Porforis opined: Partially agree. If this is a government fund to help the fatherless, motherless kids, and destitute in retirement. I agree. But if I have 10mm in trust fund, and have put $50k into the system, I shouldn't receive $2k/month for as long as I live after i reach 65. Its moronic. It can't mathematically function. And it is not fair to ask me or you to pay for such a person.
Even if you don't do that, it won't mathematically function simply because of people paying in versus paying out. 1%ers collecting social security are a drop in the bucket compared to sheer money in versus out.
When I compare current rent of the place I rented, assuming it has been maintained, it is actually less, as percentage of income relative to the starting salaries of kids coming out of undergraduate programs with business degrees.
That's a pretty weird way of comparing the two. Where are you getting the figures for average starting salaries for people coming out of undergrad programs with business degrees, and how is that average salary determined? First job in-field after graduation? First job after graduation? Best job after 2 years? Not so much doubting you as wanting to define what exactly you're saying as it could mean a lot of different things.
Further, when I look at how technology has improved the overall economy, from transportation to entertainment, it is hard for me to agree that people have a lower standard of living.
People really aren't arguing that they have it shitty as far as transportation or entertainment goes. On the technology angle, when you (I'm assuming, no clue how old you are but I'm 32) and I were getting out of college, internet and a cellphone were not basically mandatory things you needed if you wanted to function in the world and apply for jobs. You're going to get weird looks if you don't list a cell number. Higher standard of living, but also higher expenses to reach that standard of living.
- Why do you think retail is dying? A primary reason is crappy service. Your experience with Michaels, my wife experience yesterday at a bank...business owners get what they pay for. In your example of Michael, ownership pays through the ass for a lease, invests in inventory and then scrimps on labor. Customers get dissatisfied and buy on Amazon.
I don't really buy that. Some retail chains and food service joints invested heavily decades ago to buy up property (and actually have made a ton of money off of leasing properties themselves) and don't have magically better employees just because they own the property and aren't shelling out tons more over the long term on leases. Companies will always skimp on labor when they have the option and will pay the bare minimum. In low skill jobs with high turnover, that will be "always". Alas, employees that aren't paid much of anything.
But that their issue, not my issue. Nor should the government involved. Contrast that with the service you get at Chic-fil-a (sp?) Let's stay off the religious aspect....They pay minimum wage, but have college tuition help, meals, and other benefits. The give raises for good performance, etc. But if an employee has a crappy attitude, they are gone..
Also, let's be intellectually honest about who is paying. When anyone says "the goverment should pay" that should mean to all of us "YOU SHOULD PAY" (unless of course, you don't or don't play to pay taxes which is what people who have already made their money can do) I find it offensive and confiscatory when the answer to every societal problem is to tax the person who wants to get rich at a rate higher than everyone else pays.
Nobody's suggesting to tax the people that want to get rich at a higher rate than everyone else pays. People suggest you make the people that already have long term wealth solidified pay more in taxes.
If I work hard, take changes and make money, then I should enjoy the fruits of my labor. The federal government, other than the powers enumerated in the Constitution, should not ask me to pay a higher percentage of what I earn than anybody else.
You're entitled to your opinion but I don't understand why these are mutually exclusive things. I also think you're somewhat conflating the marginal tax rate with effective tax rate. When I was starting out making $5.40 an hour at minimum wage, I had a negative effective tax rate. When I had gotten myself locked in at my first semi-professional big boy job and making $12/hour, I had a very low effective tax rate. After working my way up, making some professional connections, working my ass off some more and making $25/hour at my next job, I had a higher effective tax rate. One my wife started her own business and I started renting out our house, we're making more money however our effective rate is lower because of the additional deductions we have now. All of these things seem sane for me.
For a corporation paying their employees an average income of $40,000, somehow I don't think it's crazy to expect that corporation to pay a little bit more of an effective tax rate than their average employee. Then again, you seem to be not a fan of progressive tax which... Not sure what to say about that on an economic level. You're an extreme outlier, and even the vast majority of conservatives acknowledge this is necessary.
Now if I choose to live in a state that want to pay for everyone education, healthcare, cars, food, phone, and living quarters.....and I choose to have my ass taxed off by living there....great.
Hey, there's something we can agree on. Unfortunately state rights conservatives don't seem to exist anymore and both parties seem obsessed with consolidating power at the federal level.