or provides health services?

How much wealth survived the great fires in San Francisco and Chicago? By your reasoning, all financial services produce no wealth and should be abolished. On second thought, that's not a bad idea, but I still prefer to have fire, police and emergency services.

You can tell someone has failed the argument, when they have to create a strawman to attack. Please locate where I said "abolish" anything?

I didn't. You just made that up, which is why no one takes you seriously.

First you are factually incorrect. Second, you never answer the argument. More evidence that you post before thinking.

Hypocrite. You tell others to provide evidence, while providing nothing yourself. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Only if you are rich. Look up the life expectancy, infant mortality, and death rates from preventable diseases and you find us in the lower third of the OECD, usually outperformed by some of the better third world nations. I assume that you know how to find this figures and are just too lazy to ever look them up.

Life expectancy is irrelevant to health care quality. There are too many factor completely unrelated to health care, that effect life expectancy. Such as auto fatalities, or homicide. When you factor those out, the US has the highest life expectancy in the world.

Additionally, infant mortality is because other countries simply don't count infants born prematurely, which of course are the most likely to die.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Mail Online

In the UK, doctors are actually forbidden from even trying to save a pre-mature baby. In the US, they would both try, and record the death.... hence we have a higher statistic.

As far as preventable disease, that's all true, and that's also a matter of choice, and culture.

For example, AIDs is a preventable disease. But you can't force people to not have sex, or not use dirty needles. Diabetes is preventable in many cases, but you can't force people to not eat sugar laced foods.

I had a roommate, that (I kid you not) went to a store, and bought a chocolate cake. Then went to another store, and noticed they had a chocolate cake too. They bought BOTH cakes, and their explanation was, so they could eat both, and figure out which one was better, so next time they would know where to get a cake. Keep in mind, there was no occasion. No special date. No birthdays. They just bought two chocolate cakes for their own enjoyment.

Several months later, they had diabetes. That was preventable, but you can't force people to live smartly. Our health care system is the best in the world at diagnosing, and treating, and healing people. The only way you can even attempt to claim it's not, is by pointing to things health care has no control over. Like this example, or like auto fatalities, or other things.

So you want to sell off the highway system and make everything a toll road? Lots of luck with that.

The point was, you can make roads and bridges with private money, and at a lower cost. Not whether the public would be willing to save millions on taxes, to pay 50¢ to cross a bridge. If you want to make that argument, I would agree. The public is used to not having to pay, and thus an economically superior system, will not likely replace the expensive government one.

No, I have friends and relatives who live in Switzerland. One of my grandfathers was born there. My second cousin runs a bank in Bern. We are from the Frutigen. Where does your superior information come from?

It came from Swiss economists, writing on the their system, as well as other sources like the OECD. My sources are certainly not as biased as "my relatives said...".

I'm familiar with the Swiss system. The provision of medical care is private. The financing is part public and part private. You have butchered the OECD data. We pay double what the Swiss spend per capita for health care as a percentage of GDP. Of course since you never bother to source claims like this, no one can check anything.

Ok, I'll bite. Prove it.

Now answer me one question: Are you a poor put upon worker struggling to make ends meet, or are you a rich capitalist defending the 400 families? I wish you would make up your mind.

I'm both.

Which is why no one can take you seriously.

It's obvious to me that this is a form of intellectual masturbation for you and you don't take any economic subject seriously, so you can respond in any manner you wish; for my part this discussion between us is over.

This is not a big loss.

I am in fact both. If you are not capable of grasping that, that reflects more on you, than on me. Sorry you are not able to keep up with the discussion. Bye bye.

 

[Andylusion]

I see people who don't work and they have plenty.............Merle Haggard

Spoken like a true onePercenter with something to sell whom is out of touch with reality.

[ame=http://youtu.be/uti_PkR3hn0]Fake Homeless Person Make $100000 a year - YouTube[/ame]

You were saying?

 

[Andylusion]

It's an unworkable pipe dream.

Some people can never be taught higher job skills, which makes the unskilled labor pool unsustainably large. There could never be enough jobs for everyone, particularly in any level of economic downturn.


But anyway, the OP is like one of those nutty relative's e-mails. It's a sensationalized fabrication.

Here's something that's true: General Electric, which made BILLIONS of dollars, has used tax loopholes for years. They pay ZERO dollars per year in taxes. they receive $MILLIONS in subsidies. Why not go after them instead of a poor woman making minimum wage?

Sadly, I would disagree with everything you said lol.

First, it's not a pipedream, if you mean it can't be done. Of course it can be done. We could very easily employ all of the poor in government jobs. The problem isn't that its a pipedream that can't be done. The problem is that it would drive up taxes, making more impoverish, driving more into government jobs. The problem is, it would harm the entire country.

No the government can't support that many people. Do you understand where the money comes from? Taxes. There isn't enough tax money to pay millions of workers a liveable yearly wage.

That was my point. Taxes would have to go up, which would drive more people onto government employment, driving taxes up, driving more onto government employment, until the system crashed.

We know this can be done.... Greece. They succeed at that.

You're wrong. There are people that can't be taught HIGHER job skills. I specifically said higher. How many burger flippers does the country need? Most government jobs require specialized training/ experience.

First, the assumption would be that the government would create 'make-work' programs to hire those without specialized training.

Second, either you and I have a different view on what "higher job skills" are, or you are wrong.

When I think of higher job skills, I thinking along the lines of anything that can't be done by the average illegal immigrant walking in off the street.

With that definition, welding and pipe-fitting, and electrician, would all be higher job skills in my book. All of these start off in the $30K and end in the $60K range. These are good jobs, that anyone can do if they really want to. I have several relatives that have made a life career out of each of those.

Or even truck driver. I know guys right now, that are a dumb as bricks.... but they drive a truck and make $50K a year.

So if you mean higher job skills, limited to Bio-Engineer or something, ok then you have a point. But otherwise.... you have the right to be wrong.

Blame the poor for being poor. Drink that wingnut koolaid. The welfare queen story was debunked DECADES ago. No one EVER told a welfare recipient that they were "entitled."

Ok, you are wrong. There's people on this very forum that have said multiple times that welfare recipients are entitled.

Further, blame where blame is due. I could rattle off a dozen stories about people who determined they would not advance in society, by choice. When people make a choice "I will not work", what other person could you possibly blame for that, but the person making that choice?

Nice revisionism there. People went to work because there were lots of jobs available. There are no jobs now that are full-time at a living wage.

Oh bull crap. lol You know for the last 5 years, I have been able to land, and work, no less than 6 different jobs. I have no skills, no abilities, no degrees, no education of any value. Am I super man? Or are you just full of excuses?

Back in the 90s, I was working at Wendy's, and there was a guy there from Romania. He worked, and fed his family of four, on his Wendy's income alone. That was back when the wage rate was $5.25. Now it's $7.25. And you are telling me, that the poor impoverished immigrant who barely speaks English, is more capable and able to support his family of 4 on $5.25 an hour, but us born Americans with education, and perfect English, somehow can't possibly make it on $7.25?

Awwww... poor widdle American. Poor baby American, can't make it on minimum wage, but the impoverished immigrant from Romania whose wife doesn't work for religious reasons.... they can, but poor baby American can't. Awww.... poor widdle American.... These whiny b!tchy spoiled brat Americans drive me nutz. You have it so good here in this country, that people are willing to *DIE* to get here, and all you can do is whine b!tch and moan. Grow up you Americans. GROW UP.

Thirdly, General Electric is not paying zero tax.Just not true. That entire myth was built on one bad journalist, who found an SEC statement, saying the company received money from the government. This "reporter" deceptively ignored the companies IRS filings, which had the additional information containing how much money the company paid in tax.The SEC filing had a tax over payment, included in it, because the money was reported as income.

But it was an over payment. Money paid to the government, OVER the millions in taxes they already paid. Just like if you over pay, you get a tax return at the end of the year. GE pays millions in taxes. Not your fault.The report was intentionally deceptive.

GE hasn't paid taxes in years. Are you suggesting that the same mistake has been made every year?

No, I'm suggesting that you are just completely 100% flat out wrong. You are wrong. Period. Absolutely, totally, without any question.... YOU ARE WRONG. GE does pay tax. That whole thing about them not paying tax was a LIE. You are repeating a *LIE*.

Besides that... you really want our government with more money? You really want a company that provides products, and jobs, and wealth to our country, with less money?

You really think the government is going to use that money more wisely, than GE?

*shakes head in disbelief*

You own a large amount of GE stock, don't you?

Nope. Exxon, Walmart, and a few other big names. But not GE.

Again, GE creates jobs. GE creates wealth. GE creates products that make our lives better.

What does Government create? It creates dependence. It creates loyal voters. It creates grants and handouts to political supporters.

Especially on the Federal level, I can't think of a single thing that government has ever spent money on, that benefited me, other than the military which provides security for the general welfare.

What did Solyndra do that benefited the General welfare? Even if Solyndra had been successful, it would not have been a benefit to me, or the welfare of the country in general. Only those already super rich people in charge of the company.

So where would I rather have money going to? GE that creates jobs, products, and wealth, or government to be flushed away in whatever pet project is being pushed by the administration at the time?

GE, by far.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Blame the poor for being poor. Drink that wingnut koolaid. The welfare queen story was debunked DECADES ago. No one EVER told a welfare recipient that they were "entitled."

How about this guy? The "food stamp surfer?"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqryVkPiKM]Stossel on Unemployment Fraud & Welfare Addiction w/ Star Parker Common Sense - YouTube[/ame]

Surfing on the food stamp wave | Human Events

 

[jwoodie]

Government employment IS welfare. The great majority of government employees would never be paid anything near their current compensation if they worked in the private sector. Disagree? Prove it: Show me your private sector job offers.

 

[oldfart]

Government employment IS welfare. The great majority of government employees would never be paid anything near their current compensation if they worked in the private sector. Disagree? Prove it: Show me your private sector job offers.

You are the one making an unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you. I'm familiar with the literature in this field, and you are flat wrong, but since you don't believe in paying school teachers, police and fire fighters, nurses and public health workers who make up the bulk of public employees, facts will not persuade you.

The CDZ was set up to provide a place where posts such as yours would not derail honest discussions. Please take your vitriol somewhere else.

 

[Andylusion]

Government employment IS welfare. The great majority of government employees would never be paid anything near their current compensation if they worked in the private sector. Disagree? Prove it: Show me your private sector job offers.

You are the one making an unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you. I'm familiar with the literature in this field, and you are flat wrong, but since you don't believe in paying school teachers, police and fire fighters, nurses and public health workers who make up the bulk of public employees, facts will not persuade you.

The CDZ was set up to provide a place where posts such as yours would not derail honest discussions. Please take your vitriol somewhere else.

You people.... seriously. Do you ever read up on anything about which you discuss? The fact that government pay is higher than private pay, has been true for so long, and been prove so many times by so many sources, how is it you are still ignorant about this?

All I had to do was punch in "government pay to private pay" into google...

FIRST LINK

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

Well gee, that required all of 5 full seconds to prove that claim.

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

SECOND LINK

Government Workers Cost 45% More Than Private Sector Workers

The BLS reported that private employers spent $20.76 on average for wages and salaries, plus $8.87 for benefits per hour worked. State and local government paid $27.66 for wages and salaries, plus $15.23 for benefits per hour worked. Government employees cost 33% more in wages and 71% more in benefits. The biggest difference is that government pension costs are 254% higher than the private sector.

It used to be back in the 1800s, and early 1900s, that people would say that government job would pay less, but at least it was stable. You had job security, and that was the offset.

Now, people are paid 33% more than you can make in the private sector, AND you get almost 3 times the long term benefits of the private sector.... all at the cost of the tax payer.

Short story.... I have a friend who works for the city planners, he put in the sewer system schematics for the city. (think SimCity, except limited to sewers. That was his job according to his own words).

It was the 4rd week of November just before Thanksgiving. He was telling us how on Tuesday, they went out for a company buffet catered lunch at noon, and then let everyone go home, while still getting paid for a full day.

Then on Wednesday, they had to show up at 8 AM, for a company paid for full buffet breakfast at a restaurant, and at 9 AM, they were sent home, while still getting paid for a full day.

The tax payers not only paid time and a half for Thursday and Friday holiday pay, but also paid for two full meals, and a day and a half of work they were not there for.

I don't know of any company that does this. I've seen some nice company parties with brats and burgers, but nothing even remotely close to that.

Now this has been true for almost 10 full years. How is it you still don't know this? Read up about these topics before you get on here. It will save us the education time.