Middle Class Report

[zoney!]

Class warfare isn't necessary.

A quote from the wealthy!

 

[zoney!]

The government could help by implementing rules that forced businesses to run differently, but you never hear them say that because BOTH parties are funded by them and they are going to kiss their asses. As long as we are stuck with the 2 party system nothing is going to change.

Actually, one of Barack Obama's key campaign messages/goals (he is running for U.S. Senate for Illinois) is stopping tax credits/cuts for businesses that send jobs overseas. His campaign funding is not being hurt one bit by this message.

It is a simple step (not going to stop the division in class), but certainly one that can help foster job growth, and HOPEFULLY create a positive net gain in jobs.

Which, by the way, is something Bush hasn't seen in his four years. Are we going to blame that on former president's too?

 

[Salome]

Kerry is not going to change this
but as far as I can tell the recent administration favourite action is tax cuts (no wonder when you have polls rating how the president is doing every week for 4 years)

tax cuts definitely have their merrit up to some point
until some people have to live on such a piss poor income that having to pay 0.7% less on taxes won't help them anymore

here in the netherlands the current government is getting criticised over the way it's trying to change the way we think about our economy and social services structure because it's just outdated
this does not make them popular with their voters and they will probably pay for that in a couple of years time

it's about time the US got an administration who is willing to recognise that the problem can't be solved with tax cuts because of the way the economy has changed (outsourcing etc)
unpopular (esp unpopular with some of the companies who pour money into the campaign funds) methods will have to be taken to help those americans who will never get the jobs back that went to low wages countries no matter how well the economy might do

I think my point is that no matter who will be the president he should realise that 'recent' economic changes and changes in age demographics (the avarage age will just keep growing & growing) calls for a different government approach on economics and social security

 

[kobayashi]

And what is Kerry going to do to stop it? NOTHING just like everyone else.

kerry purports to be much more protectionist in his approach to free trade. if you believe this campaign 'promise', and i suspect you won't, a large part of this would involve ceasing the bidding down of labor costs to foreign nations hosting cheaper labor.

in contrast, bush, based on republican 'ideology' and track record, would approach free trade with a more open platform.

so, based on the verity of kerry's campaign statement, he does a course of action.

 

[BostonAnne]

And what is Kerry going to do to stop it? NOTHING just like everyone else. It's not a political thing, it's social and business trends. It's been going sour for over 25 years now, regardless of who's in office (though the 80's were more profitable times in many ways)

I don't disagree this is happening, I think it's worse than most of you believe. What I'm saying is acting like Kerry is going to wave a magic wand and make it go away is unrealistic. Regardless of who is elected in November, we working class dogs are fucked.

I agree that Kerry isn't going to be able to wave a magic wand and make it go away. He can, however, work to overturn the tax cut trend. Bush is setting this tax cut trend up and plans on continuing with it. It isn't working. I don't want a federal tax cut when my state budget is in crisis and my local town budget is in crisis. How can this make sense? I'm supposed to smile with my extra check as I watch my son's school schedule add on study halls in place of the extra's? I'm supposed to smile when I pay 3 times as much to enroll him in baseball, etc. than I used to? I'm supposed to be happy that I have the extra money so I can pay $250 of it back to my town for my son to get a bus ride? Next year it will be $500 when I have to pay for my daughter too. The same money is spent either way in the end for me. I'd rather have it come out of my pay check and budget my net pay accordingly than to continually get hit with large fees. Poorer people get LESS and richer people get MORE. These tax cuts are bogus.

If the Republican party continues to lead our country, we working class dogs are fucked. Please read the platforms. Bush wants to stimulate spending and cut taxes. Who has money to spend these days? Kerry & the Democratic platform wants to reverse Bush's tax cuts and apply the money differently to benefit the middle class. Seriously, read up on this stuff. If anyone has a sound argument as to how Bush's tax cuts benefit the middle class and poor - I would love to hear it. (One line comments of criticism won't cut it for me nbc.)

 

[nbcrusader]

The same arguments were raised during the Reagan administration and they proved to be false. Tax cuts are not an instant solution (as if there really is one). But they do strengthen the economy in the long run. It is easy to say “tax the wealthy” because they are not inherently a sympathetic group (but they have done nothing wrong except earn large salaries).

Regarding services you receive - I would examine the way your local governments spend their money before concluding that the tax cuts are the reason that fees are increased. Agencies have their own agendas and may not always be acting in your best interest. Besides, do you think funneling the money through the government is the most efficient means of paying for services? Sometimes it is more efficient to pay for services at the local level, instead of watching your tax dollar go through various agencies, levels of government and administrative infrastructure before getting to you.

I face many of the same struggles you do with paying for children's activities. Every fall, between fund-raisers and requests for direct support, we are asked to pay $$ to help education. Still, I prefer to write a check (when I can) to a classroom instead of having it taxed out of my paycheck and hope it trickles down in the right place.

 

[U2Kitten]

Well personally I like the tax cuts and I don't want them taken away. With 3 kids that means 1800 bucks to me and that sure helps a lot. I'm not looking forward to the high taxing of the democrats. I don't see what state and local budget problems have to do with anything. They are seperate funds and budgets. Mine happen to be in surplus, but even if they weren't the US gov't wouldn't be giving them anything unless it was some kind of road bill or something.

I'm really surprised to hear Kerry doesn't like free trade, it's a big liberal cause. I don't believe he'll do anything to stop the outsourcing because the big corporations like it and they have the lobbyists to get their way, the little guy doesn't.

 

[BostonAnne]

The same arguments were raised during the Reagan administration and they proved to be false. Tax cuts are not an instant solution (as if there really is one). But they do strengthen the economy in the long run. It is easy to say “tax the wealthy” because they are not inherently a sympathetic group (but they have done nothing wrong except earn large salaries).

Regarding services you receive - I would examine the way your local governments spend their money before concluding that the tax cuts are the reason that fees are increased. Agencies have their own agendas and may not always be acting in your best interest. Besides, do you think funneling the money through the government is the most efficient means of paying for services? Sometimes it is more efficient to pay for services at the local level, instead of watching your tax dollar go through various agencies, levels of government and administrative infrastructure before getting to you.

I face many of the same struggles you do with paying for children's activities. Every fall, between fund-raisers and requests for direct support, we are asked to pay $$ to help education. Still, I prefer to write a check (when I can) to a classroom instead of having it taxed out of my paycheck and hope it trickles down in the right place.

I wasn't a parent during the Reagan administration and my arguments are current and based on my personal experiences which I consider factual.

I'm not saying tax the wealthy. I just don't agree with cutting taxes that benefit the wealthy and expecting economy spending to pick up when most wealthy people already spend all that they want. If the total tax bill is shifted unfairly to the wealthy - then what is a fairer structure? It seems that basic needs should be met for all, then taxes should be cut.

You have a good point and I will look into the state and local budget spending. You also have a good point that the money being funneled through the government may not be the most efficient means of paying for services. I think that if it is structured right - it is the best way that all can be taken care of. Perhaps more time should be spent getting the structure right.

What about all of the communities that don't have the extra money for the fundraisers and extra support? Why should there be communities that don't have enough extra for their kids to have a standard education? If everything for your children's education was taken care of properly and you didn't have to struggle to write extra checks then you know it trickled down right. It should be a right guarenteed to all kids, not the ones with parents that can afford it.

 

[BostonAnne]

I'm really surprised to hear Kerry doesn't like free trade, it's a big liberal cause. I don't believe he'll do anything to stop the outsourcing because the big corporations like it and they have the lobbyists to get their way, the little guy doesn't.

I think you are thinking of fair trade as the big liberal cause.

It does seem like a contridiction though, and I've been thinking about it. Companies get taxed a certain way to have employees by paying employment taxes. By outsourcing, they avoid these taxes and make out. That makes it unfair to Americans because not only do the corporations save money on cheaper labor - they also loose tax revenue on the lost payroll taxes. If you outsource to Americans, corporations are supposed to file 1099's, which is a check and balance to make sure that the contract labor files and pays taxes. I doubt outside countries have to file tax returns if we use their services.

 

[U2Kitten]

Another big problem is illegal aliens who are payed about $2 an hour, like the ones at the infamous gas station. I've noticed them all over now, not just in big cities. From what I see they must all live together, they travel together in vans, over a dozen people stuffed in. That must be how they get by on such small salaries, they batch up in big groups and pool their money. Some people, like the gas station, won't even hire Americans anymore because they have to pay them minimum wage and turn them in on their taxes. I bet the illegals are also not turned in on the taxes, it only leaves a paper trail.

 

[Popmartijn]

Well personally I like the tax cuts and I don't want them taken away.

I think that if you're not making more than USD 200,000 you'll be probably safe that the cuts aren't rolled back.

 

[U2Kitten]

Even though the rich save a lot, everybody saves something. It depends on how much you make of course.

Another thing about the illegals being payed low is that they have no benefits, no future, and are basically slave labor in some cases. It's not even fair to them.

 

[Klaus]

U2Kitten

Besides the lovely tax-cuts everyone should remember that someone has to pack back the debts the current administration is creating (well i guess it will be the burden of our children)

 

[A_Wanderer]

How is the German economy coping with it's Baby Boomer retirement? I saw a segment on Deutsche Welle but I wasn't paying attention

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer

basically less social security since the goverment dosn't want to spend more money.
Also more presure on the unemployed people (also i think it's pretty useless because we don't have enough jobs for everyone)

 

[BostonAnne]

If we had a swelling surplus and social security was all set, I think it would be time for tax cuts. It doesn't make sense to me to cut taxes and build up debt.

 

[Angela Harlem]

If it's time to cut back on health, welfare, education, even the condition of your roads and things, then it's time to cut back on taxes.

 

[U2Kitten]

U2Kitten

Besides the lovely tax-cuts everyone should remember that someone has to pack back the debts the current administration is creating (well i guess it will be the burden of our children)

We are now suffering for the mistakes of our parents and grandparents. Our kids will suffer for their mistakes. That's the way it goes

Originally posted by BostonAnne
If we had a swelling surplus and social security was all set, I think it would be time for tax cuts. It doesn't make sense to me to cut taxes and build up debt.

But the money could be more wisely spent too. I'm tired of the ordinary citizen always being the one to suffer and make sacrifices while gaining nothing. (and I don't just mean 'this administration!') (damn I'm so sick of that phrase 'this administration' )

 

[BostonAnne]

But the money could be more wisely spent too. I'm tired of the ordinary citizen always being the one to suffer and make sacrifices while gaining nothing. (and I don't just mean 'this administration!') (damn I'm so sick of that phrase 'this administration' )

I wish the government would spend more time to spend it wisely. The 2 parties are so different in their foundations that they just spend time swinging one way to the other and chucking out each other's programs instead of working together to get it right. I'm so sick of it to.

 

[Scarletwine]

This is a true picture of what you really get for those tax cuts unless your wealthy

http://www.alternet.org/story/19951/
...
In fact, the problem is the opposite of what Bush asserts. It is that his tax cuts that are shifting more of the burden of taxes to middle-class and working-class households.

This is important because the Bush team is counting on buying millions of votes with their tax cuts. Most people know that the biggest chunk of the tax cut goes to the rich and the super rich: about a quarter of the 2001-2003 tax cuts went to just 1 percent of taxpayers. These are people with an average income of more than a million dollars a year.

But there are many people who think: who cares if they give away billions to rich people who don't need it, so long as I can get a few hundred dollars in the deal? But they are mistaken.

What they don't understand is that someone is going to have to pay those taxes that rich people are no longer paying. And that someone is them. The federal government under the Bush administration has done nothing to reduce spending, and in fact has vastly increased expenditures on the military and the war in Iraq. The result is a near record budget deficit – at 5 percent of GDP, it's the third largest in the post-World War II era.

 

[kobayashi]

We are now suffering for the mistakes of our parents and grandparents. Our kids will suffer for their mistakes. That's the way it goes

thats the kind of complacency a government loves

 

[U2Kitten]

thats the kind of complacency a government loves

What I'm saying is, why should we have to be the ones to suffer and have everything on our backs? I am already suffering and have a family to raise and I'm not looking forward to any more hardships so somebody 100 years from now can feel better, sorry.

Also- I do not believe and will never believe raising taxes is the answer to any money problems. Why? Because the more money the government has the more they'll find a way to waste it. It's like a person who gets a $500 bonus and do they put it on their credit cards? No! They go on a skiing trip! Somebody making $10 an hour will say, oh if I could only make $20 things would be fine! But when they do make that amount, they're still broke and think they need $30 an hour. Because the more you make, the more you spend. That's what usually happens to millions of Americans. Stats show the average US household is carrying 8-9,000 dollars in debt not including mortgage and car payments. The government is the most irresponsible of all, REGARDLESS OF PARTY IN POWER!!!!

The key to reducing the deficit MUST be, as it is in personal situations, spending less, putting more toward the balance, better money management! If that's not going to happen the deficit is not going down. The old democrat ploy of throwing money at everything doesn't work. If taxes are raised, spending will raise too. When there is available money there will be no reason to turn down lobbyists and pork barrel projects so they'll just spend it.

 

[kobayashi]

What I'm saying is, why should we have to be the ones to suffer and have everything on our backs? I am already suffering and have a family to raise and I'm not looking forward to any more hardships so somebody 100 years from now can feel better, sorry.

wow. thats really sad.

there are viable courses of action executed by modern western governments to create budget surpluses and begin to tackle deficits. controls on spending and sensible taxation can be achieved.

 

[U2Kitten]

wow. thats really sad.

there are viable courses of action executed by modern western governments to create budget surpluses and begin to tackle deficits. controls on spending and sensible taxation can be achieved.

It's 'sad' that I do care more about how I'm going to raise my kids NOW, pay my bills NOW and put them through college later than I am about what's going to happen in 100 years? The world may not even last that long. We have to live now.

Read the rest of my post, all the stuff you deleted. That's why lowering deficits through more taxation will NEVER work

 

[kobayashi]

Read the rest of
stuff you deleted. That's
why
lowering deficits
taxation will NEVER work

And yes, I do care
happen in 100 years. The world
even last that
to live now.

thank you U2kitten. i read the rest of your post the first time. i didnt know that me including it in my reply was necessary to indicate i had read it. to prove my point, i have deleted random parts of your post.

i do disagree with your post, however.

a rise in taxes does not have to equal a rise in spending. to assume so is ignorant.
i am not saying the democrats are the panacea to your problem. i am not saying george bush is worse. but the present course is, to say the least, unwise.

 

[U2Kitten]

a rise in taxes does not have to equal a rise in spending. to assume so is ignorant.

To assume it won't is ignorant, because it has happened every time. While may not 'have' to, it does, just as I explained. That's why it doesn't work, it never has, it's never going to, and I strongly disagree with the ideology that it's the best thing because it only hurts average people more and helps no one.

 

[Popmartijn]

It's 'sad' that I do care more about how I'm going to raise my kids NOW, pay my bills NOW and put them through college later than I am about what's going to happen in 100 years? The world may not even last that long. We have to live now.

And how about 15 to 20 years for now (or even 5 to 10 if you think that's already too far into the future)? Would you rather have $500 a year extra now so that you have to pay $10,000 more for your kid's college in the future or is that a problem for another generation? Is the draining of resources now, so you have an extra $1500 this year and the next, worth a healthcare system that is out of control in 20 years?

You are right when you say that a key to a better budget is better money management. But this includes not giving away an irresponsible tax cut. When you want a better budget by spending less, you should not simultaneously decrease your income, because that will not improve your situation.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Popmartijn]

Also- I do not believe and will never believe raising taxes is the answer to any money problems. Why? Because the more money the government has the more they'll find a way to waste it. It's like a person who gets a $500 bonus and do they put it on their credit cards? No!They go on a skiing trip!

And putting it on a credit card is not 'wasting it'?

And while it is true that a government will spend more if it has more to spend, I won't call it 'wasting' money either. If they can pay off debts by having more money, if they can invest in education and healthcare, safety, etc. then I do consider that money well spent.
Does this mean the government does not waste money? No, of course they do. There will always be badly invested projects. But should this be a reason to eliminate all investment? I think not, just as companies keep investing, even though there may be a few bad investments. You can always keep someone responsible if an investment is too irresponsible (200 billion for a war, that could've been spent by giving every American decent access to healthcare, anyone?) by voting him or her away.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Liesje]

I would rather pay slightly higher taxes now so that in 65 years I won't have to worry as much about how I'm going to buy food, medication, and where I'm going to live. I'm mostly concerned about health care and social security in the future. I'd rather deal with all the shitty stuff right away when I'm young and more resilient!

Tax cuts are really the one thing I can't really figure out. And I'm pretty much a Republican so it find it rather troublesome.

 

[nbcrusader]

Remember all the doomsday talk about the deficits from the Reagan administration. A solid economic base was built so that by the Clinton administration, no one worried about deficits.

A solid economy is far more important that marginal tax rates.