ForumGarden

Let’s say you had ten friends, one friend graduated college, works for a big company and makes a lot of money.

Another went to college and started his own business and is doing very well.

A third went to vocational school and is a skilled craftsman in an industry in high demand and makes an above average salary.

On average these three pay 24% of their income in federal income taxes.

Of the seven remaining friends, five graduated high school and drifted into various jobs, one is an assembly line worker, one a machine operator, one a bookkeeper, one a call center representative, etc. On average they earn slightly less than $40,000 a year and pay about 12% of their income in taxes.

Two of the friends dropped out of high school and have menial jobs; one is a school janitor and the other a mason’s helper. Their average pay is less than $25,000 and they pay no federal taxes.

Seven of these people are not happy and to some extent envious of the other three. Over time the gap in earnings between the seven and the three has widened and that is not a good thing.

To solve the growing problem you must (1) find money to do something and (2) figure out the best thing to do for the long term.

You can raise income taxes on the three and give the money to the other seven.

Or, you reduce expenses and use the money saved to provide training, additional education and career assistance to the seven so that long term they will have better skills and can take advantage of new opportunities.



There is an old saying; “Give a starving man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Senator Obama seems to favor passing out fish taken from someone else’s pond. I am aware of only one person who was able to take a very limited number of fish and divide them among the masses, but even that was for only one meal.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;971660 wrote: Let’s say you had ten friends, one friend graduated college, works for a big company and makes a lot of money.

Another went to college and started his own business and is doing very well.

A third went to vocational school and is a skilled craftsman in an industry in high demand and makes an above average salary.

On average these three pay 24% of their income in federal income taxes.

Of the seven remaining friends, five graduated high school and drifted into various jobs, one is an assembly line worker, one a machine operator, one a bookkeeper, one a call center representative, etc. On average they earn slightly less than $40,000 a year and pay about 12% of their income in taxes.

Two of the friends dropped out of high school and have menial jobs; one is a school janitor and the other a mason’s helper. Their average pay is less than $25,000 and they pay no federal taxes.

Seven of these people are not happy and to some extent envious of the other three. Over time the gap in earnings between the seven and the three has widened and that is not a good thing.

To solve the growing problem you must (1) find money to do something and (2) figure out the best thing to do for the long term.

You can raise income taxes on the three and give the money to the other seven.

Or, you reduce expenses and use the money saved to provide training, additional education and career assistance to the seven so that long term they will have better skills and can take advantage of new opportunities.



There is an old saying; “Give a starving man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Senator Obama seems to favor passing out fish taken from someone else’s pond. I am aware of only one person who was able to take a very limited number of fish and divide them among the masses, but even that was for only one meal.


Is this not a very limited view of taxation - what would be the total tax paid by each if you include all direct and indirect taxes?

It's also a very simplistic view of the possible "solutions". In real life it is not an either / or situation - there are lots of alternatives in between.

Bryn Mawr;971671 wrote: Is this not a very limited view of taxation - what would be the total tax paid by each if you include all direct and indirect taxes?

It's also a very simplistic view of the possible "solutions". In real life it is not an either / or situation - there are lots of alternatives in between.


It is indeed a limited view of taxation, the higher paid people pay a great deal more than stated in both other federal and state taxes.

The point is the philosophical approach being esposed by the liberal politicians where the solution is never to reduce costs, but to always add more taxes and to seek to lower those who have achieved as opposed to raising those who have a way to go.

This is presented as being a caring and humane person helping the poor and the working class, but in reality quick fixes and handouts do people a disservice and years of doing that and billions of dollars spent have not changed the fundamental problems that plague the poor. How can a tax rebate or a credit help when in urban areas as many as 70% of students drop out of high school, or have no father in the home or are pushed into jobs that are a dead end?

How does a father help a son by bringing him into a job he has done for 30 years but in an industry that is dying?

In my view the job of each generation is to raise the next up just a bit and that starts with each family. My grandfather didn't graduate high school, neither of my parents went to college, I had to go to college for nine years at night, but I made sure each of my four children went to the best college they could get in and that meant I depleted all my assets and mortgaged my house and ten years after the youngest of four graduated I am still paying off over $100,000 in loans, but to me that is my responsibility as a parent and as the developer of my little segment of the next generation. Because I have been fortunate in my life, I am in a position to help fund college for my grandchildren and I will try and do that as long as I can. Many would say that is not my responsibility, strictly speaking perhaps not, I see it differently.

I also contribute (not as much as I should) to a private school that gives urban minority kids a good education and then gets 90% of them a scholarship to a private high school. At least that provides a chance to break the cycle.

There are better ways than government simply throwing money at a problem with no accountability.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;971714 wrote: It is indeed a limited view of taxation, the higher paid people pay a great deal more than stated in both other federal and state taxes.



The point is the philosophical approach being esposed by the liberal politicians where the solution is never to reduce costs, but to always add more taxes and to seek to lower those who have achieved as opposed to raising those who have a way to go.



This is presented as being a caring and humane person helping the poor and the working class, but in reality quick fixes and handouts do people a disservice and years of doing that and billions of dollars spent have not changed the fundamental problems that plague the poor. How can a tax rebate or a credit help when in urban areas as many as 70% of students drop out of high school, or have no father in the home or are pushed into jobs that are a dead end?



How does a father help a son by bringing him into a job he has done for 30 years but in an industry that is dying?



In my view the job of each generation is to raise the next up just a bit and that starts with each family. My grandfather didn't graduate high school, neither of my parents went to college, I had to go to college for nine years at night, but I made sure each of my four children went to the best college they could get in and that meant I depleted all my assets and mortgaged my house and ten years after the youngest of four graduated I am still paying off over $100,000 in loans, but to me that is my responsibility as a parent and as the developer of my little segment of the next generation. Because I have been fortunate in my life, I am in a position to help fund college for my grandchildren and I will try and do that as long as I can. Many would say that is not my responsibility, strictly speaking perhaps not, I see it differently.



I also contribute (not as much as I should) to a private school that gives urban minority kids a good education and then gets 90% of them a scholarship to a private high school. At least that provides a chance to break the cycle.



There are better ways than government simply throwing money at a problem with no accountability.




YOu are a good man Lon. You humble yourself..you dedicated yourself to improve yourself and then helped your kids do the same..either by the way you raised them or dna..but if your kids hadnt wanted to improve themselves nothing you did would have helped. I applaud you in many ways here..good going Dad!!!:-6

On average these three pay 24% of their income in federal income taxes.


You don't say what an above average salary is but assuming $100,000 that still lavs them with $76,000.

On average they earn slightly less than $40,000 a year and pay about 12% of their income in taxes.




Assuming £40,000 that still leaves £35,200.

Two of the friends dropped out of high school and have menial jobs; one is a school janitor and the other a mason’s helper. Their average pay is less than $25,000 and they pay no federal taxes.


so they have $25,000.

Statistics are wonderful, the one on above average is 304% better off than the one on $25,000 and the one on $40,000 is only 140% better off.

You don't mention state taxes and any indirect taxation but that presumably makes things even harder. If you're stuck in the mud of the pond is quite hartd to lift yourself out.

The average man in america has less than two legs which is an accurate statistic. Do you actually now know more about the need for prosthetics in the american male population?

posted by quinns commentary

There is an old saying; “Give a starving man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Senator Obama seems to favor passing out fish taken from someone else’s pond. I am aware of only one person who was able to take a very limited number of fish and divide them among the masses, but even that was for only one meal.


It's a spurious argument IMO. You are all in the same pond not different ones. Do you allow the more successful fisherman to take more and more of what is available and deprive others or do you make them take less, share out more and allow more fish to breed and/or work out ways to increase the pond?

To use an analogy from an older time. If a factory owner makes profit on the work of his employees is it not in his best interest to share the wealth (pay more) so his workers have free money to buy more goods from him and other factory owners to generate more profit which allows higher wages to buy more goods etc etc. Simplistic I know but one of the reasons Britain became such a powerhouse and started the industrial revolution was that kind of thinking, access to education, and the development of an industrial working class with money to spend. It goes badly wrong when you stop investing and just take the profit for the rich to get richer.

Greed isn't good it's actually an economic dead end.

posted by quinns commentary

The point is the philosophical approach being esposed by the liberal politicians where the solution is never to reduce costs, but to always add more taxes and to seek to lower those who have achieved as opposed to raising those who have a way to go.

This is presented as being a caring and humane person helping the poor and the working class, but in reality quick fixes and handouts do people a disservice and years of doing that and billions of dollars spent have not changed the fundamental problems that plague the poor. How can a tax rebate or a credit help when in urban areas as many as 70% of students drop out of high school, or have no father in the home or are pushed into jobs that are a dead end?




Haven't a clue what those you call liberal politicians in the US are proposing but it's what you do with it that matters. In the UK quite a lot was spent in regional development funds to help areas where traditional industries had died out redevelopment. The benefits are being reaped now. I live in an area where unemployment has dropped from double figures to under 2% and a diversity of industry that means a draught in one sector isn't a wholesale catastrophe.

It's an ongoing debate with no final solution. It's like anything else in life-you try something that doesn't work the way you wanted so you adapt and change what you are doing. This good that bad doesn't work, This goos that's a good idea let's try that is much better

America seems to trying to decide if it should bother or not. You're at the bottom of the pond it's not my problem or my concern seems to be the general attitude. Our attitude is more we are at the bottom of the pond and you will do what you are told to help out.

You might find this of interest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6547021.stm

Speaking at the launch, Mr Salmond said only the top 10% of earners would pay more under their system.




Different ponds, same problem, different attitudes. You'd hate it here as, by your lights, I suspect we're all a bunch of left wing loonies.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;971660 wrote: Let’s say you had ten friends, one friend graduated college, works for a big company and makes a lot of money.



Another went to college and started his own business and is doing very well.



A third went to vocational school and is a skilled craftsman in an industry in high demand and makes an above average salary.



On average these three pay 24% of their income in federal income taxes.



Of the seven remaining friends, five graduated high school and drifted into various jobs, one is an assembly line worker, one a machine operator, one a bookkeeper, one a call center representative, etc. On average they earn slightly less than $40,000 a year and pay about 12% of their income in taxes.



Two of the friends dropped out of high school and have menial jobs; one is a school janitor and the other a mason’s helper. Their average pay is less than $25,000 and they pay no federal taxes.



Seven of these people are not happy and to some extent envious of the other three. Over time the gap in earnings between the seven and the three has widened and that is not a good thing.



To solve the growing problem you must (1) find money to do something and (2) figure out the best thing to do for the long term.



You can raise income taxes on the three and give the money to the other seven.



Or, you reduce expenses and use the money saved to provide training, additional education and career assistance to the seven so that long term they will have better skills and can take advantage of new opportunities.







There is an old saying; “Give a starving man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.



Senator Obama seems to favor passing out fish taken from someone else’s pond. I am aware of only one person who was able to take a very limited number of fish and divide them among the masses, but even that was for only one meal.
Which seven are envious? and, no, it is not self-evident.

The widened gap not a good thing, but why is it a bad thing, as you imply?

Accountable;972089 wrote: Which seven are envious? and, no, it is not self-evident.

The widened gap not a good thing, but why is it a bad thing, as you imply?


Sorry, I must have been thinking in a liberal mode to assume it was obvoous that the seven less educated and lower income were envious, I have to stop reading the New York Times.

A wide gap is a bad thing because a society needs a large and stable and satisfied middle class to survive especially in a democracy. The US is no where near the extreme in any case.

I think finding an American who is actually jealous of financially successful people is more difficult than politicians want us to believe. I've met a couple but they're very rare. I think most politically active people who believe gov't is the solution life's problems aren't including themselves when they think of "the needy".



Generally, I've found that those people don't stop to think that their rhetoric doesn't match up to their solutions. At the same time they talk about equality they practice bigotry. They divide humans into convenient categories (color-coding is quick and easy), then pick one and say that this entire group of people (equal to everyone else, mind you) are unable to take care of themselves and need special assistance to make them equal, paid for in part by people who started in the exact same situation and somehow found a way to make a good living.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;974279 wrote: Sorry, I must have been thinking in a liberal mode to assume it was obvoous that the seven less educated and lower income were envious, I have to stop reading the New York Times.

A wide gap is a bad thing because a society needs a large and stable and satisfied middle class to survive especially in a democracy. The US is no where near the extreme in any case.


No you're thinking in right wing conservative mode assuming that success in life is measured purely in financial terms. It's one measure but not the most important t most people. The guys with menial jobs go to work and then go home leaving their work behind them to do something more enjoyable -a lot of executives putting in 70 hour weeks worried sick about the next appraisal are probably quite envious.

It's the grass is greener syndrome. The guy in the apartment looks to the house next door & says "I wish I had a lawn to mow." That neighbor looks at the bigger house next door and says "I wish I had a bigger yard." The last neighbor sits in his corner office and says "I wish I had time to mow my own yard."

gmc;976597 wrote: No you're thinking in right wing conservative mode assuming that success in life is measured purely in financial terms. It's one measure but not the most important t most people. The guys with menial jobs go to work and then go home leaving their work behind them to do something more enjoyable -a lot of executives putting in 70 hour weeks worried sick about the next appraisal are probably quite envious.


Very interesting, but please I am conservative, but not right wing.

And if you ever believe anything about me, it is that I fully understnad that money is not the most important thing in life or the measure of success or happiness.

You are correct about the folks who do a days work and go home each day and leave their work behind, but that does not prevent them from also seeking more or being envious of those who have more in material terms. The consumer buying is what keep the economy humming and the majority of consumers are not wealthy executives. And there must be some truth to my view as the politicians play it for all it is worth.

By the way I am one of those executives putting in 70 hours a week, or at least I was until July when I started a phased retirement program.

guppy;971867 wrote: YOu are a good man Lon. You humble yourself..you dedicated yourself to improve yourself and then helped your kids do the same..either by the way you raised them or dna..but if your kids hadnt wanted to improve themselves nothing you did would have helped. I applaud you in many ways here..good going Dad!!!:-6


Is there a "Post of the Month" award here, or something like that......? Any awards..?

This post should defenately get that award......!!!!

Very good post...! no "thumbs up" smilie either.... Yikes....

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;976768 wrote: Very interesting, but please I am conservative, but not right wing.

And if you ever believe anything about me, it is that I fully understnad that money is not the most important thing in life or the measure of success or happiness.

You are correct about the folks who do a days work and go home each day and leave their work behind, but that does not prevent them from also seeking more or being envious of those who have more in material terms. The consumer buying is what keep the economy humming and the majority of consumers are not wealthy executives. And there must be some truth to my view as the politicians play it for all it is worth.

By the way I am one of those executives putting in 70 hours a week, or at least I was until July when I started a phased retirement program.


No offence meant. In a UK context you come out with what would be seen as some very right wing views, probably in an american context i would be loony left.

but that does not prevent them from also seeking more or being envious of those who have more in material terms.


Envious of what they might have perhaps but not necessarily of their life style. Plenty of people feel trapped in high pressure jobs they hate but think they need for the material things and don't have what it takes to step out. Try asking all the self employed people you know why they are self employed. Bet you nine times out of ten lifestyle choices will be among the first reasons with making money not one of the main reasons. With a lot it's a mid life career change or a mid career life change. You get sucked in to this idea you need to get on and be a success and then day you stand back and think-stuff this I'm doing something else.

True we live in a consumer society but things are never that simple are they?