politics. Obama hit on a very popular theme with the DNC folks. He wants
a tax increase on wealthy people. There is little doubt but that he
will get what he is asking for. The section that I thought was
important:
"If we
want to reduce our deficit, our sacrifice has to be shared. And that
means even as we're making spending cuts, we also have to end the tax
cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in this country.
(Applause.) It's not because we want to punish success. It's because if
we're going to ask Americans to sacrifice a little bit, we can't tell millionaires and billionaires that they don't have to do a thing.”
How could one argue with this kind of talk? Millionaires and
billionaires are not carrying their share of the burden so we should tax
the hell out of them.
The audience that I write to doesn’t like Obama very much. They also
don’t like big government; they hate the financial institutions and the
fat cats with big bonuses. So I’m interested to hear what might be said
on this topic. Is Obama striking a chord with you? I understand if he
does. But you need to look where this is headed. If you are young, with
children, and have debt from education or a home and aspire for some
degree of success in your life; beware. What Obama is proposing is
headed your way.
When Obama talks of taxing millionaires and billionaires he is missing
the mark. He is pushing for a higher tax on income. What he doesn’t get
is that millionaires and billionaires actually don’t have that much
income. Yes they have wealth, but it is very easy to avoid paying taxes
on wealth. The people who will pay higher taxes are young people, not
the rich old fogies that have bundles in the bank. I got this note
from a young professional who works very hard and is far from wealthy.
He does make a decent income and that income will get squeezed by the
higher taxes that are coming.
I love
it when Obama talks about taxing the "wealthy" when he talks of high
taxable income. Since he targets people with high wage income, he's targeting young people without much wealth that have a lot of debt (student, home, etc). The wealthy are mostly older folks, many of whom have lots of their money in muni bonds and assets throwing off capital gains. The wealthy are also foreigners who
can invest in the US without US tax on their capital gains, and reduced
US tax on dividends if a treaty applies, and generally, no US tax on
interest income.If you want to hike taxes on engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots, and others with householders in high-earning brackets, fine. But it takes balls to call them millionaires and billionaires.
In the President’s speech he had this to say:
I don't want a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay more than $6,000 in extra Medicare costs. I don't want that. I don't want my tax cut paid for by cutting kids out of Head Start or doing away with health insurance for millions of people on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes and poor children and middle-class families who are raising a child with a disability like autism. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
These sure sound like popular views. The President has defined the
debate here. This is about billionaires on the one hand and seniors,
Medicaid and Medicare recipients even kids with autism on the other
hand. But actually the proposal to increase income taxes will hurt a
different audience than those billionaires. Those that are going to get
hit, the young lawyers, doctors, airline pilots and business people of
all stripes are going to respond with their feet. They will not vote for leadership that puts the tax burden squarely on them.
The end result will be that the political pendulum will
shift to the extreme right. The House, Senate and the White House will
belong to conservatives. When that happens there will be a great
unwinding of the social programs that Obama champions. And all those who
think the solution is to tax wealth will be very disappointed with the
outcome.
"What he doesn't get is that millionaires and billionaires actually don’t have that much income. Yes they have wealth, but it is very easy to avoid paying taxes on wealth." That is the way it is now! The rules (tax code) need to be changed. A very quick and easy way is to have a minimum tax (10%) before any deductions. What they are doing is destroying the middle class. America; The land of the haves, and have not's.
Haves and have less. US bottom quintile is in the top quintile of the world.
But spending is 80% of the problem, not taxes.
What are the numbers if we don't change corporate tax rates at all, we just AMT those that pay nothing....corporate taxes used to 8 percetn of GDP, now they are 2 percent. And we tax capital gains and dividends at same rate as wages (except no FICA)....not exactly raiding billionaires, economy has done perfectly well when such tax regimes have been in place before...what is wrong with tax fairness?: corporations face AMT just like doctors and laawyers, and earnings like dividend and capital gains tax at same rate as wages....
First, simplify the system and treat all businesses equally with NO loopholes or exceptions. Second, come up with a number, say 40% total tax on all income above a basic cost of living amount ($30-80k) depending on where you live. Third, enforce the rules by seriously going after the largest offenders (banks, insurance companies, etc). And finally, cut spending!
That's the bandaid approach, the problem still lies in spending.
When you made $10/hr, you probably lived ok, had a little debt, and thought if you made $2/hr more to pay off the debt and save, you'd be great.
Then you make $12/hr, your living ok, have a little more debt, and think if you made $3/hr more you'd be doing great.
When you make $15/hr, your still living ok, have a little more debt, and think if you make $4/hr more, you'll be doing spectacular.
Later in life you're making $25/hr and still in the same boat.
The problems will stay the same until they get the spending under control, and get rid of the mentality that we need to give handouts to everyone who has a problem. We can increase taxes to 100%, and (falsely) assuming production stayed the same, we'd be in the same boat soon enough, because we're not fixing the spending problem.
Every tick of the Pendulum gets us cloer to the End not to a new Beginning, it does not matter if the pendulum is on the right or left at any given moment, it only matters what's the pendulum measuring, and it's measuring the end of society as we know it
I think the president should stop talking about taxes and start talking about the purchasing power of the currency. Specifically going back to gold silver standard before china sucks it all up and then marks to market it's gold holdings and silver holdings against the yaun. Re -inventing the gold exchange standard. we need a non-fractional (gold exchange standard) non-fiat based currency. have a 30 day (maybe 60?) bank and trading holiday and say "recapitilze "to the banks . The fed can open all of it's books since the founding we can see what kind of damage is done and calculate the gold and silver ratios to base money. after the big banks are closed. Let the system reset itself and go back to the days of investment banks being investment banks and commercial banks being somewhere you go to stash your gold and silver have your money cleared into paper or electronic form. it will drastically lower insurance costs for everyone in real terms.cost of living too.interest rates might be a little high until they stabalize in a year or so.fort knox backs SS. If it's not there? Get rid of the income tax on individuals and have a 10% income tax on corporations only, no loopholes, 10% sales tax on corporations. No federal government bonds..nominally it will look like the apocolypse I'm not gonna lie. we may have 3-4 months of some serious volitility but, it would probably be mostly to the upside in things people need .In real companies ones that didn't get in the crazy m na action. over the last oh say 90 years?
And most of all we tell the world "hey this stuff has been around since the begining of time and after 100 years we realized we have to have commodity money, now do you want to have the biggest value buy of a life time cause we might have some federal reserve toilet paper and some debt we would never in a trillion years pay off otherwise but, we'll be happy to make a downpayment in 2 years AFTER the markets have reset themselves and people have jobs".
Have the treasury has evaluated the cost of social security and medicare going foreward. and well the cost of everything they are doing and what they have to cut. Maybe the states pay 5% to the federal government and the federal government gives them the 10% of the sales tax sales tax as a check? saves the rest?want local stimulus brownie points mr. president? Everyone knows the system is broken but I would trust people not to panic that bad When they know within a couple of months they could be working for something tangible that they have the ability to save and the banks have to adhere to the saving impulses of the population with prices in goods adjusting to the amount of currency in circulation AND supply and demand. and falling based on higher wages and savings then trying to make a perpetual motion machine out of debt to keep a deeply entrenched banking class from going bankrupt. trying to print our way to exporting bread for a million dollars by 2015? what was the Fx turnover now 4 trillion. That number will get cut down drastically and all the market caps in the world will get squeezed into what seems like a tiny amount now giving people a real explosion of purchasing power. on a global level like we used to have. Remember the days when both parents didn't HAVE to work and the cost of living was manageable? I don't I'm 20 but I doubt very few do unless you look at history? maybe let everyone experience the large amounts of purchasing power and having capital goods fall in price too? so maybe businesses can hire? and maybe we won't have to have this war on technological advancement against labor. Because costs will adjust based on supply and demand of goods and actual costs of producing it? interest rates falling and being based on productivity and saving and not the fed selling 100 tril in puts to paint the curve? I would really like to know who's buying...
The reason Nixon took you off the gold standard in '71 was because you had a hugely negative trade balance that was sucking gold out of the country.
If you were back on a gold standard your gold would be gone within a few months.
Yes you are young, never pay any attention to what a politician says, only where they come from and what they stand for,
Obama would be a 2nd Chavez if this was a 3rd world country, the only thing that stops him are the fast disappearing traditions of this once free country, sooner or later with 2-3 or 5 'Obamas' even the USA will get to where Venezuela is now
Carried Interest? That needs reform.
Sure, alright...but BK is asking, 'where do the taxes come from?', not 'how they should be spent, who deserves (to distribute) them, or what sort of return on Government spending is expected. This is much more basic....there is a pool of 'money' - and it resides at the upper end of the income-band.
The equity-distribution is 'a disaster all of its own', and the further up you go on that band, the less able you are to actually enforce a 'tax'. If you can get a tax enforced, you then have to 'incentivise' it carefully, because if you're rich you can simply work from another country...really, how much do you think 'an individual' might be likely to forego, before deciding to mitigate the situation, maybe $30,000, i don't know. At most then, the reciept is what, $60Bn? Useful, but you'd want to be careful keeping it around for an extended period.
Actually I don't want to cut HEAD START I want to get rid of it entirely. It doesn't work and is just a jobs program for otherwise unemployable inner city Democrats.
$5 billion plus per year for two generations ought to have shown some results if the program had any value.
As to taxing high income? Make em pay social security on the entirety of their income would be fair. We tax the working poor on their far more modest incomes for that so there is no real reason to exempt very high incomes from it.
Just one more reminder that political arena is nothing but, Theater of the Absurd.
Your only chance at a productive life with decent earnings above the average, is to have some talent, skill, or information that others will pay you for, handsomely. Protecting what you make with stealthy exports of your whatever money you can keep from the government's avaricious maw, by hook or by crook, just like wealthy people do.
Other than that, resign yourself to living in a world that grows more 'communistic' every day, and just surviving. 90% of the 6-7 billions of humans on the planet will live more or less meager hand to mouth lives.
Says so, in Genesis.
Bruce, if all we do is take away the Bush tax cuts from those earning more than 250k per year, than I have no problem with it. Those tax rates existed during most of the Clinton years and people still made money. I might even be enticed to have a corporate officer windfall tax, where any CEO, CIO, CFO etc whose compensation is more than say 50x what the average employee makes is taxed until it hurts.
That said, raising taxes can't close the hole alone. Nor can spending cuts, but cuts can help too - provided they all don't come at the expense of the poor and middle class. Cuts to defense and getting rid of corporate welfare would be ideal. But I think the real cause of this fiscal disaster is that we've spent 30 years learning how to kill off jobs in this country. We need policies that induce industry to hire people here and make real things here. We need a larger percent of our working age population working. Workforce participation is too low, and until it improves I think we're going to run sizeable deficits.
Going back to tax rates in the "Clinton years" requires all the Bush tax cuts to expire. Which is fine, because all we heard for ten years from the left was that the Bush tax cuts were evil -- never did anyone suggest only 20% of the Bush tax cuts were evil.
Let them all expire. Then we can more burden sharing everyone is clamoring for.
Don't forget - those who make 20% of the income pay 38% of the federal income taxes and those who make 47% of the income pay zero federal income taxes.
There are jobs and then there is... Jobs....
We need not only more jobs, but we need tens of thousands more of that inimitable Steve Jobs and Wozniaks, that create industries in their garages that eventually employ hundreds of thousands of worker bees (EACH). Preferably here in the disUnited States but if paid very well can be anywhere.
`I love it when Obama talks about taxing the "wealthy" when he talks of high taxable income. Since he targets people with high wage income, he's targeting young people without much wealth that have a lot of debt (student, home, etc).`
Well, I agree the rhetoric is nothing more than posturing, but I am curious:
does this mean that it`s the `letter of the law` in the rote that you take exception to, rather than its `spirit` Brucey?
IE You`d be ok if anyone with a net worth over, say, a 100,000 ounces of Au had to pay 80% tax on any income, no matter how they acquired it (in the country looking to impose the tax)?
Heh, all these `taxes are stealing shcmeeeee` guys kill me. Ten or more times a day they blithely take for granted that they are able to reap invaluable advantages from infrastructure built on the backs of their grandfathers` payments into the public coffers, but will still scream they are being `robbed blind, and gubbermint nevah did nuthin fer nobody ever anywhere, rant, rave, fume, hiss, etc.`... subsequently I will be subjected to tall tales of how smoothly the world will flow under ~I`m all right so fuck all the rest~ anarcho capitalist dogma (which would create a power vacuum that would last less time than an HFT algo holds a security), and flooded with examples of how tax dollars have always always always been badly invested; with the exception of `defence` spending.
(facepalms)
Name one thing, aside from defense spending, that the federal gov't stole money from us to pay for that benefitted us as a nation. And you can't include solving problems that they were directly involved in creating.
Yeah, thought so... Facepalm.
Yawn. Right on cue; Just one?
Anyone else who's been outside their screen door care to field this one and show up ol' Elmer Fudd(esse) here?
Oh and try to keep in mind that 'defense' spending is sacrosanct, yet ironically 'you can't include solving problems that they were directly involved in creating'. Remember also that her/his definition of 'stealing' is the obligation to pay for any service that he/she alone doesn't value; so, once again, 'defense' isn't stealing, but taxes that provide for clean drinking water, breathable air, national parks, highways, education, Federal investigations, search and rescue, garbage collection, etc. etc. ARE stealing because she/he allegedly has no use for any of them.
X~> heh, you can't make this shit up folks.
PS Hey Fudd, I hear Equatorial Guinea has one of the lowest tax rates in the world; sounds perfect for the likes of you. Bon Voyage!
I say involuntary taking of a person's earning is theft. It is state sponsored slavery. Government in the US has passed the line of enforcing basic laws and providing basic services to its citizens.
Billionaires are usually conducting legalized theft anyway through their personal privatisation of non-man-made land and resources that we should all be getting the benefit of.
Really, lol? What non-manmade land and resources did Google and Microsoft and Apple use to make them the richest people in the world?
So history shows that collectivism is the best way to go? We all deserve a piece of Gates', Jobs' and Zuckerberg's wealth because in fact they got it for nothing and really stole what is ours?
You know, that collectivism does work everywhere and every time it is tried, right? There are a lot of places in the world you can go to that will help you with that idea...only no one ever goes. Strange.
Actually Bill Gates invented shit. He took more from the US taxpayers and his collegues than Edison stole from Tesla, or Bell from Elisha Gray.
Bill Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg, did they invent the internet or the computer? No, your tax dollars did (or your grandfather's anyway).
Fuck you are one ignorant piece of work, noted.
.
No, slavery means you work on demand for zero recompense past food and board. Taxation only separates you from a percentage of your income, not all of it, and provides benefits for all, not a plantation owner. ( I admit that this has become arguable, but because of elitist captured politicians, not the premise of taxation)
It is only necessary for taxes to be involuntary because not everyone possesses that modicum of conscience (sociopaths) required for a functioning society. Oddly enough this is the same reason anarcho capitalism or pure communism are only valid as ideals and the most successful economies are mixed ones.
But yes, I agree the US plutocracy has crossed a lot of lines when it comes to ignoring mandates from the masses. Though it might have helped send a much stronger message to them if America had elected Ralph Nader POTUS once out of the last four times she had the chance.
What a load of self-justifying crap. Slaves were often allowed to work on the side or even keep a small portion, especially if they were good and loyal. The point of slavery is a master that can demand all your production and control your life. With 40 thousand pages of tax codes, 80k pages in the Federal Register, more agencies than we can name and all the little moronic government minions ginning up more every day I defy you to say we are not controlled. The fact that we are ALLOWED by the grace of government to keep some ever shrinking part of our income does not qualify us as free. You should read Last of the Mohicans again. Our founders would be disgusted with us as citizens and our government. Tax rates have occasionally already hit 90%. The leftist state moves steadily on with only occasional setbacks. It's not theory. It's reality. Libertarians had a few decades at our founding and then the march of the State began. That's reality, too.
Try to drive a car, set up a business, travel, trade or even allocate your own money without a government agency's permission. You cannot do it. You need licenses, registration, passports, inspections, permits, qualifications, fees, etc. You are even forced to put 15.2% of your income in the bankrupt government retirement system, buy the government health system (Medicare, Obamacare) etc., etc., etc. You can be shut down or shut up by a dozen agencies tomorrow. Think that cop under the bridge with the radar gun is there to help you? Think that DMV employee is there to make your life better? Think the IRS is there to help you KEEP the right amount of income and not intimidate??? Think the tax code is there help your personal pursuit of prosperity and happiness?
What fantasy world are you living in? Which pill did you take today?
Wow, what whole lotta circumlocution there, only to absolutely miss the point.
Taxation, in many countries, provides services that produce a NET benefit for their populations (Education is an awesome example). I'll agree that in the US it's maybe not so much that way these days, and was pointing out that American voters have to take their share of the responsibility for that. But you're suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater instead of making simple, effective improvements; which is pretty fucking stupid right there IMHO.
Sorry if the bureaucracy has got you down; cost of doing business anywhere in the world. I assure you that many many people are capable of running successful businesses in spite of it, hell some it assists or even protects. I mean if we made it too easy to run a company there wouldn't be many left to flip burgers (I'd like fries with that, thanks).
I didn't take any pill today. No need as I'm neither sick, nor an American.
How about going back to the tax rates the last time we came close to a balanced budget, during the Clinton administration? And while we're at it, cut defense spending to match that year as well?
Or, maybe we should just be honest with the American people and tell them our "economy" requires ever-increasing amounts of debt to function, so no matter how high taxes are raised the government and Federal Reserve will do whatever it takes to spend more or otherwise create more debt. And if they tell us this, we might as well tell them they can shove austerity measures up their asses.
Clinton and then President George W. Bush sought to accelerate the spread of homeownership to counter the economic threat posed to working and middle-class Americans from more jobs heading overseas. There's no sign of that changing. America's multinationals eliminated 2.9m jobs in the US during the last decade, while creating 2.4m outside the country, according to the Commerce Department.
That is why the established wealthy do not care about us and make no mistake they are the enemy.
This "shared sacrifice" bullshit is getting old. Obama is the chief executive of the federal government so there shouldn't be any confusion about the context here. As of tax year 2009 ~51% of American income earners pay zero federal income tax.
If the pendulum is going to swing the other way Bruce it's got to overcome the gravity of numbers like that.
"As of tax year 2009 ~51% of American income earners pay zero federal income tax."
This is true only if you don't count FICA and Medicare taxes, which are over 9% of every dollar from dollar 1 to about 106K (for FICA). And if you are self-employed, you get to pay double.
The real number of people who pay no federal taxes on their income, as opposed to the mickey-mouse definition of "federal income tax" attached to the completely artificial 51% figure -- is about FIVE PERCENT.
That's where you're wrong, at least in theory. You pay FICA for your own retirement as a part of your retirement plan. It's like saying your 401k is a tax (in theory). In reality it is a tax because not a penny of it is saved for retirement but used for general revenue as it is replaced by government IOU's. This is part of the normally illegal and immoral ponzi scheme it truly is. It is legal for Bernie Sanders (government) but not Bernie Madoff. One goes to Congress for his work, the other goes to jail for the same work.
Medicare is similar in that it is a national plan that we all participate in. In essence, it is a collective plan that benefits us all now or in the future. It is a specific plan with a specific fee and benefit.
Your point also doesn't apply because the increases in tax rates will apply only to income taxes, not these two programs.
The reason FICA was reduced to 6% was because so damn many people pay no income tax that they couldn't get a "stimulus" to them by cutting the income tax alone. There was nothing to refund or cut. They had to find one of the last remaining things they paid.
Essentially, the 51% can now vote themselves any damn thing they please at the expense of the the other 49%. The 49% directly or indirectly refuse to pay the necessary amounts and the difference becomes the annual deficit. It is the difference between the goodies and favors we want and what we are really willing to pay. It is not going away...ever.
As one of the "49%" I am willing to pay taxes to support the social contract I have with my country.
When did you sign that contract? Look, any rational person will pay a "fair share" of the costs of government. The question is who, how much and is government doing things it shouldn't? I believe every citizen should pay something. No one gets a free ride and no one can raise taxes on someone else without raising taxes on themselves.
Right now your taxes should go up 40% to balance the current budget and probably about 50% to pay down debt and probably about 75-80% to fully fund the social obligations of that social contract. How's that sit with you? Was that in the contract?
See my comment above about availability of jobs that pay a living wage.
Also, although all those McDonald's workers may not have to pay income tax, they are paying a larger percentage of their earnings to the federal government in FICA taxes, relative to those who are lucky enough to have higher paying jobs.
People aren't LUCKY to have high paying jobs, (short of things like nepotism, etc).
There are 'high paying' jobs in many fields - go apply for one. Tell me how it works out
Where are all these high paying jobs for people who aren't lucky enough to have experience or recent employment? For those people who were laid off and decide to get training in a new field that has job openings, where will they find an employeer willing to hire somebody without experience? I know recent college graduates and in fields like accounting and marketing who can't find employment. Where do you live?
The increasing amount of unwilling and resistant-to-hire employers is the problem. Fix that problem so that they have to actually take on the less-than-desirable in our own areas, without any drop in compensation.
A long term investment in our own people, that pays many times over.
I read yesterday about how people who are lucky enough to have good jobs are being asked by employers to take on more responsibilities and work more hours. With a weak job market, they are willing to do it to stay employed. Bottom lines have to be maintained and cuts will be made whenever possible.
I live in PA, outside of NYC. There are a shortage of jobs , the marketplace is extremely selective. Folks may not always like the criteria being used for who gets hired, but you cannot change that.
Often times, college graduates need to redirect their initial job search till they can exploit an opportunity to do what they like.
Kill the selectiveness.
Not liking the criteria is the point. When I got out of college I had no trouble getting my first job. Times have changed. Saying things like "there are plenty of high paying jobs, just go apply for one" and "So, starting next week... bridges to build, roads to pave, litter to pick up...If you don't show up, well, you don't get the cash" does not reflect reality.
I think PLENTY of people would show up for a jobs program. People who were laid off and now have to try to pay the mortgage and feed the family at a greatly reduced level of income can get pretty desperate. But if it makes you feel better sitting up there on your little mountain looking down at the less fortunate, saying "let them eat cake", so be it.
You're kidding, right Mercury? I mean, you're talking about a guy who got up today, before a live audience, and actually said, out loud, that the high unemployment rate today is caused by "huge layoffs of government workers" at federal, state and local levels.
You're assuming therefore that someone who is either so mind-numbingly, bone-jarringly stupid and/or so completely divorced from reality as he could utter such a demonstrably, verifiably wrong statement in public would understand the concept of people voting themselves "rich" at the expense of their neighbors.
Doesn't compute.
Or Obama is just a lying sack of crap. Either way.
Well of course Obama is lying...although that hardly makes him unique. And of course he's asking people to vote themselves more goodies at their neighbors' expense...that's essentially the crux of the entire public sector union conflict right now.
Heh - I know, Merc. Just sarc-ing.
Cheers -
Exactly. And, oh BTW, why doesn't he add the following to his speech:
"Now, as we are TAKING money out of the pockets of productive citizens to give to you folks on welfare, medicaid and extended unemployment so that you can survive - it wouldn't be fair for you just to get this money without EARNING it. So, starting next week, show up at your local city hall, and we are going to put you to work. There are bridges to build, roads to pave, litter to pick up, pigeon shit to wipe off statues, etc.
If you don't show up, well, you don't get the cash"
Wonder how many would show up....
I've bounced that idea in my head for a while... a local town/city currency (lets call em WelfareBucks) that people on unemployment or welfare can earn for doing work for the city (like cleaning parks, mowing yards) and at the end of the week, they bring all the WelfareBucks they collected over the last week, turn em in, and pick up their weekly gov't check. Over time, the amount of WelfareBucks necessary to get their welfare check goes up, until it's less beneficial to be on the welfare system than getting a real job.
This has the added benefit of allowing the city to sell WelfareBucks at a discount to the citizens of the town/city to pay people on welfare for odd jobs... i.e., I can hire an unemployed man to mow my yard, or wash the car, or an unemployed neighbor to babysit. The benefit to me is I get the services at a slightly discounted rate (the discount for purchasing the WelfareBucks) and they get to meet their WelfareBuck quota for the week to get their check.
It doesn't bother me so much that there's a welfare system to help people when they fall, I just hate that there's a support system to encourage people to stay down after they fall, or never bother climbing up in the first place.
And I'm not just talking about the lazy people. I knew a girl who after a "tough" start, wanted to work herself up, and through school. She was on all kinds of aid, including food stamps and childcare assistance. She worked full time, and honestly, worked hard. One day she earned a raise, something like 25c an hour, a big deal to her at her near min-wage job. The next month, because her income had increased that $80/mo, it threw her in the next bracket on the welfare system, disqualifying her for childcare and lowering her foodstamps. That completely obliterated her already strained budget, and not long after, she lost her job due to not being able to find childcare/missing work too many times. If that doesn't encourage people to stay broke, I don't know what does.
If the number of people who showed up for the McDonald's jobs is any indication, A LOT.
Good! Got no skills, McDonalds. Have better skills, get a better job. OR, sometimes that is all that is available, oh well. Been there, done that.
Never felt there was a demeaning job in my string of employment. Never thought I was taken advantage of. If I didn't like a situation, I left as soon as I could. Such is life.
How about having business have to make the sacrifice by training these workers (OJT) for better work, versus marking them for bad work?