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

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

It also is their 'choice'. and they have to live with it.  Not raise my taxes, because they made the wrong choice, and now need a helping hand.

Raise taxes so we can balance the budget.

[EVENKEEL]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Then you should be taxed more.

 

Here's the problem. Think George Orwell.

 

Billionaires want to build a new city in rural California.

 

She’s suspicious that the group’s real purpose is “to create a city for the elite” under the guise of more housing.

 

https://apnews.com/article/silicon-valley-tech-investors-new-city-housing-35f91416dd7d84ecb03ed08199d87dd5

I don't have loads of cash, I have property and 401K. So explain to me why I should be taxed more. 

 

I heard about this a few days ago. Could be Chinese investors. What comes to mind first is bye bye ground water.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

I believe that Biden introduced a minimum tax for the wealthy that requires payment of some amount of taxes. 

Did I ever say that they don't pay any taxes? I doubt it's too onerous given how wealthy some Democrat politicians are.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

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.

Your life experiences were back when work was available everywhere and you could buy your own home on your first wage. The world has changed but you're still living in the past.

[ozimoron]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

I don't have loads of cash, I have property and 401K. So explain to me why I should be taxed more. 

Because Reagan and Trump taxed you less and the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Then you should be taxed more.

We are, a lot more.  I wrote $75k checks to the IRS, a couple good years, more than most Yanks gross a year.  But when I lost $100k could only write of $5 of that.  I take the risk, hit big, they take big (37%).  I have an oops ... 'oh well, better luck next time'

 

Can I credit that loss to my gains last or next year, yea, $5k ... say what.

 

In year 2000, I owe you taxes I didn't pay ... you pay tax + 11% + penalty.

 

You / IRS owe me taxes to return ... we pay you tax + 4%  ????

 

That's your fair tax code.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

I don't have loads of cash, I have property and 401K. So explain to me why I should be taxed more. 

Because they want more money for their schemes, and you ( and others like you ) have no power, so easy pickings.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Your life experiences were back when work was available everywhere and you could buy your own home on your first wage. The world has changed but you're still living in the past.

I doubt anyone could buy a house on my first wage. I was a farm hand, worked 84 hours a week, 7 days a week, and earned an actual pittance as an apprentice. I even had to pay the farmer for my accommodation out of the pittance. I saw the light my first year and joined the military, which was the best decision I ever made as a young guy and possibly in my life.

I did buy the house my partner stole from me after I left the military, but only because military service allowed me to get a very low interest mortgage.

[spidermike007]

17 hours ago, KhunLA said:

But they are still having kids they can't afford, and living beyond their means.  Too much borrowed credit for depreciating purchases.  

 

Pointed out by the $100k+ bracket, and still struggling.  How is that even possible?

Frankly, I do not know how a family in the US can get by on $100k a year. Things are so expensive, the cost of living has skyrocketed, and this figure of 61% does not surprise me. I would have guessed it was closer to 70%.

 

Low-wage earners are most likely to live paycheck to paycheck, with almost 8 in 10 consumers earning less than $50,000 a year unable to cover their future bills until their next paycheck arrives. This does appear to be the case. Consumer confidence is extremely low, despite what the MSM or pundits may say. And it will not get better anytime soon.

[jvs]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did I ever say that they don't pay any taxes? I doubt it's too onerous given how wealthy some Democrat politicians are.

What?Are there no wealthy Republicans?

[Celsius]

Articles like this have been popping up since I was in my 20's, yet all the money I made was thanks to Americans and their purchasing power. I am Canadian and when e-commerce became popular I could barely sell anything to Canadians and just about everything to Americans. 

 

Even today, I when try to do e commerce in Thailand and realize how Thais are poor as hell, contrary to some Thai bootlickers who try to convince you otherwise. I still rely on Americans in this day and age to sponsor my life in Thailand, so I thank them very much.... AS A CANADIAN.

[Walker88]

I hope that someone who believes higher tax rates on the rich will help people living paycheck to paycheck---and now, not in some past Golden Age when the US was the world's major manufacturer---can explain how.

 

Do the math. How much additional revenue would be gained? How would it be dispersed to help those living paycheck to paycheck? How would the budget deficit be impacted? Also, if those living paycheck to paycheck suddenly got some sort of stipend, would they save it, pay off debt, or shop and spend even more?

 

As I have written, I do not know the answer on how to address:

 

1) The level of public and consumer debt

2) The rapid rise over two decades of home prices relative to wages/income

3) The increasing obviation of labor pricing power

4) The Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security and pensions at a time when the age pyramid is inverting

5) The impact AI is going to have on even white collar jobs

 

Yes, some nations have higher tax rates. How will they face tomorrow? Germany is in Recession, and masks much of its public debt in municipalities. Japan is a basket case, despite extremely high max tax rates. The UK is likely in Recession.

 

The EU banking system 'solved' 2008 by printing money, handing it to banks, telling banks to load up on sovereign debt, then booking gains to mask bad debts and NPLs. That was great for a while. Spanish rates fell from 7% to under 1%, so the Spanish Govt could borrow more. Italy enjoyed the same benefit. Banks 'profits' and minimized reserve requirements on the sovereign debt they bought made their capital structure look better and less leveraged. Now rates are rising, and the massive EU banking system (double EU GDP, as opposed to the US banking system being only 80% of GDP) still carries lots of NPLs. As rates rise, sovereign debt will be more expensive to service. Banks will see their capital structure change as their sovereign bond holdings fall in value. 2008 was postponed. It is upon us again.

 

While the US banking system was bolstered after 2008 when Obama forced banks to slash leverage, issue new equity, and sell off bad debt, things are deteriorating at the public level. For more than a decade, rates were near zero. As US debt matures and is rolled over, it is reissued at current rates, which are not longer near zero. Each 1% upward shift in the Yield Curve adds a few hundred billion$ more to the yearly deficit. Rates are 300 pips higher than 2018, so the rise in debt servicing costs exceeds nominal GDP growth. What is the limit of debt/GDP? How much can higher tax rates on the rich ameliorate that?

 

Enter AI and human labor eradication.

 

I look at the numbers. I look at personal income at various levels using the data BEA produces. I simply cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. What's worse is I think we're going to have to find a way to make 2 + 2 = 7 or 9.

 

Lots of folks offering opinions here. In a big picture sense, what's the answer?

 

I do not see one. Not in the US, not in the EU, not in Asia.

 

Anybody?

[jvs]

Biggest problem imo is easy credit so you can buy a boat,a snowmobile ,

a jet-ski and can go on holiday thee times a year just because the people next door do it also.

Oh yes and laziness.

One other major pain in the neck are of course politicians who are just ruining it all to push their own issues.

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

I hope that someone who believes higher tax rates on the rich will help people living paycheck to paycheck---and now, not in some past Golden Age when the US was the world's major manufacturer---can explain how.

 

Do the math. How much additional revenue would be gained? How would it be dispersed to help those living paycheck to paycheck? How would the budget deficit be impacted? Also, if those living paycheck to paycheck suddenly got some sort of stipend, would they save it, pay off debt, or shop and spend even more?

 

As I have written, I do not know the answer on how to address:

 

1) The level of public and consumer debt

2) The rapid rise over two decades of home prices relative to wages/income

3) The increasing obviation of labor pricing power

4) The Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security and pensions at a time when the age pyramid is inverting

5) The impact AI is going to have on even white collar jobs

 

Yes, some nations have higher tax rates. How will they face tomorrow? Germany is in Recession, and masks much of its public debt in municipalities. Japan is a basket case, despite extremely high max tax rates. The UK is likely in Recession.

 

The EU banking system 'solved' 2008 by printing money, handing it to banks, telling banks to load up on sovereign debt, then booking gains to mask bad debts and NPLs. That was great for a while. Spanish rates fell from 7% to under 1%, so the Spanish Govt could borrow more. Italy enjoyed the same benefit. Banks 'profits' and minimized reserve requirements on the sovereign debt they bought made their capital structure look better and less leveraged. Now rates are rising, and the massive EU banking system (double EU GDP, as opposed to the US banking system being only 80% of GDP) still carries lots of NPLs. As rates rise, sovereign debt will be more expensive to service. Banks will see their capital structure change as their sovereign bond holdings fall in value. 2008 was postponed. It is upon us again.

 

While the US banking system was bolstered after 2008 when Obama forced banks to slash leverage, issue new equity, and sell off bad debt, things are deteriorating at the public level. For more than a decade, rates were near zero. As US debt matures and is rolled over, it is reissued at current rates, which are not longer near zero. Each 1% upward shift in the Yield Curve adds a few hundred billion$ more to the yearly deficit. Rates are 300 pips higher than 2018, so the rise in debt servicing costs exceeds nominal GDP growth. What is the limit of debt/GDP? How much can higher tax rates on the rich ameliorate that?

 

Enter AI and human labor eradication.

 

I look at the numbers. I look at personal income at various levels using the data BEA produces. I simply cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. What's worse is I think we're going to have to find a way to make 2 + 2 = 7 or 9.

 

Lots of folks offering opinions here. In a big picture sense, what's the answer?

 

I do not see one. Not in the US, not in the EU, not in Asia.

 

Anybody?

Dead simple. Make health single payer and education much cheaper, like other countries. Better educated people can support themselves more easily and lift the country's GDP.

[KhunLA]

28 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Your life experiences were back when work was available everywhere and you could buy your own home on your first wage. The world has changed but you're still living in the past.

And when I bought my first house, I was making near minimum wage, and mortgage was 14%.  Thank you Jimmy Carter.  To make the mortgage, I took on boarder, as 4 bedroom and I only needed 1.

 

Light turned on, a little sweat equity, while working 80 hrs a week (1 job), and I turned it into a triplex, as it was 3 stories.  Now the mortgage is paid, and extra payments to the principle.  No, still drove my POS car, although now had money for new one, if stupid.  Extra money went to buy tools, and went into self employment.  Built a POS (OK, nice) trailer, to tow behind my POS car, till make enough to buy an entry level pick up, only new vehicle I ever owned in USA.  My 'choice', my sacrifice, my ROI.  

 

Hmm ... this is too easy, repeat & rest is history.

 

First house, went with an ARM, all told me I was nuts.   Really, 14%, and can only go 1 direction, which it did, down, every year.

 

I've worked 1 full time and 2 part time jobs when needing.  They are there, pay sucks, but better than hoping someone pays my bills.

 

Can't be any worse now than then, with McD paying $15 an hour.  Sorry, I'm not buying the headlines of doom & gloom, as know too many, doing just fine over there.   Working hard & earning it.

[jaideedave]

17 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.

Back in the 80,s my mortgage was @ 10.5 % .There was an $800 car in my driveway. No frills for this guy. Now everyone is driving a new car as if it's necessary? We were so poor ..bla bla

[novacova]

Solution: Drill more oil, if that gets in anyone’s crawl, then great!…it inspires a warm fuzzy feeling 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

Solution: Drill more oil, if that gets in anyone’s crawl, then great!…it inspires a warm fuzzy feeling 

stop trolling.

[KhunLA]

56 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

and yet, Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

Yea ... still left office with a 5.6 trillion national debt.

source

 

What's wrong with this picture:

"May 30, 2023

In 2022, the federal government spent $476 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total, which grew by 35 percent from $352 billion in 2021, was the largest amount ever spent on interest in the budget, and equaled nearly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Interest costs are on track to become the largest category of spending in the federal budget

source

 

Money in:

"Total Receipts: Up by 21 Percent in Fiscal Year 2022. In 2022, federal revenues amounted to $4.9 trillion"

source

 

Money out:

"The federal government spent $6.5 trillion in FY 2022"

source

 

Try doing that with you household checkbook ... ????

 

Keep electing idiots that can't balance a checkbook.  Oh wait, not their money, they don't care.

 

Yea ... I left & stopped paying taxes. 

Why ...

... do you really need to ask

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, jaideedave said:

Back in the 80,s my mortgage was @ 10.5 % .There was an $800 car in my driveway. No frills for this guy. Now everyone is driving a new car as if it's necessary? We were so poor ..bla bla

What was the price multiple between your 1980s salary and 1980s house?

 

Mine was 2.5.

 

Within 8 months after graduation I had saved the 15% deposit and could afford a mortgage on my first home.

 

My kids are looking at 5 or more years  to be able to get near a mortgage and they are working in well paid professions, earning well above the average of their age cohort.

 

Now add in work place pensions, available to most working people in the 80s, and many having gold plated final salary schemes, opportunities that very few enjoy in 2023.

 

The means of wealth accumulation have been stripped out from under working people and pushed up to the already wealthy.

 

Trickle down economics was a lie, it was always a lie.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What was the price multiple between your 1980s salary and 1980s house?

 

Mine was 2.5.

 

Within 8 months after graduation I had saved the 15% deposit and could afford a mortgage on my first home.

 

My kids are looking at 5 or more years  to be able to get near a mortgage and they are working in well paid professions, earning well above the average of their age cohort.

 

Now add in work place pensions, available to most working people in the 80s, and many having gold plated final salary schemes, opportunities that very few enjoy in 2023.

 

The means of wealth accumulation have been stripped out from under working people and pushed up to the already wealthy.

 

Trickle down economics was a lie, it was always a lie.

You're American....?  ????

[ryxyz]

I believe that the quoted 60% is actually on the low side. Lots of people can't make end meet and a lot of people don't want to work because of the low wages many employers are paying. Example: amazon, DHL, Fedex, and UPS (until recently) recruit for 16.xx whereas rent in most cities for a 1 bedroom apartment starts from about $1,xxx. It's the same story with all the other major employers, and it's the reason many people have 2 or 3 jobs and can barely pay their bills at the end of the month. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I don't have loads of cash, I have property and 401K. So explain to me why I should be taxed more. 

 

I heard about this a few days ago. Could be Chinese investors. What comes to mind first is bye bye ground water.

In case you don't know, the IRS taxes income, not assets.

 

That's why they call it "income tax".

 

If your assets appreciate, they are taxed when you sell them.

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, novacova said:

Solution: Drill more oil, if that gets in anyone’s crawl, then great!…it inspires a warm fuzzy feeling 

Oil companies typically don't pay much in taxes.

[Mike Teavee]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Not sure this is another answer, but it is real world....

 

I spent many years working in Japan. I made a lot, so I was in a tax rate of---IIRC---75%. Maybe it was only 70%. I just know it was the highest rate.

 

Japan still had massive budget deficits despite those tax rates. In fact, among G7 nations, the debt/GDP wasn't even close. Japan was Greece, albeit with more smoke and mirrors.

 

Today, the Japanese economy is a basket case financially. Its population is becoming an inverted pyramid, while its pension system is massively underfunded. (I could write a long tome on the peculiarity of Japanese accounting that allowed this underfunding to happen and remain somewhat invisible.)

 

Japan could go to a 99% max tax rate and they still wouldn't be able to make ends meet. They are just the canary in the coal mine, as we all have the same thing coming.

And on the flip side Singapore has some of the lowest taxes in the world (max 22% income tax, I was paying 12% on multi-6 figure salary) & yet is one of the most prosperous countries. 
 

 

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yea ... still left office with a 5.6 trillion national debt.

source

 

What's wrong with this picture:

"May 30, 2023

In 2022, the federal government spent $476 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total, which grew by 35 percent from $352 billion in 2021, was the largest amount ever spent on interest in the budget, and equaled nearly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Interest costs are on track to become the largest category of spending in the federal budget

source

 

Money in:

"Total Receipts: Up by 21 Percent in Fiscal Year 2022. In 2022, federal revenues amounted to $4.9 trillion"

source

 

Money out:

"The federal government spent $6.5 trillion in FY 2022"

source

 

Try doing that with you household checkbook ... ????

 

Keep electing idiots that can't balance a checkbook.  Oh wait, not their money, they don't care.

 

Yea ... I left & stopped paying taxes. 

Why ...

... do you really need to ask

 

 

You have written a treatise on why the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Mike Teavee said:

And on the flip side Singapore has some of the lowest taxes in the world (max 22% income tax, I was paying 12% on multi-6 figure salary) & yet is one of the most prosperous countries. 
 

 

Singapore is a very special country.

 

What percent of their budget does Singapore spend on their armed forces?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

We are, a lot more.  I wrote $75k checks to the IRS, a couple good years, more than most Yanks gross a year.  But when I lost $100k could only write of $5 of that.  I take the risk, hit big, they take big (37%).  I have an oops ... 'oh well, better luck next time'

 

Can I credit that loss to my gains last or next year, yea, $5k ... say what.

 

In year 2000, I owe you taxes I didn't pay ... you pay tax + 11% + penalty.

 

You / IRS owe me taxes to return ... we pay you tax + 4%  ????

 

That's your fair tax code.

You need a better accountant.

[EVENKEEL]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In case you don't know, the IRS taxes income, not assets.

 

That's why they call it "income tax".

 

If your assets appreciate, they are taxed when you sell them.

deep sigh........this gets tiresome.

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, transam said:

You're American....?  ????

My nationality is not the topic of discussion.

Deal with my arguments if you are able.