America on $195 a Week
How the working poor get by. Barely.
"I'll take a sandwich to work and that's about it," says Aubretia Edick, who is 58 and works in the pharmacy department of a Wal-Mart in Hudson, New York. "I drink a lot of tea. Once in a blue moon I'll go into Save-A-Lot and I'll get some meat. Eggs is kinda like a luxury kind of thing."
Edick first landed a $6.40-an-hour gig at Wal-Mart back in 2001, and over time her wages inched upward, reaching $10.50 last year. But with inflation factored in, it isn't that much better than when she first started. To make matters worse, while Edick was technically full time, her manager often slashed her hours due to the slowing economy. In mid-2008, she was grossing roughly $297 a week—$195 after taxes and deductions.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It's not just the unemployed who are hurting. Across the country, unskilled, nonunionized workers like Edick are barely scraping by on stagnant or declining wages. Bob Pollin, codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, calculates that a single person needs about $400 a week, pretax, to achieve even a semblance of economic security—the ability to pay bills on time, eat three square meals a day, and set aside a small rainy-day fund. By Pollin's calculation, tens of millions of American workers fall short of that minimum.
You'll find many of them in food prep, where more than 11 million Americans command a median hourly wage of $8.24, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are another 4.5 million workers doing maintenance-related tasks for $10.18 an hour, 3.3 million in "personal care" at $9.50, and 14.5 million in retail jobs that pay $11.41. Last year, Wal-Mart said its employees averaged $10.83 an hour, although labor-activist group Wal-Mart Watch claims that many longtime workers still make less than $10. These meager wages have helped push 6.2 million more Americans into poverty between 2000 and 2007. And that was before the banking industry imploded.
The fallout can be seen in breadlines across the country. Dozens of food-pantry workers I've interviewed for my upcoming book on hunger report a flood of working-poor clients. Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest), a nonprofit that supplies 63,000 pantries and once primarily served "the poorest of the poor," learned in 2006 that more than one-third of its beneficiaries come from working households. "We're seeing faces we've never seen before," says spokesman Ross Fraser. At a pantry in Gallup, New Mexico, visited back when gas prices were soaring, one 29-year-old Navajo woman told me how the grueling drive to her 7-Eleven job in the town of Cuba came to burn up nearly half of her $6.80-per-hour take. In the end, the math didn't make sense, so she quit. "I feed my three boys potatoes," she said. "We eat two meals a day—just breakfast and dinner. Usually oatmeal for breakfast, and in the evening, gravy potatoes with tortillas."
Edick's monthly take-home pay—about $800 at the time I visited—doesn't go far either. She lives in a tiny apartment with a broken stove and mostly empty fridge that barely works. Rent and utilities run about $450 a month; when it's cold outside, she often sets the thermostat to 50 degrees to lower her bill. Gas and car insurance cost another $160 or so, depending on prices at the pump. And then there are the doctor visits, covered only after a $1,000 deductible—plus medicines for a thyroid problem, chronic anxiety, and osteoporosis.
To balance the budget, Edick often skimps on food, some weeks spending little more than $10 on groceries, about one-quarter what the federal food stamp program calculates is needed for three "thrifty meals" a day. She patronizes the grimy discount stores whose prices run even lower than Wal-Mart's, and can tick off their notable sales going back for months. "I had some oranges," she recalls with a self-deprecating smile. "A couple of months ago, they had grapes on sale." And, "If it's less than three dollars for a package of six steaks, that looks like a good deal to me." (She tries not to think too hard about the quality of a 50-cent steak.) Her staples include PB&J, canned ham salad, soup: "I'll get chicken noodle or Campbell's Chunky. There's meat in there. You can pour it over noodles and put butter on it. It's like a delicacy."
In essence, the nation's biggest employers of unskilled labor often leave workers having to feed from the public trough. In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley. Other studies have revealed widespread use of publicly funded health care by Wal-Mart employees in numerous states. In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.
For her part, Edick, unlike many Americans, hasn't resorted to handouts. (An estimated 28 million people were on food stamps as of last April, up from 17 million in 2000.) "There's times I'm hungry, and I'll look in the refrigerator for something—I'll find a snack pudding. Some leftover rice," Edick says softly. "I'm not starving or anything like that."
Sasha Abramsky's new book, Breadline USA, is due out in May from PoliPoint Press.
Comments
This is just a reminder that
Submitted by Trollstein on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 12:41 PM PST.
This is just a reminder that three of the candidates in 2008 favored raising taxes on the working poor. Ron Paul, Huckabee and Mit Romney (the millionaire).
In the case of Paul and Romney, their solution was to replace income taxes with a national sales tax of 23%. Thus, people like Ms. Edick, would pay 23% more for everything she purchased (100% of her take home salary and therefore her tax bracket would increase to 23%). The very affluent however would have seen a giant tax reduction (could be as low as 3% of earnings).
Life is a balance between the varied interests. Billionaires have rights and so do minimum wage workers. But the very affluent have far more power then the rest of the population. Their power must be limited below what it has been.
BTW: When the IRS was first created, the public was sold a bill-of-goods and wrongly informed that the rich investors would bear the brunt of the income taxes. Working people were told they would be immune. Which is how and why the amendment permitting the IRS made it through to our constitution. Over time, the less affluent paid higher and higher portions of taxes. Capitol gains was not paid when one's investments rose in value, only when one sold their position(s). (Working people have to pay their taxes upon cashing their pay-checks). When Reagan took office, he reversed the original mission of the IRS by greatly reducing capitol gains taxes. When you hear someone say: "Redistribution of wealth" do not be fooled. These people have already redistributed the nations wealth, into their own pockets. They merely want it to stay that way.
Respectfully submitted~
On the National Sales Tax...
Submitted by dustinchicago (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 10:46 AM PST.
(And I liking Huckabee anyway...)
I thought the National Sales Tax would benefit us more then your math implies-
1. Working poor (like us) spend basically in categories (Housing, Food, Taxes, Medical/Debt) and that the woman in this article spent Half of her earings on Housing- which may or may not go up under a National Sales Tax- so when we calculate her tax burden via Sales tax, we need to look at the other half of her income.
2. Something that would go hand in hand with a National Sales Tax is a National Single Payer Health Insurance, covering those medical expenses.
So, if I make $20k a year, spend half that on Housing/Utilities, then the other $10k would be spent on something probably with sales tax (assuming I have no medical or credit bills).
So, would raising my sales tax from 6-10% to 23% ($600 to $2300) beat the spread of what I pay in taxes? (about 25% of the Whole Income amount, or $5000) even if half of that weren't "national taxes" that can be transffered to a National Sales Tax, the working poor would be keeping more of their income, and actually be given a choice on how they were taxed (taxing of food varies from place to place).
Not to mention that an Income tax is illegal and immoral under the Constitution.
And, especially if it was a combo Sales tax/Single Payer insurance, it would lessen the burden on employers- allowing them to pay workers more without raising costs, and removing the crippling Medical Pay burden on employers.
Yeah, for my money, National Sales Tax is the way to go- Of course, don't take my word for it... go to the Fair Tax people for a better explanation.
National Income Tax
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Feb. 20, 2009 12:42 PM PST.
It sounds fair to you that everyone pays the same amount of income tax when most of the income of the poor goes toward basic subsistance (food, clothing, shelter) while the wealthy still have enough left over to buy politicians?
The Fair Tax plan is not fair. It is only proof that mass marketing (think main stream media owned by the eilite) is able to sway enough people to keep real reform out of this nation's grasp.
???
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:20 PM PST.
Name me one politician who supports both replacing the income tax with a national sales tax and single-payer health care. I've never heard of this combination!
Unregulated capitalism
Submitted by kesmarn on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 1:26 PM PST.
Unregulated capitalism is a bone-grinding machine that destroys lives and, contrary to the propaganda we are all exposed to throughout our lives, it is not un-American to say so.
Which "unregulated
Submitted by JCR (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 5:38 AM PST.
Which "unregulated capitalism"? Where "unregulated capitalism"?
The US is one of the most regulated country in the the world. I don't know of one item around me that is not regulated and taxes. Water? regulated. Glass? regulated. Bank? regualted. Trees in my garden? Regualted (a bylaw tells that I need a license to cut them...)...
Regulations are dangerous because they make us think that what is regulated is safe and is good, when this is just a stamp by government saying... nothing. Regulations are there to make sure nobody cares anymore about anything. At which point, the people is ready to be the salve of government (and the people behind it).
No industry has been deregulated over the last 50+ years. Yes, no industry has been deregulated over the last 50+ years. Some industries have been re-regulated; that is have seen their regulatory framework changed. Socialist Republicans (that is all of them but Ron Paul) love calling that "deregulation" but it is not. Deregulation means freedom, complete freedom. And there is not freedom nowhere in the USA. The USA is a socialist country and has always been a socialist country.
Regulated?
Submitted by kesmarn on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 8:17 AM PST.
The U.S. may have regulations on the books for capitalist enterprises but if none of them have been enforced over the previous eight years that is tantamount to unregulated capitalism. It's worked out really well, no?
Deathly Afraid and very Disgusted
Submitted by Rizzo (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:23 AM PDT.
"...none of them have been enforced over the previous eight years..." --- exactly!!
People that "point" to the fact that regulation(s) exist wipe over the fact that these regulations are either not enforced (most of the time) or are so watered down they make no real sense (most all of the time).
These kinds of people are the kind that are good at lying with statistics. Cherry-picking their arguments by glossing over the basic premise of the discussion. In other words, they don't listen; they react. The answer to that is to answer: Boo! Boo to these queens of putrescence.
Another case of hoping no one will notice those pesky facts?
Submitted by Nicole (not verified) on Fri Feb. 20, 2009 4:45 PM PST.
I think you must have an odd definition for de-regulation. I am not even that up on it and I can point to the Power Industry. Here in CA people were sold on de-regulating power with the promise of lower prices which resulting of course, in higher prices.
This country (and others along with us) are in a deep hole because of the De-regulation polices from Regan on up. The Ayn Rands (who Greenspan admired) of the world think everything should be free and uncontrolled so man can truly prosper and reach their potential. Their own desire to do good and do a good job should be all that is needed. That was a utopian dream. Too many people are just out for themselves and work under the notion that if they are not specifically told no, it must be ok. Even when told no, the mantra is, find a loop hole. Get it while the getting is good. Greed Is Good.
What the de-regulation people really want is an economic wild west. No pesky laws. The fastest shooters win, the rest are either controlled by them or killed.
Ron Paul does NOT support a national income tax
Submitted by John (not verified) on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 2:10 PM PST.
to the above, poster, do some research.
Also the article cites inflation as a problem, where does it come from? Read about the Federal Reserve. If any things need more regulation it is the Fed. I suggest any look up "fractional reserve banking' and ask yourself why the loses from fraud are socialized. No other industry is allowed to operate like this.
Ron Paul
Submitted by Trollstein on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 2:46 PM PST.
John:
I personally watched Ron Paul on TV state that his plan was to abolish the IRS and replace it with a national SALES TAX, which he estimated to be 23%. (Or was that some other Ron Paul?)
Regarding the Federal Reserve:
You speak as if everyone else except you and Congressman Paul are dupes. It is likely I know more about the Federal Reserve then you, and maybe even more then Paul. One thing I know (which you probably do not) is that the Fed is now deliberately trying to cultivate inflation--in an effort to combat anticipated deflation. The official Federal Reserve estimation is: Best Case scenario: 18 months recession. Worst case: Don't ask. Since you have not been nice, I will not tell you any more goods. You will have to a-paul-ogize for your insolence first.
So sayith the ruler for life of the Troll kingdom.
Respectfully submitted~
I'm a PhD student and i'm
Submitted by Jay (not verified) on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 7:37 PM PST.
I'm a PhD student and i'm making roughly what she's making if I were working 40 hours a week (which of course is a light week for me). If you're working full time at that rate, you can get by assuming you don't have a car, kids, you're not a homeowner, etc. But its tough. Its especially difficult if you're on your own and don't have that initial 5,000 dollars of capital to purchase the neccessities of living by yourself. I'm lucky my financial situation is temporary. And I have the luxury of taking out student loans to give me a hand until I graduate. I can't imagine living like that for the rest of my life.
And thank you Trollstein for pointing out how devestating the national sales tax would have been to the financially downtrodden. I believe Neal Boortz deserves a good smack in the face!
A national sales tax of 23%
Submitted by AngelaE8654 on Wed Feb. 18, 2009 8:10 PM PST.
A national sales tax of 23% is ridiculous, and you'd have to prove to me that any of these former candidates actually asked for it.
This story about this woman is heartbreaking. I know that she works hard every day. However, how is a "flat tax" going to hurt her? If the national "flat tax" was, say...10% of everyone's income (regardless of income level) then this woman would pay (in my state, if she were making minimum wage) a mere .86 CENTS per hour in taxes. The businessman who makes $50 per hour would be paying $5 per hour for taxes. Both would be taxed at the same rate, which is fair.
Why is it fair that one person should have to pay more for taxes than the other person? Who are to say that the person who makes $50 per hour "can afford" it more? What if his elderly, 90 year old mother and all his 18 elderly aunts are living under his roof and he supports them? What if two of his children have permanent disabilities and must have specialized, daily medical care? We don't KNOW what each person faces and it's not fair for us (who don't know them) to decide that another person "can afford" the higher taxes.
Angela from Aberdeen
Backlinks
"What if his elderly, 90
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 7:43 AM PST.
"What if his elderly, 90 year old mother and all his 18 elderly aunts are living under his roof and he supports them?"
Then he's a head of household and has dependents. There are tax deductions for that that are spelled out on the most basic 1040.
"What if two of his children have permanent disabilities and must have specialized, daily medical care?"
There are programs that subsidize this, and usually tax benefits as well.
As someone making nearly $50/hour (if I convert my salary) trust me, there's a LOT of extra money at the end of the month. I make $80K/year (~$40/hr) and after insurance premiums, taxes, etc I net around $4700/mo. My fixed expenses are ~$2600-$2700/mo. If I lived in a nice, but normal apartment and didn't have a brand new car, I could cut that, easily, by another $700/mo. If I wanted to, I'm pretty sure I could cut fixed expenses by $1000/mo and still have better accommodations that most of the city. Yeah, I could put 60% of my take-home pay into savings, instead of the 30-40% I do now.
I have no issue paying the taxes I do. None. Your argument is ludicrous.
I agree with you entirely. I make approximately $100k/year and I have no problem at all paying taxes. These arguments are ridiculous.
A flat tax is always harder on those earning less, its quite easy to see. You merely have to look at what basic fixed costs of life are. My basic cost of life isn't any different than someone who makes less than 1/4 of what I do. Except that they don't have much left at the end of the month.
- Kuy
Programmer, Clinical Trials Software
the honorable outlook
Submitted by Name Withheld (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:30 AM PDT.
Thank you, Kuy! You set a very positive example, I believe. Thank you (and congratulations, too) for *understanding* what is at stake.
Quality of life...
Submitted by tammyleen on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 10:47 AM PDT.
I agree with your angle here. People on a comfortable salary tend to spend significantly more on materials and services that are not essential. Sounds like stating the obvious I know, but this is actually a huge issue. Think how inane it is: People buy things they think they want, but truthfully don't really need. What's more, there is an inexorable network of expensive marketing machinery at work to make these people think they want something they don't really need. They think they want the latest pair of fashionable sneakers, fragrance of air freshener, or a $50 hair-cut. Think of all the time, resources and effort the world wastes in creating meaningless products and services which are forced down the throats of the world of consumers. Most individuals don't need DVDs and dental gum, they need:
Food
Shelter
And a well organised society should be geared towards also adding:
Healthcare
Education
Social interaction
Those five things with a sprinkling of entertainment represent far more quality of life than high street shop windows ever could. And what's more, they should all be FREE. Not paid for out of your tax, or worse, out of the rich peoples' taxes (we need rich people to exploit poor people to get more tax revenue to pay for the poor people's benefits??)
People working together can provide life's essentials for everyone. The lady in this story should have all these five things provided for her by her community. If she can work a little to help the community as well, then that's great for her and great for the community. But why should an old lady's efforts be taxed? Why should her labour generate profits for a private business' share holders? Why should her quality of life be dictated by the number of hours she can work and at how many dollars per hour? We should all wake up and see the mess that the globalisation of capitalism has created.
Income is relative. There are just as many people making minimum wage that have relatives they need to take care of as well. The truth is there is NO perfect system. We need to create a system that is best for OUR COUNTRY and not worry about catering to any one voting/contributing party!
Why going after Wall-Mart
Submitted by JCR (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 5:27 AM PST.
Why going after Wall-Mart when the real culprit is government?
As the article suggests at one point, Wall-Mart benefits from taxpayers (let me amend that by government's creditors) in so many ways. Minimum wage? Wonderful barrier of entry into his business for Wal-Mart; no wonder that Wall-Mart supports minimum wage laws.
And Mrs Edick is a prime victim of government. Prices going up? Thank you the Federal Reserve and its inflationary policies that lead to phony booms and awful bursts. By the way, wait for the hyperinflation and see how people really fare under the ObaBush-style regimes.
In the end, Obama, the killer-in-chief, will have to go to war to feed (and shrink...) the people. Nazi's Germany was the first country in the 30s to reach full employment thanks to a massive rearmament program. Obama and its 17,000 additional troops to murder in our name in Afghanistan is right on track.
I am not afraid to affirm that social security must go. Shut down that Bernie Madoff type of ponzi scam. Not only it does not work today but it is at its most effective today!
The article above reminds me once again that government fails, screw things up and manages to position itself as the only solution for problems it created. Fascinating.
Anything government does is with a gun. Pointed to taxpayers (fewer and fewer of them), pointed to those who would like to do things and live but must abide by tons of regulations, and pointed to US-dollar users who see the real value of the money debased on a daily basis to fund the craziness of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... but cannot use another kind of money (yes, the US government has a violence-enforced monopoly over the ceation of money). Mrs Edick would benefit from a money that does not lose its value (strict gold standard is good for her) and she does not care of Greenspan funding Clinton's dot.com bubble or Bush's real estate bubble (strict gold standard is bad for the Obama-Bush-Clinton gang).
Gun-based solidarity is not morally acceptable and does not work.
"Social Security doesn't
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:28 PM PST.
"Social Security doesn't work today"? It works fine, and it is helping millions of old people who would otherwise be desperate. What are you talking about?
Wal-Mart is a slave plantation
Submitted by Sundiii (not verified) on Mon Feb. 23, 2009 8:45 PM PST.
The problem is that all corporations are slave plantations & employees are slaves. The wage is slavery so govt employees are also slaves. We should have Socialism so all people on earth own all things on earth, which would immediately end world poverty. Billions of people can't get a wage if they live in poor countries, or USA, & it's cuz the wage shouldn't exist. Socialism would make food, medicine, education & everything free. End the wage system. Period. The profit system is slavery.
National Sales Tax of 23%
Submitted by Trollstein on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 6:13 AM PST.
Here is the link to Ron Paul speaking about a national sales tax. He also appeared on Meet the Press and tried to side-step the issue--by claiming that he would (if elected) slash the federal budget by $1-trillion, which of course is remarkably unrealistic. He does not explain what would happen to the 572,000 US military personnel who Dr. Paul would pink-slip, or the cost of their unemployed status (to the US economy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80
Mitt Romney was more specific. His economists came up with the figure of 23% for the amount of national sales tax needed to replace the present income tax. So, although Paul avoided addressing that specific question, or, tried to marginalize it entirely by claiming he would make up the difference through savings, if one were to do away with the IRS, that is the mathematics.
Mike Hukabee was even more vague than Paul. He wanted to abolish the IRS but he would not indicate who would pay these civil costs. (Perhaps his trust was in God to--write the checks).
The above link was retrieved after 3 minutes of web searching. There are many more examples but since MoJo only allows one link per post anyway, I went with what came up first.
Respectfully submitted~
America on 195
Submitted by DR. C on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 8:16 AM PST.
This article is not about regulation or taxation.
It’s about the demand for jobs and what an employer is willing to pay fairly or unfairly.
It’s one of the reasons that NAFTA was developed and the WTO.
If you don’t want to be regulated by U.S. law companies simply move to Mexico, China or any foreign country with mass labor and no regulation.
If you don’t like the wages Americans demand simply move to another country. There are billions of workers who are available for exploit.
In turn Americans lose jobs. Demand for working people in the U.S. is dropping. With drop in demand, wages drop.
As we continue to outsource, demand for American workers skilled or unskilled, drops. As added incentive, companies can keep profits overseas without taxation.
The race to the bottom on wages is on.
Some of the comments range from more regulation to less regulation. More taxation of corporations to less taxation. Flat tax vs. consumption taxes.
Even social security is blamed yet we still run a surplus.
I believe it’s our trade policy that is broken.
If your read NAFTA you will find it has little to do with trade but much to do with protecting companies that move overseas.
We all heard the screaming of other countries when we put the buy American clause into the bailout.
The U.S. Chamber of commerce screamed the loudest along with many other former American companies like GE.
Even our tax dollars are not permitted to be spent in America. Let’s face it. Our trade policy is really a jobs program.
There are few jobs we cannot outsource. There are few jobs we cannot ship overseas. Even State and Federal Government have started outsourcing.
We need a change to our trade policies.
A good place to start would be requiring government to only buy made in America products. Our tax dollars should be invested in America. All of our planes, tanks, parts, should be made in America. If our government wants to buy computers they should be made here.
Now, you will hear the roar of protectionist.
We need some patriotism and maybe a little bit of protectionist here in America. For far too long the so called free traders have been selling America one piece at a time. They have even managed to convince government to spend its dollars overseas.
If that doesn’t work they will scream trade war.
What they will not tell you is we lost the trade war. We were the only ones buying. Everyone else was selling.
When we stopped buying the world went into recession.
Dr. C
Most Americans opine without facts
Submitted by Sharonsj (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 9:00 AM PST.
No industries have been deregulated? Of course they have. The trucking industry, for one. Ron Paul doesn't want a 23% sales tax? Yes, he does, though sometimes he may call it by another name. And it's no different from Steve Forbes's flat tax, which penalizes anybody who isn't rich. I live on about the same income as this Wal-Mart worker, but I'm a lot better off because I paid off my mortgage. Still I'm barely getting by. In the winter my entire Social Security for the month goes completely to the electric and propane companies. I don't see why the rich shouldn't pay higher taxes since they are living off the rest of us. If you don't think that's true, you refuse to see how most big businesses actually operate. Go join the rest of your deluded Republican representatives who are busy selling the country to the highest bidder.
more on taxes
Submitted by dustinchicago (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 10:54 AM PST.
of course remember there is a difference between a Flat Income Tax and a Flat Sales Tax.
and remember that we do not tax- as heavily- where the majority of the "wealth" is... namely stock/bond trading (which would be covered by a National Sales Tax)
If you believe goverment is evil, then I guess no taxes at all- no services either. But if you believe goverment is a tool that we citizens can use to help ourselves together (I can't provide my own health insurance with $2000 rebate, but I could do it under a national plan for the same amount) then you must accept the fact that we all have to pay taxes. Either under and income tax or a sales tax- but which one is the most equitable (to me)?
Stock and bond transactions
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:32 PM PST.
are not subject to any sales taxes, unless I'm very much mistaken. And if they were subject to a 23% sales tax, those markets would cease to exist.
actually, they are
Submitted by Kaleberg (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:52 PM PST.
There are capital gains taxes, and interest is taxable. Granted, the rates should be higher - we had much higher growth with a 45% marginal rate - but there are taxes. Of course, if you lose money, you don't pay tax when you get what's left of your money back.
re: Stock and bond transactions
Submitted by Anon (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:37 AM PDT.
Stock and bond transactions should be (and I think NEED to be) taxed item by item, just like a purchase at a store. The revenue of a simple tenth-of-one-cent per transaction would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of tax revenue. One tenth of one penny.
There is zero sense in wait cycles to tax "capital gains." Point-of-purchase sales taxation is OK for the tail end of the stream, but not OK for speculators? Rubbish. No more free lunches!
Me,Too
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 10:37 AM PST.
I'm a teenager living in a upper-middle class city in Texas. We make about $27,000 a year, because my family lives off of disability. I work so I can have a car and possibly drive, and college is but a dream to me.
I understand how it feels to struggle, and to live on the edge of poverty. If it wasn't for me working, I'd probably be eating what she's eating every day, probably less. In America, there's only the dirt poor, middle class, and rich; no one ever talks about the working poor, because they pretend we don't exist. Yet we do, and we're trying to stay alive every day.
it's amazing but when i was
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 2:02 PM PST.
it's amazing but when i was supporting myself and my boyfriend (a student at the time) on a $9.50 an hour job at a library for a year, i knew that we were not wealthy and we had to watch money very tightly, but i guess i didn't realize just how poor we were. i assumed that since i was making more than $7 an hour, i wasn't really in the "bottom rung" so to speak. this article seems to classify people like me-at-that-time in the poor category and it was hard...but i was always aware that there were people who had it much harder. and now that i make around $24k a year (that's after taxes) and my boyfriend also has a job, it feels like we're rich!
i guess part of the reason that i never felt entirely poor at 9.50 an hour was because immediately after college i got an independent research job for a former professor but became incredibly depressed to the point of failing to keep up with my commitments. then i was so depressed about THAT that i was in denial for another few months about the loss of the job. the point is, we literally had $0 income for over six months (since i was fresh out of college i didn't qualify for unemployment). then i felt poor. we got into credit card debt and then the credit cards stopped working. i lost some weight. i got some help from my parents. i sold a lot of stuff. i tried to keep the direness of our problems from my boyfriend by foregoing meals myself when he wasn't around. and finally when we literally had no resources left, i somehow managed to pull out of my depression just enough to get a job at $9.50 an hour. and it felt like a godsend.
cost of living is pretty low here in nc but when i think about the people i worked with at the library, almost all of them were college educated or had completed some college. a lot of them were young and single (in bands, writers, etc.), but one woman was a recently-single mother, and one was a single woman in her 50s who had recently gone through a serious lawsuit after the death of her son. of course a couple were retirees, one worked part time because her children had just started school (she was stay-at-home before that), and others did it temporarily. but i guess i just forgot how many of us ate peanut butter and jelly for lunch the last few days before a paycheck...
Earnings and wages compared to Wall Street bonuses
Submitted by Tony Wikrent (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 7:52 PM PST.
From 2000 to 2006, the real earnings of 93 million production and nonsupervisory workers rose by $15.4 billion. That is, 93 million workers received about $3 billion a year in pay raises.
In 2007 alone, the bonuses - not just the pay but merely bonuses - to the parasites of Wall Street was $33 billion. Wall Street bonuses in 2008 totaled $18.4 billion.
Wall Street and the financial system (we ought not forget that more money moves through the futures markets in Chicago than through the stock market in New York; Henry Paulson began his career with Goldman Sachs in Chicago) have been sucking wealth out of the real economy. The resulting financial pressure on non-financial companies shows in a number of ways: cutting corners on safety and environmental regulations; holding down wages, lack of capital investment, deferred maintenance, raiding pension funds, or simply offshoring manufacturing.
poverty
Submitted by Anne (not verified) on Fri Feb. 20, 2009 5:28 PM PST.
I am Australian, and I do not know your taxation system.
However, I do think that Ms Edick might be damn lucky not to be a single mother with maybe two children. She might be very lucky too, that if she was married, that her husband had not recently become unemployed.
My little scenario -- my imaginings, I think would mean a household under tremendous stress ... with it impacting heavily on any children.
Being able to afford clothing for growing children, food for always hungry children, books and education for children who dserve the best.
Housing, transportation, fuel in the winter, access to good health services, the ability to have access to equal opportunities in education -- all seem like basic human rights to me.
I worked in Thailand for five years, and I watched the coping strategies of the working poor there. I think that they all kind of hoped that by the time they had reached Ms Edick's age, that they would be dead. This was simply because the daily overwhelming struggles -- every day, every year, with no end to it all in sight, just made you wonder why it was that you were born.
Demanding social justice from a government requires unity, strength ( good food, and not snacks ... a strength of character that knows the difference between what is right and what is wrong), loads of courage and lots more.
Americans might end up, if they are driven too far ... declaring 'war' on the government of the day ... to make demands upon a government that has been set up to act : 'Of the People, By the People and FOR the People.
Good luck over there and God bless always
anne
Legislate Walmart Wages?
Submitted by itstarted on Fri Feb. 20, 2009 7:40 PM PST.
I get a little tired of hearing about how Walmart has ruined the country while posting incredible profits.
By increasing prices at Walmart by about 20%, it might be possible to raise the retail wages by another $2/hour, but that would also reduce the profit margin (among the lowest of all businesses at about 3.4%). Our defense industries work on margins of about 20 to 25% by comparison, and oil refiners regularly work on margins of over 10%.
Government hourly rates for comparative positions in the private sector are almost universally higher by 10% to 40%.
Average wages in the country's largest employer (The US Postal Service) are more than double Walmart's wages.
So yes... perhaps Walmart should pay higher wages.
Or perhaps the government should pay less. Fortunately, the government never has to answer to stockholders, so that's not likely.
Kudos to Trollstein... on understanding taxes.
my opinion only
Wal-Mart - Reality Check
Submitted by ElJay (not verified) on Sun Feb. 22, 2009 9:20 AM PST.
Let me first pull out two quotes from the original article:
"In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley."
"In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children."
Oh, well. But think of all the taxes Wal-mart is paying. You wanna bet?
In a "Wall Street Journal" research piece a couple of years back, Wal-Mart was found to be paying rent to itself and used it as a way to pay less taxes to state governments. According this article, Wal-Mart has saved HUNDREDS of millions in 25 states.
According to a different report released in 2007 that looked at individual states, "Altogether, 3,864 children of Wal-Mart employees (in Alabama) were on the Medicaid rolls, representing one in five of the Medicaid-insured children whose parents worked for the major employers identified in the state’s analysis." This is on top of Wal-Mart having "benefited from more than $38 million in taxpayer-financed economic assistance in Alabama since 1983, with the majority of the benefits accruing since 2000."
But maybe things will start looking up for Wal-Mart employees as the store is now settling claims concerning overtime. According to the February 20 edition of the "Kansas City Star": "Wal-Mart workers in Missouri will get $55.53 million or more under a settlement approved last week as part of a nationwide resolution of overtime claims against the company.
"The Missouri portion of the settlement affects as many as 330,000 former and current hourly employees who worked at a Wal-Mart Store, Wal-Mart Supercenter or Sam’s Club store in Missouri between Aug. 15, 1996, and Jan. 2 of this year."
There are 63 such claims and Wal-Mart has already paid $104.53 million to settle just two suits.
Maybe if Wal-Mart actually pays their employees what they earn those employees won't need government programs to survive.
And if Wal-Mart is actually forced to pay what it is suppose to pay to the states and doesn't get all this financial assistance that small businesses can't get, maybe there will be money available to help those employees who still fall through the cracks.
Can't I dream?
re: legislate walmart wages?
Submitted by nickelanddimed reader (not verified) on Sun Feb. 22, 2009 12:13 PM PST.
In regards to the wages being double at the USPS... as a former employee in 2004 there were 20,000 casuals, considered permatemp employees because we were employed year long (of course breaking the union contract of working 6 months a calendar year), with similar wages as walmart associates, we recieved no holiday pay, no benefits, no health insurance benefits etc... When I left the USPS, they only reported 6 months of pay instead of a years pay... to the unemployment office. I have the documents. How many others from the 20,000 casuals did the usps go unreported on wages, which means they did not pay full taxes to the unemployment agency like other businesses. oh by the way these casuals worked numerous years as temporary... many of them 5 years or more, even 15. And when the usps got the greivance in regards to the casuals they ended up paying millions of dollars per district. Research it yourself.
Wal mart blackmailed my city
Submitted by shano (not verified) on Mon Feb. 23, 2009 1:51 PM PST.
Wal mart blackmailed my city in Az. by threatening to locate on the Indian Rez if they did not get a 6 million dollar tax break. They got it, of course. Now we have 3 Wal Marts for an area with 100,000 people.
Wal Mart gets whatever it wants and screws the workers at the same time.
Sure, all these Wal Mart workers are using the local food banks or other public assistance. Screwed twice over.
What they got away with in my town should be a crime.
Taxes?
Submitted by koyaanisqatsi (not verified) on Fri Feb. 20, 2009 9:42 PM PST.
First, on Ron Paul. He's anti-war (excellent), anti-state(to some extent, that's good). On taxes, from what I just read, he'd abolish income taxes and the IRS, and replace them with........nothing. Exactly how he'd fund government and the services we demand is a mystery. Paul is a bit of a hypocrite, but far from the worst of the bunch in Congress, But, we demand too many services from our government: $1+ trillion on military and intelligence (talk about pork!!!!); 750+ military bases that we admit to on foreign soil; over-eager and intrusive law enforcement agencies; idiotic drug laws. If you live in NY State, it's even worse as far as nutty laws go. Clearly, no one actually wants to pay for all these things. The government should be in the business, if it's in any business of increasing personal freedoms. Sure, we need protection for financial predators, but our government has become one. There are good government programs: food stamps, SSD, SSA.
Where was I? Taxes! No one understands the tax system anymore and it changes weekly. So my plan:
> keep the income tax.
> get rid of _all_ deductions, credits, exemptions, no loopholes.
> treat _all_ income the same, except in one way (next).
> the sum of a persons total income, regardless of whether it's inherited, capital gains, interest, bonus money, use of car for work or personal purposes, dividends, pay for work, etc all count (no exceptions); that total income for the year determines your income tax for the year. People below maybe $20,000 pay nothing. After that, the rate progresses with income, with a top marginal rate of 50% or so. Exact details/amounts would have to be worked out, but your tax return would be a post card-sized form. How much more fair can it get?
>Last, those who really truly need financial assistance and/or health care would be eligible and apply through a single agency. Even veterans, like myself, would get no special treatment--only financial assistance and healthcare like anybody else if they needed it.
>Really the last, all people would pay into the SS trust fund as a %age of their total income with no cutoff point.
Would anyone buy into m scheme? Heck no! Everyone would assume that they are _not_ benefiting from the change-over. I don't have any idea if I would benefit. Benefiting from the change is not the point and not my goal. The point of the change is to get to a comprehensible, fair tax system. It is _not_ the point of the change to benefit any specific group of people.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's just the opposite." -- J. K. Galbraith
The next step from Unions
Submitted by paul (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 12:46 AM PST.
As an angry unionized employee, I'm asking, what's next? The power of organization has been proven. Capital organizes, management organizes, everyone but labor organizes. Only the "workers" will work together, and if you say "workers" you are presumed to be talking communism; if you say Labor you are presumed to think Unions are the be-all, end-all. And millions of working class folks vote republican, to give millionaires a tax break. Just listen to the idiot that outclassed George W. in the moron sweeps, Joe The Plumber.
I work union, I have no coffee or lunch break, in spite of state laws. I get paid $70k a year, which sounds wonderful, I get taxed 30%, and my state taxes just ate my Fed return. But I don't have a schedule, after four plus years. I can't even take a vacation in warm weather, unless I go south of the equator. Rigid seniority rules the day, as if we all lived in the industrial age, when my agency, and my union were created. The guys who get all the benefits give nothing back. The guys and gals who just started, take the worst (all night) shifts, through the worst parts of town, and get no support. For what? Google gets three organic meals a day. And the time to eat them. All the fortune 500 companies treat their workers far above the way we're treated. Why should America unionize, or support union workers?
Because people who work together for common goals come out ahead, that's why Capital organizes, and why management organizes against capital and labor.
We need a new format. The Union is dead. We can support it all we want, but the Union is a bad idea. It too often supports redundancy over expanded business contacts. It protects the lazy instead of rewarding the industrious.
Labor is an integral part of the Market, yet too many "laborers", including tech and finance folks, see their jobs as earned or gifted, not as a transaction: Your time and skills in exchange for some sort of mutually agreed upon compensation. Our jobs are not gifts, we did not earn them by "behaving". We are selling our skills, and our time, for the highest bid, however we should determine the placement of the goalposts. We will get more if we work together.
We will do better if we realize the power of Organization, and if we can see beyond the fatal instincts of the Union or Trade Organization. We need to Re-organize the Unions, and organize America's workplace with a new template; one that recognizes that a healthy company, or government agency, is in the best interests of the employees, as well as the managers and Capital (or politicians). We need a model that fights for job security though better planning, and higher efficiency, not by fighting for redundancy and sloth. A forward-organized auto industry would long ago have been fighting for better looking, safer, more efficient automobiles, and arguing against wasting oil.
At the same time, Americans have to stop shopping at WalMart. There is no excuse. When you shop at WalMart, you enable one of the world's richest families as they force American manufacturing jobs overseas, in order to enable the companies involved to sell to WalMart. Folks I work with, union all, shop at WalMart, and when I confront them, they get nasty "I got kids" etc. They just don't look far enough ahead. In Europe, English workers are being replaced by Italian and Portugese workers at a French owned refinery. It's only "temporary"...but there you are. Tennessee Bus Drivers in San Francisco? Why not? The Detroit and Japanese auto companies went to Tennessee for cheaper labor and lax environmental laws. There is no end.
Organize or live in poverty.
Ron Paul
Submitted by Trollstein on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 5:15 AM PST.
Rkoyaanisqatsi:
"Capitolism is a system whereby those above the income average exploit those below. Communism is a system whereby everyone suffers miserably" ~C.D. Trollstein
Re: Ron Paul: I respectfully disagree. He is among the worst in the US Congress. He is a text-book snake-oil salesman who deliberately shows up during an epidemic flu outbreak to claim the position of "I told you so". "Had you only purchased Dr. Ronpaul's magic elixer last time through, you would have never contracted the flu". Not that he is wrong on everything (neither was Hitler 100% wrong--every time). But in Paul's case (like Hitler's) the flu-cure is worse then the flu. Thats the minor technicality that the Paulites sweep under the carpet.
Did you see Paul's interview on Meet the Press (Tim Russert)? Its on you-tube. He looked like a total know-nothing. He sounded like a time-travel theorist--who was unfamiliar with sci-fi terminology.
Respectfully submitted~
The Collapse
Submitted by Rakesh (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:42 AM PST.
The way the whole economy works is broken. The basic rule of the economy is supply-demand. It means when supply increases, the prices drop. and the opposite when the supply decreases. Nowadays, because of the population explosion (Ocupulet moms) and partly because of immigration (Mexicans,chinese, indians), There are many people who want jobs more than the jobs that are available. This situation translates into lower pay for an hour. The government should bring population control measures. If not, It is going to be hard. Sooner or later, the whole america will collapse. If it doesn't happen now, may be perhaps at 2050 when the population reaches 450 million in america and when there are not more employers to give jobs.
Edick wants to work.
Submitted by HeartOfTheMatter (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 9:07 AM PST.
Edick wants to work. Great!
Why doesn't Wal-Mart give her more hours? In order to give Edick more hours, they either they get more revenue (and need more people-hours of work) or they cut other people's jobs, and give the extra hours to Edick.
The real issue here is that currently we have too many low wage workers, and not enough need in our overall economy for the amount people-hours that are available.
How do you solve that problem?
1) Invest our nations capital in things that product productivity. Investing it in houses (like we saw happen the last 10 years), is arguably one of the worst investments we could have possibly made with the limited amount of debt available to our country, because it produces almost no productivity for our country, and hence, creates almost no sustainable jobs. We need to invest in short, medium, and long term productivity-producing activities.
2) Return the number of low wage earners to the number of low wage people-hours that are needed (with some level of buffer up and down). The implications of having an overabundance of low-wage (or any-wage) workers is generally negative. But the sum total of all of it is that it places an enormous burden on the rest of society for support. Some scholars actually believe that the end-game of the overabundance of low wage workers is actually the heart of the implosion of societies throughout history. I can't say that I agree or disagree. But I can say that in the short term, it's something that needs to be corrected, by either increasing revenue (GDP) as in point 1) above, or decreasing the low wage people-hour supply.
So,
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 8:46 PM PST.
should we expose every third infant at birth? Adopt China's two-child rule? Execute the unemployed? Tell us what you mean!
The Failure of Neo-Con Unregulated Corporate Capitalism
Submitted by Freethinker (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 9:23 AM PST.
We are now suffering the effects of 30 years of Conservative social and economic policy and philosophy (Reagan/Thatcherism) - Social Darwinism and Vulture Capitalism, or privatization of everything from schools and prisons to the military itself and government only for defense and police (and there would be a lot of these). AND IT HAS FAILED MISERABLY! Free Market Unregulated Corporate Capitalism is just as much a failure as Soviet-style State Capitalism (and the same few people at the top made out like bandits, which they are), yet you read all these neo-cons writing in here denying all the facts so glaringly apparent and defending these politics and economics of greed and selfishness. Don't they pay attention? This Vulture Corporate Capitalism is what has caused this terrible economic failure smothering the whole world now. And they want to give us more of it? A lifetime of capitalist brainwashing in the USofA has caused a dissonance and distortion of reasoning like no where else.
This woman's story is only one of many in the US where there is the largest gap between rich and poor, and between top "management" salaries (as incompetent as they are) and that of the workers who actually do the work that creates the wealth, the top 1% of the population owns over 60% of the wealth (a figure rivaling the 3rd world), the working poor cannot afford health care (47 million and growing), the "for profit" health care system is the most expensive and covers the smallest percent of the population, the largest percentage of people live in poverty (36.5 million and growing), infant mortality is the highest, crime and violence are the highest, the largest percentage of the population is in prison (more of which are being privatized for profit), the military industrial complex is the largest and the most is spent on militarism and neo-colonialism, and one of the least free presses which explains the amazingly ignorant electorate (sadly, much of that is voluntary) in the "developed" world - and there's so much more that could have been added, much to the the disgrace of the US which claims to be the richest nation in the world (where is it?).
The Conservatives oppose every program to spend taxpayer dollars on those very taxpayers - that's socialism, there's not enough money for caring for the people and an advancing and invading neo-colonial military, that'll raise the deficit they say! Funny, where were they to protest about the highest deficit and most profligate spending in US history these past 8 years? Talk about debt (and big-spending Conservatives! The next most big spending pres. was Reagan - another neo-con who never saw a bullet that was too expensive, but was all for poor children going hungry in school). These Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs are all for taxpayer Socialized corporate debt and failure, but profit is strictly Privatized. They condemn "redistribution of wealth" downward (McCain/Palin made a big deal of this kind of Socialism), yet they don't seem bothered at all at the redistribution of taxpayers' money upward - concentrated in the hands of the richest few. Taxpayers always lose and the Capitalist Robber Barons always win with these people. What a bunch of scumbags, and sadly the poorest and least educated are the most likely to fall for the Conservative flag-waving nationalistic smoke and mirrors BS and vote for them.
"America" is a myth. And until the prevailing hangover of the colonial Puritans' materialistic and intolerant religion (who believed that people were rich because God loved them and blessed them for their goodness, and the poor were bad people so God wouldn't bless them) is eradicated from the political and social thinking in the US, there will never be real change. What a sad and stupid philosophy in this day and age, but it is ingrained, if actually unspoken, in the Social Darwinism of Conservative (GOP - Greedy Old Puritans) thought and action, and, incredibly, accepted as truth by many raised (brainwashed) with this vaunted "USAmerican Value"
I give thanks every day to have left the US and am now a happy and devoted citizen of Europe where everyone is guaranteed health care, state-sponsored murder is illegal, unions are strong and active, CEOs make just a fraction of those in the US, animal rights are more humane and progressive, religion is kept at arms length and treated with the disdain and suspicion it has earned, militaries are solely for defense - not world domination (Europe has renounced it's dark colonial past, while the US is now the only neo-colonial power in the world), more attention is paid to the environment and so on. Europe is the future and the hope of a world that yearns for capitalism with a human face and real democracy that isn't delivered with strings at the end of a gun (especially where it is not wanted).
My only regret is that I didn't leave sooner.
Freethinker's post
Submitted by Trollstein on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 10:47 AM PST.
Obviously, I do not disagree with much of what you say as it roughly mirrors my own sentiments. Here's where I disagree: Europe is no panaciea of virtue or achevement. France (for example) has neighborhoods where the police are not allowed. The Europieans (et al) were unable to confront a blossoming genocide in their own back-yard (the former Yugoslavia) and of course, Europe is also too lame to lift a pinky-finger to oppose the genocide of millions of Blacks in the South of Sudan. Which is why the USA has to rescue them (usually from each other) every few decades. The turning point from which the world has never recovered (in this Troll's humble opinion) was when Woodrow Wilson campaigned against involvement in WW1 and proceeded (at once upon his inaugration) to get us into that war. The result being that oil has been traded in US Dollars ever since. This has created a false U.S. economy and our close reliance on the goodwill of the royal oil producers. We have had to protect them in order to protect our own economy from colapse.
The fact is that the world needs a benevolant policeman more then we need to be that police. Which is fine with me. In the mean time, until we decide to and begin the process of dismantling those remote police stations, we are wearing the uniform and need to react when the situation warrants. Not doing so would be the worst of all worlds because every penny-anti war-lord would try to make their reputation by inflicting a pounding on the USA.
You are right about 'vulture capitolism'. We have created this economic disaster through sheer greed and abuse of power. Now we are paying. But giving the far left the keys to the cities would produce no better results. Life is a balance between extreem positions. Doing so without compromising ethics is the difficult part.
Respectfully submitted~
Rebuilding
Submitted by itstarted on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 11:17 AM PST.
Am resigned to ten years of bad .
May I suggest a possible alternative?
Louis Kelso and "The Capitalist Manifesto".
Not the Wiki read on the subject, but some serious study...
I was drawn in with doubt and suspicion, but came out with belief that "Binary Economics" was not only reasonable, but possible.
Is anyone here familiar with the subject? Trollstein, perhaps?
On the serious threads where I've had discussions on the subject there has yet to be argument against the potential for a new order.
What better time to investigate the possibility.
Thoughts?
my opinion only
I need to read up on this
Submitted by Trollstein on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 4:15 PM PST.
I need to read up on this ‘binary economics’ before commenting.
Almost anything which is intelligent and fair would be an improvement to the core-melt we are experiencing now.
To my thinking, we need to review history, implement common-sense and invoke fairness. At the beginning and the end of the day, we are all monkeys, with fancy push-buttons that light up pretty colors. Much of what occurs in the universe is beyond our grasp. Much of the rest of reality is routinely ignored for expedience, politics, religion and/or vanity. I think most people lack sufficient appreciation for the above two impediments.
For now, I will wrap up with a recap of some earlier posted comments.
Our U.S. economy is suffering from gross mismanagement. The ‘economically too powerful’ have recently become the ‘economically all powerful’. We have run up a national debt of $10-trillion and guess what? I for one have had no fun doing it. (At least if we all chartered private jets, flew to Maui and had partied-hardy, the hangover would still not be worth it but at least we all might be smirking at this point. What we have instead is a hangover without the party.) Which tells me that this situation was both self inflicted and mostly avoidable.
For one thing, Mr. Obama should sign an executive order limiting interest rates to 15% until further notice. Secondly, the credit reporting agencies should be required to utilize a floating average for scoring consumers. As it now stands, the financial institutions have induced people (en-masse) to commit fouls and thus, as their credit scores suffered, their interest rates rose. This was a very profitable system for the banks for a few years. Now they have killed everyone’s credit. These scores must be re-calibrated.
Next, federally chartered banks must follow the banking laws in the individual states where they have branches and/or do business. Presently (believe it or not) they do not have to follow state banking laws. Banks can also (presently) adopt the court jurisdiction of one state where they have an office (which they call their ‘headquarters’). I have just scratched the surface. Anyone who wants to contact me may do so by clinking on my graphic and selecting the icon “email subscriber’. This is done behind the scenes (by MoJo’s new web platform) and each party will not need to reveal their email address.
* Cheers.
Respectfully submitted~
America on $195 a week
Submitted by Lefty Larueaux (not verified) on Sat Feb. 21, 2009 6:57 PM PST.
Another book: Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickeled and Dimed". She goes undercover and works those mundane, going nowhere, low, low paying jobs. It's worth reading, though I think I am preaching at the choir here.
Re: American on $195/wk
Submitted by ddrew2u on Sun Feb. 22, 2009 10:22 AM PST.
As Sasha quoted Robert Pollin: $400/wk is the realistic just-above-poverty line for a single individual. The official federal poverty line -- based on the mindless-measure of three times the price of an emergency diet (dried beans only please; no canned!) -- is off by about half (or double if you look from the bottom up).
As of 1968, the minimum wage in this country was $400/wk ($64, adjusted for inflation) -- when average income was only half of today's. As of 2009, 25% of the American workforce is earning less than the 1968 minimum. If an American of 1968 did a Woody Allen "Sleeper" and awoke today, she would not call the destruction of American wages by the wan "inequality"; she would call it nothing less than a GREAT WAGE DEPRESSION -- far outweighing any damage being done by today's deep but ultimately temporary recession.
Doubling today's minimum to $500/wk would add all of 2 1/2% to the cost of GDP output -- and about as much to inflation -- or about how much we grow every couple of years.
If our progressive elite's next door neighbors were down to $150,000/yr they would be willing to take deep risks with the properity to restore of $30,000 kitchen land. How much risk would there be in raising the fed min wage $1/hr every six months until it doubled?
Just as a first move to end the totally unnecessary DEPRESSION pains Sasha depicted.
This is an insult.
Submitted by Ambit Energy (not verified) on Sun Feb. 22, 2009 11:40 AM PST.
Our government charges the working class too much in taxes. Why do the rich people pay a smaller percentage when it comes to taxes. Sadly, $10 an hour is not going to get a comfortable lifestyle. Things need to seriously change. The rich are not willing to pay for our wars like they used to in WW2.
3.3 million personal care Congress DON'T CARE about DIRECT CARE
Submitted by nickelanddimed reader (not verified) on Sun Feb. 22, 2009 12:32 PM PST.
in the story it mentioned the personal care workers, and for 6 years Congress had some of form of a bill to enhance wages of Direct Care Professionals and they have done nothing... the bill such as the recent one from the 110 Congress HR1279 did not even come to a vote, when it had bipartisan support. I sent the following letter to the Speaker of the House and CC'd it others. I also sent hard copy letters to the speaker and my congresswoman, on February 5th. I have not recieved a response, even the typical form letter from my congresswoman.
Madam Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
I am an art instructor at Reach Unlimited, a direct care professional working with mentally retarded adults. As a Democrat, I was very embarrased of our party when they had an opportunity to enhance the wages of direct care employees last session of the 110 US Congress, and they took no action, so the bill died. After some research, I found out that this was not the first opportunity our representatives took no action; because no action was taken during the 108th and 109th republican controlled house. I also found that HR1279 had bipartisan support with 131 co-sponsors; including from my state of Texas, 5 democrats and 3 republicans out of 32 representatives (not a great showing from Texas). As I looked over the co-sponsors of HR 1279, my US congresswoman was not on the list.
Long before the recent financial crisis was realized, which includes bailouts for banks, credit institutions, union auto industries, home mortgages etc etc... there was legislation to enhance the wages of direct care workers and nothing has been done.
Very soon, in July, national minimum wages will be increased. Those minimum wages will be a few shekels close to the pay of entry level direct care professional workers.
It is the "era of CHANGE" and after six years, time for the US Congress to finally vote on a bill to enhance the wages of Professional Direct Care employees. Will the bill be on the President's desk in his first 100 days?
The decision now from the 111 US Congress is... Direct Care or Don't Care.
------------------
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
