PDA

View Full Version : Scary Social Salary Scale



Straegen
12-03-2010, 14:55
There is some not-so-true conditions in this but it is still interesting:

http://ewot.typepad.com/.a/6a01053579496a970c013489a694e1970c-pi

Noob
12-03-2010, 15:07
scary isnt it. Something is majorly wrong there imo. Makes me wonder why I try and do more when I could do less and make more.

bennerman
12-03-2010, 15:27
I take it we are talking that the column that is so far behind the poverty line that they can't even see it is paying 1000% of their income in taxes?

scubajane
12-04-2010, 08:11
I take it we are talking that the column that is so far behind the poverty line that they can't even see it is paying 1000% of their income in taxes?


I think you read it wrong... what they pat is in red what they get in benefits is in black. look again..

bennerman
12-04-2010, 08:54
I think you read it wrong... what they pat is in red what they get in benefits is in black. look again..

Ah, then we are appalled that the people with the most income get just as much "help" as those who make so little?

jans
12-04-2010, 11:13
Ah, then we are appalled that the people with the most income get just as much "help" as those who make so little?

Focus, Bman. Look at the bottom line.

Emeraldmug
12-04-2010, 11:46
I believe in giving to those who need it since I have been blessed with all I need...

My problem is that there is no choice in the way all the bleeding heart liberals want to help people who need it, and at the pinnacle of this ideal you have a huge group of people who have lost all willingness to even try and better there situation because they have no need to...

"If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

bennerman
12-04-2010, 11:50
Focus, Bman. Look at the bottom line.

sorry, economics ain't my strong point... I'm going to stand over here now...

BRsnow
12-04-2010, 12:50
Well when people stop taking any deductions on their taxes whether it be from being married, or owning a home, or the countless list of deductions and credits this might be accurate. Clearly my company paid insurance is something the lesser earners don't have for example. If you look at the whole picture, making more money is beneficial...but please do leave your higher paying job for one in the lower brackets:) It is just propaganda without much merit at this point...BR

bennerman
12-04-2010, 13:01
OH! The people that only work enough to make 3,000 dollars get a crapload of handouts, while the people who work their asses off to earn a decent wage get cut down to the lower-middle class?

Emeraldmug
12-04-2010, 15:10
I hope that wasn't directed to me beacuse my "higher paying job" isn't a "fat cat" position for example... not to mention it is something that requires years of educations and experience of which most people are unwilling to complete...

of course making more money is beneficial, but for someone like me the only personal benefit is setting aside money for my future children to go to school, and having a single pastime like scuba diving until they are born (which is more than I need and I am happy to have)... the other benefits inculde giving money to places I feel it will be well spent like my church and variours charity organizations that only use volunteers... and the point I was trying to make earlier is very simple...

If you give everything a person needs without any cost, that person will lose any ability and will to work for and earn that need because there is no reason and no cause. I have seen many friends from high school who found out as long as they made less than [blank] they wouldn't need to spend more than 20 hours a week doing anything they didn't want to because of all the "redistribution" aka socialisim of wealth that is basically taking from those who have worked their asses off to have what they have and giving it to those who, yes may not have had as good of an upbringing, but had just as much opportunity. In fact, being a while male I can say that if anything everyone else has a better chance of getting the opportunity; affirmative action.


if you want to start a discussion on how efficiently the government spends money all I have to say is I have neither the time nor the patience...

Emeraldmug
12-04-2010, 15:18
if people like our current president had their way over half of the entire earnings from a person who worked their ass off to better their family's standing would go to people who have been taught they don't have to work any harder to get what they need...

like i said before...

"If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day; If you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime."

It is not about giving freely to those who don't have, it is about bettering their ability to earn things for themselves; teaching work ethic, morals, and the ability to enjoy life without the material luxuries.

I don't have the answers to how to fixed the currently completely messed up socio-economic redistribution, but I do know for sure that giving things freely to people on a recurring basis does not lead to them having a better life in the long run...it leads to a generational belief that there is no need to work hard, but only the need to work as much as possible without losing your "benefits".


...EDIT...

sorry I might have just moved this thread to "Too Hot", but I had many friends who had familes who taught them that, "being a drug dealer is good money and then you can get government benefits while making good money since you dont have to pay taxes" etc. and I really hate it when people who don't know hwat they are talking about try to "help" those who don't have a clue why they are getting what they get for free

jans
12-04-2010, 15:58
OH! The people that only work enough to make 3,000 dollars get a crapload of handouts, while the people who work their asses off to earn a decent wage get cut down to the lower-middle class?

Right. I dont claim to know any of the answers but the welfare system (especially in Texas) needs a major overhaul.

BRsnow
12-04-2010, 16:49
It has nothing to do with the current or past administration, the government outside of 1998 has had deficit spending for ages. I was just pointing out that the original post was misleading and false...just an attempt to scare people with falsehoods...that was all...BR

Straegen
12-06-2010, 09:34
One of the interesting parts left off this chart is where the higher income brackets really take off in take home. Somewhere around 180k and up the take home starts getting really high by proportion to the middle class. Even more so if most of a big portion of a persons income falls into capital gains.

Emeraldmug
12-07-2010, 10:21
when you say by proportion to the middle class I am not sure what you mean since we have a progressive income tax system and the more you make the greater percentage you must pay not just the greater amount.

To speak to capital gains, I don't think there should be a tax on anything invested except for a deductible IRA, but that is only because you don't pay taxes on it in the first place... Capital gains is double taxation in my mind except for when the net earning from a capital gain is reinvested and then that investments payout is taxed, but even then don't we want to promote as a society people to invest there money even by angle investments so that it may stimulate our economy?

Straegen
12-07-2010, 10:56
Pretty much the only tax that will go up in a noticeable percentage is the federal income tax and that will go up about 5% crossing into 180k and only 2% more for crossing 400k. SS payroll taxes cap out which helps offset some of that. Many states have no income or a flat income tax (about 1/3). So the difference between the guy that makes 60k and brings home 35k as in the example above the same guy who makes 180k will walk home with around 105k not including deductions like maxing out a 401k which is something difficult at 60k. Plus the basic expenses are generally covered somewhere south of 50k net so anything over 50k net is usually a savings versus expense.

This doesn't count most people in the higher tax brackets who like me get a chunk of their earnings in stock or options. I have to hold what I get for a year, but I get (or at least got until next year) 15% versus the 35% I would pay now. Without CGT, many people who are flush with cash would simply elect to take the bulk of their salary in stock and/or options. Most of the multi-millionaires I know already do.

Problem for most in the middle class is they pay a disproportionate amount of non-disposable income versus taxes than lower or higher bracket tax payers.

Emeraldmug
12-07-2010, 16:27
I understand your argument Straegen, but disagree on principle.

I also disagree with the whole notion that is currently socially accepted for "basic expenses" in a very big way, but I won't get into that other than to say that no one needs 50 thousand dollars a year to live; people these days seem to feel entitled to a good number of luxuries they do not need, and seem to often confuse a want with a need.

This is, of course, only my opinion other than the comment on 50k.

Straegen
12-07-2010, 16:42
I also disagree with the whole notion that is currently socially accepted for "basic expenses" in a very big way, but I won't get into that other than to say that no one needs 50 thousand dollars a year to live; people these days seem to feel entitled to a good number of luxuries they do not need, and seem to often confuse a want with a need.Basic Expenses is more of an accounting consideration. Cash coming in is generally either allotted for an expense or an asset gain. On average money made by a typical american above 4k goes mostly towards capital gain in one way or another (principal on a larger house, 401k, direct savings, etc.). Below 4k, most households are spending virtually all of it in taxes or sunk expenses (needed or not). Hence most people don't start getting ahead until they are well above 50k per year or are very good savers. That number is just a general number and varies wildly based on location, age, etc but I am just talking generally. Again generally speaking a person making 100k compared to a person making 50k doesn't just save twice as much they likely save upwards of 10-20 times as much. Somewhere just north of 150k do we see people start leveling out saving/investing versus spending ratios.

Emeraldmug
12-08-2010, 14:44
all is sensical, and I dont doubt for a second the 10-20 times savings...

All I was really getting to was that I believe people, in general, think many luxury desires are needs; moreover, with a more conservative perspective anyone in our great country can move up the socio-economic status ladder and live a free, long life.

Of course, "anyone" includes people who don't have a long criminal record, certain disabilities, etcetera.

bigman241
12-08-2010, 18:36
I know a family with 6 kids, two cars one a near new cop car, a boat, motorcycle, nice house. They get 900 in food stamps, medicaid, most of the stuff you listed and the only "income out side of government programs is 700 in disability the dad gets"

Emeraldmug
12-08-2010, 21:05
I know a family with 6 kids, two cars one a near new cop car, a boat, motorcycle, nice house. They get 900 in food stamps, medicaid, most of the stuff you listed and the only "income out side of government programs is 700 in disability the dad gets"

did some serious incident happen at work to disable the father who happen to have a high paying job and was the sole provider? I am confused as to how something like that could occur, but I don't know much about the requirements for the huge array of handouts... probably should look into that abit more shouldn't I?

Straegen
12-09-2010, 10:24
I know a family with 6 kids, two cars one a near new cop car, a boat, motorcycle, nice house. They get 900 in food stamps, medicaid, most of the stuff you listed and the only "income out side of government programs is 700 in disability the dad gets"

How does he do it... see this video for a quick informative how to: YouTube - lendingtree commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5EP9StlVA)


All I was really getting to was that I believe people, in general, think many luxury desires are needs; moreover, with a more conservative perspective anyone in our great country can move up the socio-economic status ladder and live a free, long life.The vast majority of poor people in this country live very well by comparison to other developed nations. We do have some pretty scary trends happening though. By most measure our middle class compared to many nations are easily considered "rich".

Emeraldmug
12-10-2010, 16:40
definitely, about the lending tree commercial... I am happy that not just any random person off the street can open new lines of credit on a whim, then a few months later when they realize that paying off credit cards with other credit cards has put them in astronomical debt they cannot even possibly afford the interest on they default on everything and end up with nothing except for a bunch of government aid to supplement their irresponsibility

Although the only reason the new requirements are in place are because of these people, and personally if they weren't given any help other than loaned enough to keep them alive and were forced to pay off all they owe they wouldn't do this sort of thing... Survival of the fittest has been killed in our society :(