Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether poverty in the U.S. has become too comfortable, highlighting the official poverty level for a family of four at $22,350. Comparisons are made to global poverty standards, suggesting that U.S. poverty is relatively high. Concerns are raised about welfare systems, with calls for better oversight to ensure assistance goes to those truly in need. The conversation also touches on the challenges of home ownership, linking it to rising real estate prices and the cultural tendency to live beyond one's means. Ultimately, the debate emphasizes the need for a balance between providing support and encouraging self-sufficiency.
  • #151
I think poverty should be comfortable for some people but uncomfortable for others. The lazy-for example should suffer the consequences of the poverty they bring on themselves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Radrook said:
I think poverty should be comfortable for some people but uncomfortable for others. The lazy-for example should suffer the consequences of the poverty they bring on themselves.

Recently, I've heard arguments suggesting that total benefits be limited to the value of a 40 hour minimum wage work week and the introduction of Medicaid (only) healthcare facilities for preventative care - instead of treating cold and flu symptoms in the emergency rooms of the newest hospitals. I've also heard many arguments made for a "work for welfare" program - where able-bodied beneficiaries are given a community service job in exchange for benefits - others might work from home on the telephone or via computer - with time accounted and credited to earn benefits.

Any thoughts on these topics?
 
  • #153
russ_watters said:
I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism!

It's a form of fascism.
 
  • #154
thephysicsman said:
...
Possibly, but that has no bearing on the truth of my claim. Here are the ten most profitable companies in America in 2009 according to Fortune 500:

1. Exxon Mobil
2. Microsoft
3. Wal-Mart
4. Procter & Gamble
5. IBM
6. Goldman Sachs
7. Merk
8. AT&T
9. Wells Fargo
10. Johnson and Johnson

There's not the slightest chance you'll find any racism in the policies of these companies. They simply can't afford it.
You haven't shown that to be the case, but yes that's possible. More likely, what they can not afford is the possibility of thousands of arildno minded people (plus me) protesting such action in front of their corporate HQ's and boycotting their products, exactly as arildno called for.
 
  • #155
russ_watters said:
...
To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!

thephysicsman said:
It's a form of fascism.
I think it's the other way around, fascism is just a form of socialism. The Nazis set out to differentiate their form from the Russians, hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism" . The US under Wilson and Roosevelt had many aspects of its own form of fascist socialism, with many gushing admirers of Mussolini.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #156
BilPrestonEsq said:
Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?
In this specific case consider that your private financial reserves in anticipation of catastrophic events are almost certainly reduced because of government burdens - through taxes, through a lowered chance of employment in the economy at large because of those same taxes and through regulation, through medical lawsuits forcing doctors to leave a practice that might have treated your cancer, through direct government action preventing you from starting a business that might compete with entrenched interests cozy with government. That of course doesn't mean that government has provided you some benefits, built roads along the way, provided security, etc, but none that detracts from the points I just listed.

The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.
 
  • #157
thephysicsman said:
... it's not American.
Careful there. Ben Franklin, due in part to the ransacking of Pennsylvania by the French and Indians and the refusal the wealthy Penn founders to allow themselves to be taxed to fund a militia:
Ben Franklin said:
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Benjamin.Franklin.Quote.87E3

I don't agree with the full extent of what Franklin says there, but I see his point and always love his way with words, especially that famous next to last sentence.
 
  • #158
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?
 
  • #159
PhilKravitz said:
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?

That doesn't sound like an acceptable "comfort level" - what if the person went back to school and found a good job? How would these procedures encourage him to get off welfare?
 
  • #160
PhilKravitz said:
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?

Ha! That is completely twisted, but I can appreciate the concept. This could almost be viewed as a more humane way of dealing with evolutionary change."Opt out of evolutionary competition". That's good stuff.
 
  • #161
mheslep said:
In this specific case consider that your private financial reserves in anticipation of catastrophic events are almost certainly reduced because of government burdens - through taxes, through a lowered chance of employment in the economy at large because of those same taxes and through regulation, through medical lawsuits forcing doctors to leave a practice that might have treated your cancer, through direct government action preventing you from starting a business that might compete with entrenched interests cozy with government. That of course doesn't mean that government has provided you some benefits, built roads along the way, provided security, etc, but none that detracts from the points I just listed.

The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.

I agree. I also agree with Ben Franklin there. That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike. I think it is law that counterbalances those fallibilities. It is also a society's(or the majority's rather) ability to make or change law that defines it's strength in counterbalancing those inherent human fallibilities. Law is imposed on everyone in the society and intended to take away an advantage one could get over another. So whether it is government, free market or individual all will follow an inherent inclination to become corrupted in order to compete with each other for survival(IMO). Law or the majority's control over law decides the fate of the majority.
 
  • #162
BilPrestonEsq said:
I agree. I also agree with Ben Franklin there.
I don't agree with all what Franklin says in that quote but thought his comments relevant in response to the comment up thread on taxes being un-American.

Law is imposed on everyone in the society and intended to take away an advantage one could get over another.
Whoa. Is that really what you meant to say, as opposed to the intent of the law is to prevent one from harming another?
 
  • #163
mheslep said:
I don't agree with all what Franklin says in that quote but thought his comments relevant in response to the comment up thread on taxes being un-American.

Whoa. Is that really what you meant to say, as opposed to the intent of the law is to prevent one from harming another?

No, I meant what I said. To be able to legally harm someone, is having an advantage over them. If you read it again especially:"That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike." I like the way you said it:
The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.
(My bold) Those two points inparticular. LAW: binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority. This authority comes from either the community or evolution. Ok, So I am still have some work to do in articulating this concept so that not just I understand it. What I am saying is anarchists and socialists abide by the same laws one way or another and there are trade offs. The most important thing is that the majority has control over the law that controls themselves. Whether there is 10 people or 1,000,000,000 people. I used to be a Ron Paul supporter for a few reasons but those ideals only lead us backwards and my theory is we will inevitably in time come back to the same place we are at now. Frustrated with the aristocrats that have taken over the country. I think most Americans would agree that is what has happened in the U.S.. Back to the OP(sort of)... If you take away the power from these aristocrats and put it back in the hands of the majority there is no need to limit government. Either the poor will be cared for or evolution will take it's course. If you have a problem with majority rule then you should probably move into the wild as Ben Franklin suggested. A well informed and vigil majority is the key.
 
Last edited:
  • #164
BilPrestonEsq said:
No, I meant what I said. To be able to legally harm someone, is having an advantage over them. If you read it again especially:"That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike."
Yes of course but the reverse is not at all true - that to have an advantage over another is also necessarily to harm them. If you happen to have the ability to hit a baseball out of major league ballpark on a regular basis or play flawless classical sonatas you have a major advantage over me in physical ability and likely earning power, but you do no harm to me because of that innate ability. Certainly the point of law is not to take that advantage away from you.
 
  • #165
mheslep said:
Yes of course but the reverse is not at all true - that to have an advantage over another is also necessarily to harm them. If you happen to have the ability to hit a baseball out of major league ballpark on a regular basis or play flawless classical sonatas you have a major advantage over me in physical ability and likely earning power, but you do no harm to me because of that innate ability. Certainly the point of law is not to take that advantage away from you.

No, law should be there to allow those kinds of abilities flourish. It is really a matter of using law to encourage that kind of inherent human creative, imagination powered awesomeness and limit those inherent human fallibilities. I think we have yet to find that balance. Anyways law is for those that don't want to 'play nice'. That is why I believe in some kind of welfare that everyone has to pay into. That way those that would not want to contribute to say a volunteer charity, have to, or they can move to antartica and be 'free'. To let some people not pay will give them the advantage and take away from those that want to pay. Either way there will always be people in need, I just think that is the most fair way to deal with it. I don't see how anyone can disagree unless of course they want anarchy, which I can understand given the state of the country.
It really is a very natural feeling to have, I just know that anarchy has it's own problems. It is the lack of acknowleging these problems that makes it seem attractive in comparison. That is idealistic.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
BilPrestonEsq said:
No, law should be there to allow those kinds of abilities flourish. It is really a matter of using law to encourage that kind of inherent human creative, imagination powered awesomeness and limit those inherent human fallibilities.
That smacks of central planning. Again, you're referring here to law as some kind of disembodied good that can operate without personal corruption. Laws are made by governments consisting of corruptible people. Laws are dangerous things, and should be treated like fire, as Washington said, used with caution, only sparingly and when absolutely necessary.

I think we have yet to find that balance. Anyways law is for those that don't want to 'play nice'. That is why I believe in some kind of welfare that everyone has to pay into. That way those that would not want to contribute to say a volunteer charity, have to, or they can move to antartica and be 'free'. To let some people not pay will give them the advantage and take away from those that want to pay. Either way there will always be people in need, I just think that is the most fair way to deal with it. I don't see how anyone can disagree unless of course they want anarchy, which I can understand given the state of the country.
I see here a list of things you want, not a coherent argument. The American colonies and later the US managed to avoid anarchy for a couple of centuries or so without welfare laws. Along the way there have been freely organized charitable organizations.
 
  • #167
BilPrestonEsq said:
The most important thing is that the majority has control over the law that controls themselves. Whether there is 10 people or 1,000,000,000 people. I used to be a Ron Paul supporter for a few reasons but those ideals only lead us backwards and my theory is we will inevitably in time come back to the same place we are at now. Frustrated with the aristocrats that have taken over the country. I think most Americans would agree that is what has happened in the U.S.. Back to the OP(sort of)... If you take away the power from these aristocrats and put it back in the hands of the majority there is no need to limit government. Either the poor will be cared for or evolution will take it's course. If you have a problem with majority rule then you should probably move into the wild as Ben Franklin suggested. A well informed and vigil majority is the key.

Who are the aristocrats that have taken over the US? Also, what happens when the power (of the vote) increases the size, scope, and spending of Government - how will it ever be limited - other than collapse?

Again, how much is enough - how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented?
 
  • #168
mheslep said:
That smacks of central planning. Again, you're referring here to law as some kind of disembodied good that can operate without personal corruption. Laws are made by governments consisting of corruptible people. Laws are dangerous things, and should be treated like fire, as Washington said, used with caution, only sparingly and when absolutely necessary.


Like I said a couple posts ago, A well informed and vigil majority is the key. Laws can be dangerous, I agree. If the majority is not willing to pay attention then...
It could be that once government gets to a certain size it becomes almost impossible for the majority to be informed of everything that is going on. That could be a case against large government. However I do think that giving to those in need should be mandated. I disagree with the inefficient and unfair structure of entitlement programs, but I do stand by the idea of taxing to give to the poor.
If you don't redistribute wealth then you will ultimately have a aristocracy. If you have money you can make money, without any contribution of the real work necessary. The more money you have the easier it is to make more with less and less actual work. The oppostite is also true. To deny that in order to stay true to certain belief structure is at the benefit of whom? Well let's see... the super rich benefit from the majority sharing that belief. The loyalty to any 'ism' is dangerous in my opinion.


I see here a list of things you want, not a coherent argument. The American colonies and later the US managed to avoid anarchy for a couple of centuries or so without welfare laws. Along the way there have been freely organized charitable organizations.

That is not what I want, trust me. What I want is for people to all play nice with each other and to treat others as they would like to be treated, without laws. Self-discipline, that's what I want. Unfortunetely that is not going to happen. Maybe one day, but certainly not anytime soon. Why is it that those who want to go backwards hundreds of years, seem to paint a picture of a warm and fuzzy time where brother help brother and the like. What are you basing that on? Where these public charities taking care of everyone? How was the quality of life? I bet it wasn't so good for the slaves men used to own back then. What I want and what you want may not be so different. What I want is for those that cannot care for themselves be taken care of. I want people that can take care of themselves to do so. I also want things to be fair for everyone. That last one, that is the tricky one. That should be a new thread. If the major incentive to 'win' in a free market is money, there are going to be problems. If money is a tool of survival, then making money is touching at the root of of our existence and all our fears as well. You have to keep in mind what money is and what money replaced in our lives to really get a grasp on it's importance. I am really getting to far from the topic so...
 
  • #169
BillPreston92 said:
Like I said a couple posts ago, A well informed and vigil majority is the key. Laws can be dangerous, I agree. If the majority is not willing to pay attention then...
It could be that once government gets to a certain size it becomes almost impossible for the majority to be informed of everything that is going on. That could be a case against large government. However I do think that giving to those in need should be mandated. I disagree with the inefficient and unfair structure of entitlement programs, but I do stand by the idea of taxing to give to the poor.
If you don't redistribute wealth then you will ultimately have a aristocracy. If you have money you can make money, without any contribution of the real work necessary. The more money you have the easier it is to make more with less and less actual work. The oppostite is also true. To deny that in order to stay true to certain belief structure is at the benefit of whom? Well let's see... the super rich benefit from the majority sharing that belief. The loyalty to any 'ism' is dangerous in my opinion.




That is not what I want, trust me. What I want is for people to all play nice with each other and to treat others as they would like to be treated, without laws. Self-discipline, that's what I want. Unfortunetely that is not going to happen. Maybe one day, but certainly not anytime soon. Why is it that those who want to go backwards hundreds of years, seem to paint a picture of a warm and fuzzy time where brother help brother and the like. What are you basing that on? Where these public charities taking care of everyone? How was the quality of life? I bet it wasn't so good for the slaves men used to own back then. What I want and what you want may not be so different. What I want is for those that cannot care for themselves be taken care of. I want people that can take care of themselves to do so. I also want things to be fair for everyone. That last one, that is the tricky one. That should be a new thread. If the major incentive to 'win' in a free market is money, there are going to be problems. If money is a tool of survival, then making money is touching at the root of of our existence and all our fears as well. You have to keep in mind what money is and what money replaced in our lives to really get a grasp on it's importance. I am really getting to far from the topic so...

I'll ask again - how much is enough? How comfortable should poverty be for a beneficiary of tax payer funds?
 
  • #170
WhoWee said:
Who are the aristocrats that have taken over the US? Also, what happens when the power (of the vote) increases the size, scope, and spending of Government - how will it ever be limited - other than collapse?

Again, how much is enough - how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented?

aristocracy: government by wealthy, privileged minority or hereditary ruling class.
Now to ignore the influence of the top percent of wealthy individuals and families would be insanely naive. Look at the Bush family, just one example. Now many may disagree with me, not sure why, but I really don't think GW Bush would have become president had he not been the son of GHW Bush. If you have money you have power. If you have power you have influence.
Wealth is passed down from generation to generation, generally. Do all politicians in office seem to be the best candidate for the job, really? How does the majority choose their candidate? Television and news coverage. If you become aware of American history, the economic and political history in particular it should shed some light on why I believe we have become aristocracy or more accurately an oligarchy, and not a democracy. That fire of freedom that the founding fathers had, cannot ever be extinguished, a democracy is not something that is reached, it is something that must be maintained. Unfortunately that fire has burned out many, many years ago.

Well that was off topic, but you asked so...

how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented

A person who cannot provide for themselves should still have a decent life. I would define a decent life as having all the things necessary for survival. Adequate food, clean water, and a clean and 'healthy' shelter. The collapse of the system can be avoided by the majority having the ability to make a comfortable living and to also provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. If money is distributed to those that can provide for themselves and don't because of their own laziness then the system will inevitably collapse.
Defining what a comfortable life really means is open to so many opinions. What some may define as a comfortable even privelaged life to others may be considered poverty. Take Paris Hilton and give her what most would consider a comfortable middle class lifestyle and she would most likely be miserable. I guess we should try to find out what it takes for a person to live comfortably 'off the land' first. How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?
 
  • #171
BillPreston92 said:
aristocracy: government by wealthy, privileged minority or hereditary ruling class.
Now to ignore the influence of the top percent of wealthy individuals and families would be insanely naive. Look at the Bush family, just one example. Now many may disagree with me, not sure why, but I really don't think GW Bush would have become president had he not been the son of GHW Bush. If you have money you have power. If you have power you have influence.
Wealth is passed down from generation to generation, generally. Do all politicians in office seem to be the best candidate for the job, really? How does the majority choose their candidate? Television and news coverage. If you become aware of American history, the economic and political history in particular it should shed some light on why I believe we have become aristocracy or more accurately an oligarchy, and not a democracy. That fire of freedom that the founding fathers had, cannot ever be extinguished, a democracy is not something that is reached, it is something that must be maintained. Unfortunately that fire has burned out many, many years ago.

Well that was off topic, but you asked so...



A person who cannot provide for themselves should still have a decent life. I would define a decent life as having all the things necessary for survival. Adequate food, clean water, and a clean and 'healthy' shelter. The collapse of the system can be avoided by the majority having the ability to make a comfortable living and to also provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. If money is distributed to those that can provide for themselves and don't because of their own laziness then the system will inevitably collapse.
Defining what a comfortable life really means is open to so many opinions. What some may define as a comfortable even privelaged life to others may be considered poverty. Take Paris Hilton and give her what most would consider a comfortable middle class lifestyle and she would most likely be miserable. I guess we should try to find out what it takes for a person to live comfortably 'off the land' first. How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?

Who should have the power to make these redistribution of wealth decisions?
 
  • #172
WhoWee said:
Who should have the power to make these redistribution of wealth decisions?

The majority



How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?

What do you think about that being a starting point for understanding what it takes in resources and man hours to produce a typical middle class lifestyle?
 
  • #173
BillPreston92 said:
The majority


What do you think about that being a starting point for understanding what it takes in resources and man hours to produce a typical middle class lifestyle?

From your examples - you want to vote on what the Bush and Hilton families can keep?

As for the middle class lifestyle - it requires income from work.
 
  • #174
WhoWee said:
From your examples - you want to vote on what the Bush and Hilton families can keep?

Sure, why not. If making money becomes easier the more money you have, and if the more money you have the more influence you have, then yes. Are you personally extremely wealthy? If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?


As for the middle class lifestyle - it requires income from work.

Yeah, I know, and that is an incredibly simplistic answer. That is why I was thinking it would be a good idea to find out what it takes in resources and man hours to create the same conditions as a middle class american lifestyle. That would be more accurate don't you think? That way you would know what it takes to support one's self. That would be a good starting point in figuring out what is possible for that same someone to give, and to how many people.
 
  • #175
BillPreston92 said:
...If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?
Because:
First they [the majority] came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they [the majority] came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they [the majority] came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they [the majority] came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
  • #176
BillPreston92 said:
Sure, why not. If making money becomes easier the more money you have, and if the more money you have the more influence you have, then yes. Are you personally extremely wealthy? If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?


Yeah, I know, and that is an incredibly simplistic answer. That is why I was thinking it would be a good idea to find out what it takes in resources and man hours to create the same conditions as a middle class american lifestyle. That would be more accurate don't you think? That way you would know what it takes to support one's self. That would be a good starting point in figuring out what is possible for that same someone to give, and to how many people.

I just wanted to be clear - you are in favor of putting it on the ballot - to allow the majority to vote on whether the top 5% of income earners should give money to the other 95%?

As for the middle income lifestyle - are you suggesting the top 5% should elevate everyone else to the middle class level?
 
  • #177
mheslep said:
Because:

Wow. I didn't expect that! That qoute is about the apathy of German citizens in the Nazi rise to power, and I know... you know that already.. The power of propaganda is sickening...
How is that anyway comparable? Are you actually comparing the top 5% of wealthy individuals to a german pastor in Nazi Germany?
Ohhh the poor super rich elite aristocrats in contol of the entire nation. My heart goes out to them.
I will be playing the worlds smallest violin for them just as soon as I finish this post...
 
  • #178
WhoWee said:
I just wanted to be clear - you are in favor of putting it on the ballot - to allow the majority to vote on whether the top 5% of income earners should give money to the other 95%?

As for the middle income lifestyle - are you suggesting the top 5% should elevate everyone else to the middle class level?

No I am not saying that. Why would you choose to ignore the other part of my post, the possibly productive part? The part where I am more than willing to help answer the OP.
You don't think that would be a productive way to figure out the sustainability of entitlement programs?

Here are the current tax bracketshttp://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm"

I have no problem with this as is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #179
BillPreston92 said:
No I am not saying that. Why would you choose to ignore the other part of my post, the possibly productive part? The part where I am more than willing to help answer the OP.
You don't think that would be a productive way to figure out the sustainability of entitlement programs?

Here are the current tax bracketshttp://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm"

I have no problem with this as is.

Please clarify specifically - I'm really not certain which part of your post you're referring to - I'm not ignoring anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
WhoWee said:
Please clarify specifically - I'm really not certain which part of your post you're referring to - I'm not ignoring anything.

What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.