HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A question that no one wa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:35 PM

A question that no one wants to answer...

19 replies, 4580 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply A question that no one wants to answer... (Original post)
MrScorpio Dec 2013 OP
Scuba Dec 2013 #1
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #2
annabanana Dec 2013 #3
MichiganVote Dec 2013 #4
Brigid Dec 2013 #5
JEFF9K Dec 2013 #6
Curmudgeoness Dec 2013 #7
dickthegrouch Dec 2013 #8
okaawhatever Dec 2013 #9
dickthegrouch Dec 2013 #10
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #11
okaawhatever Dec 2013 #15
truedelphi Dec 2013 #16
indie9197 Dec 2013 #12
ReRe Dec 2013 #13
Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #14
Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #17
Chico Man Dec 2013 #18
dchill Dec 2013 #19

Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:41 PM

1. Brilliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:45 PM

2. Good question. Maybe because the American people have allowed themselves to be marginalized

for too long. Bullies will only get away with bullying those who don't stand up to them. The minute they meet with resistance, they tend to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:58 PM

3. GOOD question Mr Scorpio..

(will not be heard on any of the business networks)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:00 PM

4. Because politicians get a better rate of fundraising return from the wealthy.

Politics is the racket we pay for from which the wealthy reap the benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:01 PM

5. GREAT question.

EVERYONE needs to be asking it. EVERYONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:04 PM

6. We all pay the same tax rates on the various income layers. People who don't want to pay ...

... the top rate should take a job that doesn't pay them the top layer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:12 PM

7. Never crossed my mind, but this is great.

The question no one wants to answer, but they have not been asked either. We have to ask it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:33 PM

8. Who gets 40% of their previous pay as unemployment????

California is giving me the maximum amount of $450.00 a week - doesn't even cover my mortgage, far less any health premiums, food, clothes, gas, job hunting expenses, etc etc .

Yes, I have some savings, but I have negative cash flow until I get another job. My obligations are nowhere near as high as some others in my position, I'll survive, AGAIN , as long as I get another job within a year, however I'll have used a lot of retirement savings, AGAIN , and this time I'm only 8 years from retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:40 PM

9. The payments are capped so for higher earners it's not 40% but for lower earners it is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:51 PM

10. So the cap is at $58,500 annually in CA

if the cap represents 40% of annual compensation.

In the bay area where houses have a median price of $400,000 (down from $675,000 in 2007) $58,500 would buy you a run down mobile home... floating in a pond, maybe.

Hell, even the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment around here is $2,500/month at the barest minimum. A decent place is going to set someone back at least $3,500 a month.

If someone becomes unemployed around here, they'd better have a plan B for housing. They will not be able to make it on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:32 PM

11. I hear that the largest homeless encampment in the USA is in Silicon Valley, in San Jose nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:25 PM

15. I know. I think there should be some additional unemployment insurance for high earners. That's one

of the problems with the current system. I haven't looked at it for probably twenty years, but most states reimburse a percentage of income (I thought it was 60% because taxes aren't taken out) up to x amount. So if the state max per week is $450 like in your state, a person gets that amount whether they make $3500 per month or $10,000 per month.
I've been thinking about the discrimination against high cost/earning living areas lately. Other than Hawaii and Alaska, I don't think most high income and cost cities like LA, SF and New York get any more in certain federal benefits. Like food stamps, welfare programs and earned income tax credits. I wondered if the real reason blue states are paying more into the federal government by way of taxes is because of the higher incomes vs. red states without compensating benefits. It's just a theory, but I read a long time ago that one of the purposes of the earned income tax credit was to equalize the south's low wages. It was suggested that is why the Republicans jump all over food stamps and other programs, but not necessarily the EIC. I don't have more info, but I've been wondering about that lately, especially when I read that Boeing is moving jobs to the South and Midwest. I'm sure the move is to lower their costs, but I was wondering if the taxpayers will end up paying any less for their products?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 11:18 PM

16. You are wondering if the taxpayers will pay less for their products?

I guess you re joking around.

Maybe twenty years ago, my dad remarked that once Oscar Myers hot dogs moved south of the border, he found really good deals on lunch meat with the brand for about a year. Then the prices went right backup to where they had been.

Also other s here have stated that California only gets 73 cents back for every dollar it has paid to the Federal Government via taxes. Californians pay a lot in taxes for many reasons. Many people who would own homes in other states don't do that here in Califronia, or else they don't do it until they inherit from their parents. Costs are just too high. So the mortgage deductions don't get used as much.

Then there are 37 million of us, and that has a big impact as well. (You probably know all of this already.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:39 PM

12. Actually less than 40% because to add insult to injury

You have to pay federal and state income tax on that. Is that really necessary?? Talk about a regressive tax

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:56 PM

13. You're getting too good at this

... It's called thinking! All you have to do, really, is take their statements and turn them around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:06 PM

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MrScorpio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 04:30 AM

17. I would gladly

trade places with anyone in the top income bracket paying 60% or more in taxes. Who wants to have to rely on money from the government that is barely enough to pay the rent and buy groceries with every month? That's why the competition for jobs is always thick. People want to make the big bucks and not be dependent, but the same people who claim that everyone is too dependent on government are advocating some of the same policies that cause dependency. When you oppose raising the minimum wage, workers get paid less, thus increasing the role that the government has to play in order to keep them on their feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 08:43 AM

18. "Ostensible" job seeker?

What is that supposed to mean?

What about an "ostensible" highest earner?

I admit, I don't know what ostensible means... particularly in this context.

"stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so"

40% unemployment payment to someone that "appears to be seeking a job but isn't necessarily doing so"? Yeah, that sounds like a waste to me. Get up off your lazy butt and find a job. At least TRY.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chico Man (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:42 PM

19. To me it refers to one who would seek a job...

were there any available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread