More than 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Here's what researchers say is to blame.

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Again, that demands a definition. Some folks own property worth millions but are not rich.

Own (free & clear) or simply have.

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Own (free & clear) or simply have.

Paid off - free and clear. 

[Mike Teavee]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I think we paid more than enough already.  25-35+% (that's just fed tax) of our income, and the bottom half, pay 15-0%

 

You don't have enough money, try earning more.

 

Because ... Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

 

"The top 10 percent of earners paid 74 percent of all income taxes and the top 25 percent paid 89 percent. Altogether, the top fifty percent of filers earned 89 percent of all income and were responsible for 97.7 percent of all income taxes paid in 2020."

source

Whenever I hear people say “Tax the Rich more” I’m reminded of the 10 men in a bar story… 

 

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. 

 

They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got $1 out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!“

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a $1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

 

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In the fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

[KhunLA]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

How many ways do I have to say this? When interest rates were low, a 30 year mortgage made a lot of sense. Now? I'm not sure that it is even better than renting. Depends on where one lives.

You can say as many times as you like, doesn't make it true.  You obviously didn't look at what I posted,   As you rarely do with your repetitive tunnel vision replies.

 

Have a nice day.

[Danderman123]

31 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Again, that demands a definition. Some folks own property worth millions but are not rich.

I own millions in stock, but no have baht.

[Henryford]

12 hours ago, candide said:

Some may. However, the main problem is the increasing share of not controllable expenses: housing, utilities, transportation, insurance, etc... plenty of people don't have much left to spend after  paying these incompressible expenses.

You can control most of those expenses if you want. Smaller house/different area, smaller/older car, less coverage. People have choices especially on $100,000.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Whenever I hear people say “Tax the Rich more” I’m reminded of the 10 men in a bar story… 

 

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. 

 

They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got $1 out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!“

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a $1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

 

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In the fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Nice parable, written by some lackey for a rich guy.

 

Let me respond with a true story:

 

During the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

 

That's when we built the Interstate Highway System.

 

That's when we had balanced budgets.

 

That's when Americans could own homes.

 

That's when working wives were a rarity.

 

True story, bro.

 

[EVENKEEL]

I understand life is harder than it used to be But........ Unwillingness to relocate to where the jobs are and pay more is one of my pet peeves. Guys would rather be poor close to home than to venture out and take a chance.

 

I have family like that, lived month to month, rented all their lives, no money saved and now they're old with only SS to live on.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You can say as many times as you like, doesn't make it true.  You obviously didn't look at what I posted,   As you rarely do with your repetitive tunnel vision replies.

 

Have a nice day.

Thanks once again for providing no rational reasoned analysis but just an assertion. You've got nothing.

[Srikcir]

COVID 19 pandemic contributed, 53% say they weren't living paycheck to paycheck beforehand. 

https://www.bankrate.com

Other factors: large families, additional care for elderly family members (ie., lack of adequate healthcare, high cost of medicine), living in areas of high cost of living,  income not keeping pace with inflation, industry downturns, irresponsible credit card practices. 

Gender disparities with women earning less than men.

42% Bridge millennials/millenials who aren't saving, have no existing savings vs 14% Baby boomers/seniors.

There are political affects, particularly by so-called conservatives. Trump removed state income tax deductions from federal taxes, Reagan eliminated many job-related and healthcare federal tax deductions.

I suspect also political corruption as well wherein wealthy personal and corporate election donors get enriching legislation not available to the average wage earner. Examples:

• "How Big Corporations Scored Coronavirus Relief Funds and Small Businesses Lost Out" - July 8, 2020  https://sanantonioreport.org

and

• "Corporations that Received Billions During the Pandemic Cut Thousands of Jobs and gave CEOs Millions" - April 2021  https://citizen.org/news

 

 

 

 

[Isaan sailor]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Millionaires.

Most of us are millionaires here in Thailand—Baht millionaires.  And that helps with the ladies, too.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Whenever I hear people say “Tax the Rich more” I’m reminded of the 10 men in a bar story… 

 

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. 

 

They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got $1 out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!“

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a $1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

 

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In the fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Actually, it's not a parable but a fairy tale that governs right wing thinking on taxation. It goes like this:

If you lower taxes,  the economy will grow faster so even though taxes are lower, there will be more to tax. So the tax cuts will pay for themselves. That's what Reagan, Bush, and Trump all claimed. And every time it turned out to be massively false. The modern era of big deficits began under Reagan, and was boosted by Bush, 

[Walker88]

11 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Biden is President , your leader is in charge now, what has Biden done to address the current problem ?

Tell us what can be done?

 

Labor has lost pricing power. The world is competitive. Darwinian Socialism is with us, meaning if a person doesn't have a marketable skill---something not everyone can do---that person has no pricing power.

 

The inflation that is only a part of the problem is a direct result of the $24,000 per American in new debt the previous President inflicted on the country.

 

The problem of labor's loss of pricing power is not new. The initial 'solution' was encouraging people to build 'equity' in property. We had the 3-income household up until 2008---Dad, Mom and Home Equity loans. That has led to a three-fold increase in the price of the average home in the US (and rise in rents commensurate) while incomes are up only about 20% (this over a 20 year period). That asset bubble and easy credit worked until 2008.

 

There is no solution. Taxing the rich won't help.

 

Society is on the brink of a crisis never seen before. Labor has lost enough pricing power just due to globalization. Globalization isn't exactly exporting jobs, either; it's moving them to a way station on the path to oblivion.

 

Technology has replaced labor, and AI is only going to make it worse. One estimate done by a US Think Tank puts jobs losses due to AI at 47% of all jobs. Poof! There are not new jobs coming along, or retraining to give folks a skill. This is not the McCormack Combine, which---though it decimated agricultural labor---sent people into the factories of the Industrial Revolution.

 

The article is about the US, but this issue will be everywhere. Many people will be obviated. Totally unnecessary. We can't all cut each others' hair and do each others' nails. Nations are going to have to consider a basic stipend to allow the obviated to live. People will have to find meaning on their own, because for most it will not come through a job.

 

Do you have a solution? I don't. I'm glad I was smart enough never to produce kids, because their world is not going to be pretty. If there is any bright spot, it is that fertility rates are tumbling. Most nations are now below the replacement rate (that rate is slightly above 2 kids per couple). Some nations---e.g., South Korea---are so low that not even half of a couple is being replaced. That is bad for pyramid pension structures and social security, but good for labor.

[HappyExpat57]

15 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Blame - stupidity

Not stupidity. The FIRST thing that happens to a young person as soon as they turn 18 - they are bombarded with credit card offers:

 

Sure! Borrow $5000 (fine print: 27% interest over 5 years). Monthly payment will only be $150 and LOOK AT ALL THE COOL STUFF you can get.

 

Young people look at that as free money. Then it dawns on them, they can get ANOTHER credit card, THIS time $10,000! And the cycle continues, they are now enslaved to the banks, living paycheck to paycheck.

 

On top of that, it's near impossible to get a decent job without a degree. When most of us duffers were growing up, you could work a part time job and still afford getting a degree while sharing an apartment with 2 or 3 others, living on Ramen noodles, but you got a degree without this huge debt looming upon graduation.

 

This game got rigged years ago and young people today have basically surrendered to a hopeless future. YOLO is a way of life for the majority. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm.

 

 

[Isaan sailor]

20 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nice parable, written by some lackey for a rich guy.

 

Let me respond with a true story:

 

During the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

 

That's when we built the Interstate Highway System.

 

That's when we had balanced budgets.

 

That's when Americans could own homes.

 

That's when working wives were a rarity.

 

True story, bro.

 

Thanks.  I’ve read or heard both stories before.  As for the 90% tax on the top income earners—most found and used loopholes to drastically reduce their tax burden.  My grandfather had a small business in the 50’s.  He found ways to prosper, despite the tax rate.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In the fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

That describes me to the T, and guessing I'm not alone, in that thinking, or action.

 

First ... I'm not rich.  I'll call it comfy.

 

But, a couple years, I did hit the 1% tax bracket, which is actually kind of low, $250k.   And since not salaried, most (all after retirement) of that got hit with a 40% tax (fed + state).   Most years, I made <$20k, salaried, and only 7 of the last years that I worked, did I make just shy of $50k.  Pretty sad salaried income history actually, and why so many jobs, 30+.

 

Very far from a consistent, high salaried income earner.  Anything made in the market, got hit with 40% tax.  My saving grace was living basically with low monthly expenses, same as here, now.  And ... no kids.  Much of my 'income' wasn't reported or taxed.  That self employed, slum lord thingy.   Cash receipts part anyway.

 

Only had 5 units (3 bldgs), 4 rented, keeping 1 open for me.  Tenants paid 2 mortgages, and all paid off extremely early.  3rd house bought basically with cash, CC, but paid off less than 1 year.  Rolled sale of 'free & clear' houses into the market.  

 

After learning curve, ????(expensive) perfected my trading, and made a lot of money, very fast, <5yrs, then retired.  25-30 working yrs prior, was party time.  the last, age 40-45 yrs old, was nose to the grindstone.

 

Point is ... as with the quoted story, I could have continued making $250k or more a year, for the past 20+ years.  Now tax that at 40% ... and that's what the tax base didn't get, because I was tired of doing all the work, and make no mistake, successful trading is full time work, and then have gov't take 40%.

 

Don't have a problem with paying taxes, but do have a problem on what it's spent on.  Invading & occupying sovereign countries.  Yea, I got off the hamster wheel in 2001, when Cheney became president, as easy to see where that was going to lead.  Oil & defense contractor leading the country, war was inevitable, along with the region needed to be attacked.  A blind man could see that coming.

 

Just like now, California, New York & New Jersey are losing their high income residents, to other states, I chose a different path, stopped completely & left.  Sure a few others did also.  

 

Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.  Or, they simply leave the state, CA, NY, NJ, they are the losers now, or, simply leave the country & retire, and the whole country start to lose their cash cows.  Business taxes, they, businesses moved overseas, taking jobs & tax base with them

 

Many of those (not me) multi millionaires.  Some even renounce citizenship, and their future income, unless made in USA, isn't even taxed.  Or hidden in 3 levels of int'l shell companies.

 

DISCLAIMER:  TBH, being a lazy POS, I probably would have hopped off the hamster wheel anyway.  If a flat, 'fare' tax, 20% across the board, then I might of still dabbled, and contributed to the tax base.   Now, I'm a blight on society, and getting it all back.

[2baht]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

The article is about America, so Trump applies.

He's making America look very stupid! ????

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Thanks.  I’ve read or heard both stories before.  As for the 90% tax on the top income earners—most found and used loopholes to drastically reduce their tax burden.  My grandfather had a small business in the 50’s.  He found ways to prosper, despite the tax rate.

You can only hide or delay paying taxes so much.  Eventually, the tax man cometh.  So have so much, they actually give it away, rather than pay full tax on it.  A good thing.

[fredwiggy]

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

... nuff said

 

Reason for the wide disparity, when top income earners get to a certain point, they actually start earning money, all bit itself, unless you do really stupid stuff. 

 

Once you have more coming in than you know what to do with, the fund, equity, income just steamrolls, like a snowball down a hill.  

 

As long as banks are sucking 20% of your income, especially on stupid crap that does not appreciate, or impress anyone, you'll never move forward.

 

30 yr mortgages, are people still that stupid.  It's mind boggling.  

 

Tough making the monthly bills ... and there is alcohol, cigs, in the house ... nuff said.

 

Do you really need a new car ?  I owned 1 in the USA, and it was for work.

 

You have extra money, we need a holiday ... no, you don't, you need to pay off your mortgage earlier.

 

Credit is for investing, not toys & good times.

 

Stupidity

You do realize that almost 90% of Americans use 30 year mortgages right? And just because someone made a little more money than others, especially in a job that didn't help others but just moved money around, over developed land, market strategists, especially these that market goods that are bad for consumers, industry analysts, designers of useless articles, and others, doesn't mean they are smarter than others. Most people want things, and want to keep up with their neighbors. That's being human. Wasting money on things such as drugs, cigarettes, private schools, expensive cars, and huge homes they really can't afford isn't too positive, and shows a lack of judgement. Many people have children, and need things to take care of them, while others don't, and don't understand either the sacrifice or cost of doing so. You do know your posts are more sounding like a narcissist every time don't you? I'd like to know what job you had. Was it one of the thousands of worthless ones that ruin the earth or the economy and only bring profit to it's worker? Or did you bust your arse working 9 to 5 in a job that actually did some good? Calling 90% of the people in the US stupid IS stupid, as there are countless of those stupid people that are much smarter than you. I know of at least 10 families that don't waste their money on anything extravagant and are just getting by, with 2-3 kids and 2 jobs. Most of them barely get a week's vacation to do something in their own state. Jobs do not pay workers enough money, meaning the average jobs, not the before mentioned useless ones where all a man does is sit behind a computer and move others money around. Five of those fathers are college graduates, and three moms are. How can you ask someone who has young children to try and make more money when they have to work 40-50 hours and be home with the kids? Do you expect them to act like people here and let grandmas raise their kids, letting the children run rampant with the obvious negative results? There are quite a few expats here that worked all their lives and now get either retirement or a pension that just gets them by comfortably. The arrogance of some people simply amazes me, and the fact they think they can back them up by more shows a mental illness that isn't treatable.

[Danderman123]

25 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Tell us what can be done?

 

Labor has lost pricing power. The world is competitive. Darwinian Socialism is with us, meaning if a person doesn't have a marketable skill---something not everyone can do---that person has no pricing power.

 

The inflation that is only a part of the problem is a direct result of the $24,000 per American in new debt the previous President inflicted on the country.

 

The problem of labor's loss of pricing power is not new. The initial 'solution' was encouraging people to build 'equity' in property. We had the 3-income household up until 2008---Dad, Mom and Home Equity loans. That has led to a three-fold increase in the price of the average home in the US (and rise in rents commensurate) while incomes are up only about 20% (this over a 20 year period). That asset bubble and easy credit worked until 2008.

 

There is no solution. Taxing the rich won't help.

 

Society is on the brink of a crisis never seen before. Labor has lost enough pricing power just due to globalization. Globalization isn't exactly exporting jobs, either; it's moving them to a way station on the path to oblivion.

 

Technology has replaced labor, and AI is only going to make it worse. One estimate done by a US Think Tank puts jobs losses due to AI at 47% of all jobs. Poof! There are not new jobs coming along, or retraining to give folks a skill. This is not the McCormack Combine, which---though it decimated agricultural labor---sent people into the factories of the Industrial Revolution.

 

The article is about the US, but this issue will be everywhere. Many people will be obviated. Totally unnecessary. We can't all cut each others' hair and do each others' nails. Nations are going to have to consider a basic stipend to allow the obviated to live. People will have to find meaning on their own, because for most it will not come through a job.

 

Do you have a solution? I don't. I'm glad I was smart enough never to produce kids, because their world is not going to be pretty. If there is any bright spot, it is that fertility rates are tumbling. Most nations are now below the replacement rate (that rate is slightly above 2 kids per couple). Some nations---e.g., South Korea---are so low that not even half of a couple is being replaced. That is bad for pyramid pension structures and social security, but good for labor.

"Taxing the rich won't help"?

 

Really?

 

It seems you have been fed fairy tales in a successful attempt to  convince you that taxing the rich is a bad thing.

 

Clinton increased taxes on the wealthy. He balanced the budget, and enjoyed the most prosperous economy up to that time.

 

Tell me again taxing the rich won't help.

[soalbundy]

14 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Most people don't earn enough to get ahead any more. It's not like it was in the west when we were in the workforce.

The latest Youtube video I saw put 25% of Brits living on or below the poverty level, in Germany food banks are making an appearance, in Italy youth unemployment has reached 50%, China is already a basket case, so it's not just America, the whole world seems to be on a slippery slope downwards which is a harbinger of ultra right wing governments in the future. Surprisingly Thailand seems to be an island of relative safety, pragmatic fence sitting pays dividends apparently.

[KhunLA]

13 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The latest Youtube video I saw put 25% of Brits living on or below the poverty level, in Germany food banks are making an appearance, in Italy youth unemployment has reached 50%, China is already a basket case, so it's not just America, the whole world seems to be on a slippery slope downwards which is a harbinger of ultra right wing governments in the future. Surprisingly Thailand seems to be an island of relative safety, pragmatic fence sitting pays dividends apparently.

People are voting for the idiots that are leading them.  How stupid are you to keep re-electing the same people, and expecting change.

 

Stupidity ... comes in all forms.  Live with your choices, that includes your elected politicians, career politicians.  Giving away control of your livelihood to people who don't care about you ... well, that just stupid.

 

I think someone describe stupid as, 'doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting different results' ... that describes your voters.

 

Everyone has choices, but fail to exercise them.

[Cult of the Sun]

This video claims up to 80% of China's youth are unemployed.  The start of the video is fake; but it made me think of dating in Asia again, which is the only place I would consider it.  It's interesting to me that she claims her clothes are soaked in sweat & clearly she is an actress & her hair is perfect. ????

 

So I have to wonder if this entire video isn't just propaganda for the west.  It seems they're going for the shared misery effect.  I do however think many are having a difficult time in China w/ the flood and the you know what.   I guess it's just easier to have a hot woman bait the audience into a video that is still largely true?  I mean every presentation needs a hook & that one has a nice one.

 

She also wants the viewers to see her wrist band.  I"m am talking about the first minute. In the next scene we see what real Chinese people look like who've been out in the day for longer than it takes to make a 30 second video.

 

So how is the economy really in the east?  I would estimate it is not great anywhere. Also to add,  they also  show videos of  lines or gatherings of people that don't  at all seem to be economy related (food lines, unemployment lines?) .. some of them anyway.  Just a strange video.

 

 

[Cult of the Sun]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

People are voting for the idiots that are leading them.  How stupid are you to keep re-electing the same people, and expecting change.

 

Voting is the illusion of choice. I don't see how that isn't abundantly clear by now.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Most people don't earn enough to get ahead any more. It's not like it was in the west when we were in the workforce.

Exactly right. Back then, even though I earned a moderate income, driving was cheap and I never worried about being able to afford to drive. Rents were affordable and places to rent sufficient- not so now.

Real cost of houses has increased along with electricity and water bills.

Public health has become a bad joke.

 

If I were working now as a nurse, I could not afford to save anything if renting.

[KhunLA]

18 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

You do know your posts are more sounding like a narcissist every time don't you? 

I can only tell you my life experiences.   Besides, I don't think there's enough bandwidth, for me to tell all the stupid stuff I did, or mistakes I made.

 

Consider my early family life, poor, alky parents, little proper schooling, no Uni, or guidance/mentoring.  Stepped in a lot of sh!t along the way, 3 divorces & 30+ sh!t, low paying jobs ... and somehow, retired early.

 

Sorry, if I can do that, there is no reason or excuse for people to be living below poverty level, or having a hard time making ends meet.

 

I'm a prime example of a total F'up, at times, and still did OK.  Only thing I figured out on my own was, 'if you can't pay for it in cash, you can't afford it', and that's just common sense.   Something I notice, people simply don't use.

 

That appears to be the only different factor with building equity, or staying in debt till you retire.  Or worse, after you retire.

[Callmeishmael]

So, many here claim that taxing the rich will lead to less economic benefits for all.  Let's take a look at historical US tax rates:

 

 

Back in the '40s - '80s, most Americans could survive on one income, most Americans could buy a house, most Americans could afford college, most Americans could afford Medical care.  AND... the rich were taxed at a higher level than they have been since then. 

 

Now let's take a look at the US Gini numbers (the measure of economic inequality):

 

Notice that the two graphs are almost exact reverses of each other!

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, Cult of the Sun said:

Voting is the illusion of choice. I don't see how that isn't abundantly clear by now.

That's why I didn't vote, except in local, town/county elections.   Those directly effected me.  State & fed, didn't follow, didn't care, and most people vote for the best commercial anyway, so I'd be out voted.  Why waste my time.

[Walker88]

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

"Taxing the rich won't help"?

 

Really?

 

It seems you have been fed fairy tales in a successful attempt to  convince you that taxing the rich is a bad thing.

 

Clinton increased taxes on the wealthy. He balanced the budget, and enjoyed the most prosperous economy up to that time.

 

Tell me again taxing the rich won't help.

First, I know full well the Laffer Curve was always a joke. Nobody knows its actual shape, and even if someone could plot it, the curve is likely also dynamic and changes over time. The Laffer Curve was just a cheap trick Republicans used to justify Reaganomics.

 

As for taxing the rich now, it won't help, because the problem as it exists today is nothing compared to what's coming.

 

This isn't the 1990s. I like Clinton, and he 'succeeded' by doing 2 things:  one was sitting back and letting the internet bubble run its course. That resulted in massive tax revenues, though much of that was capital gains on IPOs. (When the IPO Bubble blew up, the solution was to make credit easy and let everybody build 'wealth' through property, which led to house prices rising 300% while wages rose only 20%. Great until it blows up, which it did in 2008).

 

Second, Clinton's SecTreas Ruben figured a way to borrow from the Social Security Fund and Military pensions so that the debt was off balance sheet. The budget wasn't actually balanced, but it looked good. Every POTUS since has done the same thing (which is why the yearly reported budget deficit never matches the actual increase in National Debt....under trump the National Debt grew by $7,800,000,000,000 while the yearly deficits added up to less.)

 

Another difference from the Clinton Era is that the world is much more globalized. Labor has lost a lot more pricing power, so the needs of those who earn less are much greater---or the percentage living paycheck to paycheck is much greater---so that the tax increase on the wealthy to do what Clinton did would be so great as to disincentivize people or make them move their wealth and businesses offshore. Much of the exporting of jobs to Mexico, China, etc. was related to Clinton's tax increases. Nothing is done in a vacuum. Every act has consequences, most of which are only apparent after the fact.

 

The thing that will exacerbate this most of all, however, is AI. With all the job losses coming, the rich could be taxed at 100% (and assume they keep working, which they would not) and still the needs of the obviated would be so great that no budget could be balanced. This is unprecedented in all of human history.

 

As I wrote, I have no solution because I do not think there is one. Taxing the rich could work when there was much less globalization, less technological innovation, and no AI. Clinton took advantage of his time, and wisely so. That time is gone. We will see social disruption on a scale I would rather not imagine.

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, Cult of the Sun said:

Voting is the illusion of choice. I don't see how that isn't abundantly clear by now.

I encourage all you Trump supporters to look at voting as the illusion of choice.