<p>I totally agree with you. I don’t have cable, I did not have a cell phone for a long time (I am on a family plan now that cost zero dollars, the main reason why I have one). I am afraid people are not saving enough, it seems everyone is concerned about having the latest toys (I don’t have an Ipod either, there is nothing wrong with listening to FM) </p>
<p>The less government involvement the better. The current government is too big to be efficient.</p>
<p>qwilde, actually this particular forum is for the parent’s so I think we’re ok to have our discussion. If there is no chance that your opinion can be changed on a subject then you are completely close-minded and I feel really sorry for you. There is no arrogance here on my part. Just the opportunity to have a healthy debate and expand my mind. People say things all the time that cause me to rethink my positions and question my stance. I try not to let my cynicism stand in the way of listening to others…whether I agree or disagree is another issue.</p>
Are you kidding? Not everyone benefits from the economy growing. Have people with a high school education benefited at all from the economic growth since 2000? Please tell me you don’t think that everyone can/should be educated to a college level.</p>
<p>Well who’s the cynic? You seem to be cynical of cynicism itself (sort of like the fallacy “I never lie”). It’s true that your stance on particular issues may be swayed to the slight degree. No one, however, truly reforms. People are who they are; prejudices and all. And you seem to pity me because I’m not you. That seems a little vain.</p>
<p>I, for one, don’t have a college education (would I like to yes, but that’s another issue entirely). I can say that if everyone were educated to a college level then your next Big Mac would cost $12.00. My belief is a bachelor’s degree is the new high school diploma. We will always, as a society, have a need for those who choose a trade over colleger or just don’t want to continue their education. Not everyone can make $60 or $80k a year. If they did then you would just have to make that much more to not be in the bottom rung. </p>
<p>I have benefited from the economy, btw. My wife has been able to keep her job and keep us with stable health benefits and my current job with a smaller company might not be there if the economy hadn’t been so strong in years past.</p>
<p>qwilde, I pity you because you don’t seem to be able to grasp what we are doing here. Nothing is being solved nor will it ever be in a forum board. We are having a lively discussion where people get to voice their thoughts on the topic at hand. I’m sure if we were discussing how to stop global warming (wait, I haven’t heard that one in a while) or some other topic that you were passionate about you wouldn’t be so cynical about the whole thing. Just because you don’t agree with the majority of what is being said doesn’t mean the conversation is meaningless.</p>
<p>"I, for one, don’t have a college education (would I like to yes, but that’s another issue entirely). I can say that if everyone were educated to a college level then your next Big Mac would cost $12.00. My belief is a bachelor’s degree is the new high school diploma. We will always, as a society, have a need for those who choose a trade over colleger or just don’t want to continue their education. Not everyone can make $60 or $80k a year. If they did then you would just have to make that much more to not be in the bottom rung. "</p>
<p>There’s a distinct difference between utilitarian equality, and ensuring that every member receives the necessities of modern life i.e. shelter, medical care, food, etc. We should strive to reach the point in society in which people are no longer homeless or severely destitute. In which class distinction is merely defined by whether you drive a toyota or a Porsche.</p>
<p>The article says that real wages for the middle class have risen less than real wages for the upper class, but what about the tax burden? After tax real wage is a better measure than just real wages. </p>
<p>If the wages of the upper income bracket are also taxed more than the middle class bracket, then there wont be a huge disparity between the real tax adjusted income growth rate between the upper class and the middle class.</p>
<p>I think everyone agrees utopia would be wonderful. Fact of the matter is there will always be a segment of any society that is at the low end. It will never be as nice and pretty as you would like it to be. </p>
<p>I don’t think anyone wants anyone else to be homeless, hungry or any other such hardship but it will always be a reality. Wishing it wouldn’t be like that is unrealistic.</p>
<p>There is no need for homeless. It’s a matter that can be easily resolved…most people are just too apathetic. And I’m sure as you think homeless is unavoidable now people thought slavery was unavoidable centuries ago. Social situations change and so do people’s convictions.</p>
<p>Pragmatic isn’t the same as cynicism. To equate slavery and homelessness (sp?) shows how out of touch with reality you really are. There truly are people out there simply too lazy get off their duff, get a job and get a place to live. It’s easier to sleep in a shelter than be responsible. I don’t think it is a big percentage but those people exist and always will.</p>
<p>guys, guys, guys. <sigh> So much emotion, so many phony accusations, so many assumptions based on simply false premises. Where to begin…</sigh></p>
<p>pmrlcomm - obviously you’ve never been self-employed. It’s an easy way to learn that the person doing the work earns all of the FICA, not just 1/2. The way it is calculated doesn’t change that. Think you’re employer would pay into FICA if you didn’t work? And that means… C’mon - the dots are really close together here. You can connect them.</p>
<p>Madville - that’s it - tax “the man behind the tree” - oh, wait, that might be you.</p>
<p>Is it really that hard to understand that the total amount of money raised through taxes has to end up the same? That cutting rich people’s taxes means either (1) taxing the middle class more (the poor have no money, so the blood/turnip principle prevents that option) or (2) run a deficit and take the money from our children. Reagan/Bush/Bush chose option 2. Go look agt the budget document I linked to - don’t take my word for it - don’t take anyone’s word for it. Read the data yourself.</p>
<p>There’s no “Oh, poor, poor rich people. It’s unfair the they pay so much! Let’s cut their taxes.” Withour - hey, let’s tax the teacher, the nurse, the EMT, the gardener, etc., more. When you ooze with sympathy about the poor, poor rich folks paying 24% of their income in federal income tax, you turn you back on everyone else. Because there’s no free lunch. Look at the federal budget figures as a percentage of the GDP. It doesn’t really change. (Higher under Republicans, lower under Democrats, but not by much.) So if the rich pay less, the middle class pays more. or our kids pay more. Our both. There’s no real world alternative.</p>
<p>“There is no need for homeless. It’s a matter that can be easily resolved…most people are just too apathetic. And I’m sure as you think homeless is unavoidable now people thought slavery was unavoidable centuries ago. Social situations change and so do people’s convictions.”</p>
<p>What if someone wants to be homeless?</p>
<p>Easily resolved? The best solution that I’ve seen with regard to homelessness is Singapore’s system but it relies on the greed of most to provide housing for those that can’t afford it. And they have to deal with people that cheat or use the system to profit in ways in which the system isn’t used for.</p>
<p>No, I was simply comparing social situations and how the convictions for the necessity of one of the insitutions is a by-product of a bygone era and how the other one should be soon. I wasn’t accusing you of supporting slavery, but again thanks for the ad hominem. It shows how you have to resort to logical fallacies instead of forming coherent arguments. You’ll actually find that most of the homeless are veterans. I live in not only the capital of the U.S. but the capital of homelessness. There are hardly any shelters. People sleep in the parks when it is below zero during the winter. When I’m walking to and from classes I’m quite often worried that the guy on the bench is actually dead. I really doubt that these people bear atrocious weather conditions year in and year out simply due to laziness.</p>
<p>Actually I have been self-employed and do understand how it is paid. Of course they aren’t going to pay it if an employee doesn’t exist. Businesses are charities. When you talk about taxes deducted from a paycheck it is 7.5%. The other 7.5% is paid by the employer on behalf of the employee. Do you think if it suddenly went away the employer would give their employees a 7.5% raise? No way! The same with unemployment insurance or any other expense the company has on behalf of an employee.</p>
<p>You pick and choose what you want to read, once again. I clearly stated that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole thing about slavery is simply the fact that the slaves were being forcibly held against their will by another human being. No one is forcing someone to be homeless…no matter how much you want to villify the wealthy.</p>