SoyLeche
meh...
I'm talking about WEALTH, not income. I'll give you the income numbers.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poverty In The U.S. (We Should Be Ashamed!)
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
Speaking of "increased both in dollar amount and relative to inflation"... In the 60's and 70's on regular jobs one parent could work while one stayed home to raise the kids and still could afford a nice house, a nice car and groceries.
Not anymore.
In today's world people with kids with both parents working a regular job they need assistance of some kind to make it. What happened?
PureX
Veteran Member
Which is exactly why you're touting it as the big solution. But the problem is not lack of housing, it's lack of inexpensive, safe, efficient housing. And that's the result of greed. The people at the lower end of the income scale are never going to be able to afford housing because the housing prices will always be as high as the majority of renters/buyers can afford to pay. And that will always exclude those at the lower end. And even if you raise their income, that will eventually raise incomes across the board, and then the cost of housing will increase to net the higher available profit.
But no one is in business to build lots of housing units. They are in business to make as much money as possible. That means the ideal is to build one cheap house and sell it for a million dollars, rather than build ten quality houses and sell them for 100k each. The easiest way to do what is to build "pretend" mansions on "pretend" estates in the "pretend" country and sell them to people with higher incomes who want to pretend they are rich. So that's what all the builders want to do. Because that's where the biggest profit margins are, and they aren't building houses for people, they're building houses for money.
If you're saying that you would rather build 10 quality homes and sell them for 100k each than build one cheap-as-possible home and sell it for a million dollars, then I simply don't believe you. And if you're saying that the other developers in your area don't either, then I don't believe you again. And if you claim that the costs of existing housing isn't based on what the average income earner can pay then I'm not going to believe you, again.
I have witnessed the sprawl where I am living, too. And I know exactly why it's happening. Everyone wants to be rich. Or at least to look like they are. And that makes those phony mcmansions in the areas surrounding the city very popular. Popular enough that the developers can charge a pretty penny for them without investing that much in building them.
Whereas in the city, among all that "density", only the younger professionals and the less affluent want to live. And they can't afford those big profit margins that the developers all want to gain. So there is very little development going there. And even if there were, the prices would still be aimed at the most affluent among them. Which would still leave the lower incomes out of the picture. So the question is, where do YOU live that somehow, miraculously, greed is not determining housing availability and cost? Because I can't imagine that it's anywhere in the United States of Maximum Profits.
"Big solution"?
That is to entirely mis-state my intent,
which is to mitigate the problem.
I proposed specific measures to improve housing
for people of all income levels, including the poor.
I begin to suspect that we're talking past each other.
PureX
Veteran Member
That didn't answer my question: why are you presuming unto yourself the right and ability to pass judgment, and inflict sentence on other people?
You inflict your judgments on others every time you go into the voting booth and support the policies that inflict those "consequences" on the people you presume to judge.
Why are you having such difficulty generating a complete sentence, here?
You are living in a society of humans, all of which give up some their own personal choice in favor of the choices made by the collective, for the benefit of the collective. Why shouldn't you do the same? And why should the society you live in care who you, personally, would choose to help or not help? The response of the collective should be determined on behalf of the collective, not on behalf of your personal judgments. How is it that you can't seem to grasp this?
Last edited:
Yes, in direct proportion to the growth of government and taxes.
PureX
Veteran Member
Whatever.
Who is going to develop this inexpensive housing, and who is going to pay for it? Because the for-profit developers are not going to do it, or they'd be doing it already.
And once all these units are built, who is going to make sure the prices stay low enough for low income people to pay? Because once again, the developers/owners are not going to do this on their own, or they would be doing it already.
It almost sounds like you are proposing some sort of forced socialist governmental meddling, here, paid for by tax payers. Because I sure don't see any other way this "mitigation" would happen, and work. Do you?
That's nice.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I'd like to see tax reform and universal health insurance with universal basic income
( T.R.A..U. H.I.W.U.B.I..) being done by the following steps in order to significantly reduce American poverty:
1. Universal catastrophic health insurance ( U..H.I.) affordably be done with limited insured cost sharing, ( Universal Medicare with a combined $4,000 Part A and B deductible, a 20 percent Part A and B co-insurance and a 50 percent prescription drug co-insurance ) costing taxpayers ca. $2.32 trillion in the fiscal year 2026.
2. U.H.I being funded in large part with a 10 percent value-added-tax ( 10%V.A.T.) generating approximately 1.28 trillion dollars in the year 2026; this along with U..H.I. being funded in part with an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 29 percent resulting in corporations paying U.S. corporate income taxes of ca. $550 billion, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco excise taxes generating ca. $90 billion of funding for U.H.I, and the remainder of funding for U.C. H.I. coming from Medicare payroll taxes of ca. $400 billion.
3. Social security being fully funded by a doubling of the cap on social security taxes, so that all workers and employers would contribute 6.2 percent of social security taxes on every dollar of their earnings up to $350,000 of each individual wage earner's income .In 2026, this would mean Americans would pay ca. $1.4 trillion in social security payroll taxes.
4. U.S. military spending along with veteran services being funded with a simplified income tax system, just a few income tax brackets beginning in year 2026, zero percent on the initial $12,000 of personal individual annual income, 12 percent on $12,001 to $62,000 of personal individual annual income, 32 percent on individual personal annual earnings in excess of $62,000. Capital gains taxed at same rate as ordinary income. No tax credits, save for a refundable $4,000 child tax credit as well as a $5,000 subsistence living allowance refundable tax credit for each adult American citizen. In 2026, this would result in total personal federal income tax revenue amounting to an estimated $950 billion dollars.
5. Approved federal spending in 2026 at ca. $1.4 trillion for Social Security, ( no change from status-quo on S.S. retirement benefits ), ca. 950 billion dollars towards the military and veteran services or veteran benefits, $600 billion on debt interest payments, an estimated $63 billion spending on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ( ca. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( ca. $13 billion ) for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( ca. $34 billion) for the Department of Energy, ( ca. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, ( $8 billion ). for the Food and Drug Administration, ( ca. $42 billion ) for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, ( ca. $25 billion) for the Department of Interior annual spending, ( ca. $55 billion) for the Department of Homeland Security, (ca. $32 billion) for the Department of Justice, ( ca. $11 billion ) for the Department of Labor, ( ca. $25 billion ) for N.A.S.A., ( ca. $45 billion ) for the State Department, ( ca. $120 billion) for the Department of Transportation, ( ca. $23 billion ) for the Department of Treasury; the above proposed federal spending resulting in total federal annual spending to be ca. $5.785 trillion..
6. The implementation of excise taxes on railways, fuel, airports and aviation collectively adding up to $160 billion.
7. The imposition of financial transaction taxes ( remittance taxes and stock/bond trade taxes) generating ca. $200 billion.
8. The implementation of tariffs resulting in ca. $120 billion of revenue in 2026 and federal estate taxes generating an additional ca. $35 billion in revenue.
9. Excise taxes on railways, fuel, airports, and aviation, along with federal estate taxes, financial transaction taxes and tariffs being used to fund fiscal year 2026 spending on an estimated $63 billion spending on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ( ca. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( ca. $13 billion ) for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( ca. $34 billion) for the Department of Energy, ( ca. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, ( $8 billion ). for the Food and Drug Administration, ( ca. $42 billion ) for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, ( ca. $25 billion) for the Department of Interior annual spending, ( ca. $55 billion) for the Department of Homeland Security, (ca. $32 billion) for the Department of Justice, ( ca. $11 billion ) for the Department of Labor, ( ca. $25 billion ) for N.A.S.A., ( ca. $45 billion ) for the State Department, ( ca. $120 billion) for the Department of Transportation, ( ca. $23 billion ) for the Department of Treasury; the above approved federal spending resulting in total federal annual spending to be ca. $5.785 trillion..in comparison to the above proposed taxes for 2026 adding up to ca. $5.185 trillion.
10. The above approved fiscal year 2026 federal spending being ca. $5.785 trillion and $5.185. trillion of tax revenue would result in a federal deficit of ca. $600 billion, which is nearly half the deficit spending amount in comparison to following the status quo.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
One of the problems in California is too many communities and peiple won't have additional housing built. Another problem is the tax system for home ownership that subsidizes those who have been the same house, which is shouldered by everybody else.
And, yes, for profit developers will do it if someone pays them to. That's how it works. You desire goods or services, and you furnish the money to domains how can provide the desired goods and services.
It's due to inflation, stagnant wages, and an increasing wealth concentration at the very top.
And we had much higher tax rates on the highest tax brackets then, so your argument does not work. Especially when you also consider that was also a big enough government to launch the Red Scare and add "under god" to the pledge, and force thousands of young men into servitude to go kill and be killed overseas where they didn't belong.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Poverty is more subjective than objective in America. For example, the average poor person in America has more square feet of living space, than the average middle class person in Europe.
The average poor person in America owns cell phones, computers, HD TV, microwave ovens, automobiles and has full medical coverage. These benefits were things only the richest people had 50 years ago. If we teleported the poor back in time, they would be upper middle class in terms of standard of living.
The problem is that too many in culture do not look on the bright side. It does not count the benefits, that poor now have, that were once said to be important. Rather they try to diminish these things by comparing the poor to the modern Jone's, as a way to create subjective envy and discontent. The left gets voters this way.
If you solve a problem, then big government would need to shrink. If you can make it appear worse, this will help grow government.
Here is a classic example of the Big Government affect. If you combined all the welfare benefits given to a poor family of four, that includes housing, medical, school lunch, food stamps and direct payments, etc., it totals about $43,000/ year. This total includes the Big Government overhead for federal, state and local.
If we were to cut out the middle man; all levels of government, and gave the the $43, 000 or $20/hour, directly to the poor, with no overhead, the poor becomes middle class. We can solve the poverty problem. The way it is now done is designed to maintain big government and poverty. The math adds up as Big Government overhead sucking a potential middle class family dry, making them poor and dependent so Government can remain bloated.
The average poor person in America owns cell phones, computers, HD TV, microwave ovens, automobiles and has full medical coverage. These benefits were things only the richest people had 50 years ago. If we teleported the poor back in time, they would be upper middle class in terms of standard of living.
The problem is that too many in culture do not look on the bright side. It does not count the benefits, that poor now have, that were once said to be important. Rather they try to diminish these things by comparing the poor to the modern Jone's, as a way to create subjective envy and discontent. The left gets voters this way.
If you solve a problem, then big government would need to shrink. If you can make it appear worse, this will help grow government.
Here is a classic example of the Big Government affect. If you combined all the welfare benefits given to a poor family of four, that includes housing, medical, school lunch, food stamps and direct payments, etc., it totals about $43,000/ year. This total includes the Big Government overhead for federal, state and local.
If we were to cut out the middle man; all levels of government, and gave the the $43, 000 or $20/hour, directly to the poor, with no overhead, the poor becomes middle class. We can solve the poverty problem. The way it is now done is designed to maintain big government and poverty. The math adds up as Big Government overhead sucking a potential middle class family dry, making them poor and dependent so Government can remain bloated.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
HEY......if we make it too easy to be poor....
EVERYONE will jump on the payroll
I would
I've been working my *** off most of my life
AND IT'S GETTING WORSE....!!!!
retirement?......won't happen
I will die on the shop floor
but I make too much to sit home and collect a poverty check
and my debts still need paid
and of course.....immigration will spread like a plague
give it to them .....and they will take it
HEY.......somebody has to pay for the poor!
I know........limit the high end
BACK to Roosevelt
EVERYONE will jump on the payroll
I would
I've been working my *** off most of my life
AND IT'S GETTING WORSE....!!!!
retirement?......won't happen
I will die on the shop floor
but I make too much to sit home and collect a poverty check
and my debts still need paid
and of course.....immigration will spread like a plague
give it to them .....and they will take it
HEY.......somebody has to pay for the poor!
I know........limit the high end
BACK to Roosevelt
So you're one of those workers whose taxes pay my
SS bennies, eh. Thank you for your service.
About poverty....I've employed the poor.
In every single case, they were so because of really
bad choices they made daily & throughout their lives.
This is not to say that I'm opposed to helping them.
But care must be taken to not just provide for their
wants & needs, but to train them to be self sufficient.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Every year the rich get richer. Taxes can't be too bad because the billionaires keep getting richer every year:
The 400 Richest Americans Own a Greater Share of Wealth Than the Bottom 150 Million
"The 400 Richest Americans Own a Greater Share of Wealth Than the Bottom 150 Million"
How much is enough? I think I read somewhere the average billionaire spends around 22 million dollars per year. We should at least set tax rates to Bill Clinton levels the last time we had a surplus. It's not going to change the lifestyles of the billionaires one iota.
The problem isn't that the rich have too much.
It's that the poor have too little.
This observation might seem trite, but it points
out how many who decry the problem do so out
of class hatred (for the wealthy) rather than a
genuine considered desire to reduce poverty.
Being rich sounds wonderful, & should be encouraged.
But being poor should be discouraged.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
What you are overlooking is the fact that in a modern, inter-dependent society many of these "luxuries" are no longer luxuries. They are a necessity if you want get a job, get to the job, and work the many hours it takes to gain a living income on a low or minimal wage. Especially if you have a child. What people had 50 years ago is as irrelevant to what people need today as what people need to live in an agrarian culture vs in industrialized one.
Since you didn't bother to watch the video, your comments are a bit nonsensical relative to the subject of this thread. I suggest you take the time to watch the video so you can posit a more reasonable response.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
this thread is about poverty
and that cannot be addressed without the Robinhood effect
but that would diminish the position of being rich
and at the same time the position of poverty would begin to dissipate
Thief
Rogue Theologian
when I was sooooo much younger and unemployed
my grandfather wanted to know why I could not find work
I say to him......in your day
a machine HELPED a man do his labor
this day, a machine can REPLACE a hundred men
I did find work.....as a toolmaker
a near dead and dying art
like myself.....half of the toolroom is gray haired
the other half is near thirty
only one in his twenties
very soon
robots will do all that I do
my grandfather wanted to know why I could not find work
I say to him......in your day
a machine HELPED a man do his labor
this day, a machine can REPLACE a hundred men
I did find work.....as a toolmaker
a near dead and dying art
like myself.....half of the toolroom is gray haired
the other half is near thirty
only one in his twenties
very soon
robots will do all that I do