Unemployed?

i work a seasonal job during the summer at a very high end country club up in Cashiers, NC. since it is a seasonal job the club applies for unemployment for me during the winter on the grounds that i come back and work the next season. it really helps me out a lot because i have zero time to work when school starts. i don't feel great about collecting unemployment but i do have bills to pay and if i wasn't collecting unemployment i would be screwed cause i have no time to work because of school.

 

here in Tampa it is ridiculous what the unemployment rate it (IIRC its like 15% or some shit).

Hell I've been applying for multiple part time jobs and couldn't get a damn call back. Hell I couldn't even get a call back from Wal-Mart

 

Yeah fuck them. I wish they had people go around and monitor for people like this... if your ass is buying 2 new cars and all that, not to mention stating that your children who aren't mentally disabled...are mentally disabled... for a bigger check, you clearly don't deserve a paycheck. People like that piss me off.

 

Ok, let's get rid of the opinions, look at factual numbers, and make some logical conclusions.

Here are the numbers. Yes, it's Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is sourced. Note the footnotes in the article. Here's the article link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Contemporary_issues_and_debates

Here's the pertinent quote:

So as you can see, the three biggest drivers to the country's current money problems are:

- Lost tax revenue from economic collapse.
- Lost tax revenue from Bush Administration tax cuts.
- Spending too fucking much on wars.


Solutions (in respective order):

- Wait and let the system work.
- Increase taxes on the wealthiest (your number here) percent.
- Get the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq.


This will probably incite some sort of politically-motivated blabbering (as usually happens on this site). Tried to keep it as politically neutral as I could. These are the numbers, and the solutions are the opposite actions of what created the debt.

Have at it, great brains of TW.


Edit: Just so anyone who may be confused is clear: It is impossible to fix the current US debt problem and economic downturn by cutting government spending. Once again: Impossible. Short version reason: Without government spending and facilities, what remains of the economy cannot function. I can get more long-winded later if you want.

 

Same where I live when a business does any hiring (which is usually part time minimum wage) there's a line 300 people long appling for a few jobs. The unemployment figures don't even count the people that can't collect unemployment compensation or the one's that have pretty much given up hope.

 

But here's the thing: You don't get rich just by working hard.

Say you create a business and it makes a bunch of money. That's nice. But your business moved goods to market, and your workers got to work, on roads that the rest of us paid for. You had protection and safety from fire and police forces the rest of us paid for. You started the business with SBA loans the rest of us paid for. Your electrical, water, sewage, and other utilities are price-controlled by government-sanctioned utility providers. Your workers were educated, for the most part, in public schools and local-government community and technical colleges, which are tax funded.

Without these systems, you would never have gotten wealthy.

So yes, keep the vast majority of the money you're making for your hard work and contribution to the private sector economy. But we're going to have to ask you to give up 3% more of your income in taxes (that's a whopping 3 cents out of every dollar you make - I think you can survive that, Mr. Millionaire) so that the system that made you rich doesn't collapse. Y'know...so future hard workers can also get rich and create jobs.

That's why.

And *that* is what I mean by it's impossible to fix the financial crisis by cutting spending. Take the portion of the economy still functioning. Now remove all those things I listed above that "the rest of us paid for". See how well the remaining private businesses do.

 

I agree on what you have said, its going to get alot darker before we see the light.

 

No one on unemployment should be able to collect more than minimum wage, period.

it is crazy how many people scam the system.. they should only give it to people who had jobs and got layed off for non-fireable offenses.

http://newstalkkit.com/poster-girl-for-california-video/

 

Actually, no. They pay taxes once they become wealthy business owners. When an individual is starting a business and is operating that business at a loss, those losses can actually be written off taxes. Many businesses, for this reason, pay no tax whatsoever.

So no, they don't pay taxes until they're making money. And they don't get to be making money without the rest of us, already making money and paying taxes, getting them started.

They should absolutely have to pay more. I'll tell you why below. Keep reading.

Just so we're clear: This isn't political. This is economics. You're making economic points filtered through a political viewpoint, but that's why you're wrong.

Highly unlikely. Here's why:

Let's take two examples.

One is a $20,000 income. The other is a $1,000,000 income.

Raise taxes on both 3%.

The first income loses $600. The second income loses $30,000.

Tell me, what's easier to live off of per year: $19,400, or $970,000? Do think the rich guy will still be able to afford to buy nice things?

This is the same reason a flat percentage tax doesn't work. Every time I see people say "We should all get taxed the same %" it makes my brain hurt, because no, no no no, that would destroy the economy.

Because in reality I already pay more. The wealthiest Americans get most of their money through capital gains from investment. The current maximum tax bracket on capital gains is 15%. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States

My income tax bracket is 35%.

For the record, I make a 5 digit annual income. Most economists would rate me as "upper middle class" going solely by my paycheck.

So I agree with you - the wealthy shouldn't have to pay more. But they should have to pay the same amount as the less-wealthy.

No offense, but that's obvious.

See above.

Exactly. The system allows people with the work ethic, intelligence, and a bit of luck to maximize their potential. Some people have more potential than others.

You're thinking about it the wrong way, e.g. "then why aren't we all rich?".

The correct question to ask is: "Without our socio-economic system, could anyone be rich at all?"

Other than Kings or Dictators, probably not.

 

Are you sure? What if you took a job making $750,000 annually back in the mid-90s, when the economy was good. Then you went out and bought a house and had three kids because you could afford it. Now you have a 20 year mortgage at the $750,000 level, and three mouths to feed. 7 years later, the economy goes south and you lose your job. You get minimum wage unemployment.

Say goodbye to your house. Good luck finding work when homeless, unable to receive mail, perform hygiene, etc.

This is the great debate of unemployment systems: What's fair.

Agreed on this 100%.

 

WIC is the only form of Gov handout I think should stay.. the rest could go.

This isnt only because we get WIC but the fact that it only saves up about $100 a month, and the fact its is preset on what we can get.. we cant get just anything.. its very specific so you cant bullshit the system.. and to be honest if we end up with stuff we dont use we donate it to the local boyscouts chapter

 

Agreed on this too. As a healthcare professional, I die a little inside every time I see an EBT customer at the grocery store buying an enormous pile of diabetes for him/her/their children, and know that their enormous medical bills are going to be subsidized out of my taxes.

WIC ftw.

 

That person should get some kind of severance or be eligbale for a short period to get a descent amount to help them till they get a new job.. but guess what in the end find a new job and if you have to sell your house and move into a new home you can afford.. its not my problem.. when I PSC'd my wife was eligable to get unemployment because she had to quit her job as a teacher making $38k a yr to move but we decided to just realign our budget and make due because we didnt feel it was right or needed to take money for nothing.

 

Jandrews are you secretly my Political Science teacher? You two use the exact same examples to explain everything.

 

Yes, in the end one should always be looking for employment. And adjusting lifestyle is of course needed.

But:

If you make a multi-decade decision (children, mortgage, etc.) based on your current employment, then things go south, you have to choose either blaming the individual for purchasing a home and having kids, or the system for allowing that to fall apart over the loss of a job.

Lemme know whatcha decide.

 

No.

Also, you have a very good political science teacher. Listen to him.

Edit: At least vis a vis economics and tax policy in the US.

 

jandrews for president.

 

if it is me i find a new job and adjust my lifestyle i dont expect you all to pay for me to sit at home and play xbox or surf TW.

Im in the military I have 14 years left till i can retire and my kids will be 16 and 17.. and if we have any more tehy will be younger.. so ill be looking for a job after the military. but im not going to expect to live off of my military retirement but if i cant find somthing right away i will have to make due till i can find work. hopefully my wife is working by then too to help.. but in the end i wont ask for unemployment or any hand outs.. all that stuff needs to go away along with giving money to other countries in "aid" bc there is no point to borrow money from china to give to people for nothing in return.

 

If someone owns a business, their income and the business's income are synonymous...because they own the business.

...No. No it's not. See, the difference is that the wealthier individual has much more disposable income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income

Essentially, let's say I make a million per year take-home. Let's say I buy a nice fucking house ($10 million). Let's say I finance it on a 20 year mortgage. That'll be $500,000 per year plus interest (let's make up a number and say $50,000 per year) in mortgage. $550,000 total.

Let's add to that a nice damn car. $200,000. Say I put it on a 3 year note. That's about $67,000 per year plus interest (made up to be $10,000). $77,000 total.

So my expenses are, for the car and house, total $627,000 per year. That leaves me $373,000 per year for groceries, utility/phone bills, gas for the car, incidentals, eating out, hookers, health insurance, car insurance, and whatever else I want to spend it on. I think I can make that work.

Now let's take $20,000 take-home. I rent a one bedroom apartment for $500/month. That's $6000 per year. I buy a cheapass Corolla with a $250 payment to get to work. That's another $3000 per year in car payment.

That leaves me $11,000 for the year for all my bills, groceries, insurances, gas, incidentals, retirement savings, etc.

The change in standard of living is not the same because inexpensive things are inexpensive for everybody, not just the poor.

The above example shows how a low-wage earner's standard of living could be significantly affected by a 3% tax hike, and how a millionaires most likely wouldn't be.

This is why we have tax brackets in the first place, rather than a flat rate tax. Flat rate taxes negatively impact what defines a "liveable income" the closer to the bottom of the pay scale you go.

 

Two things I'd like to say:

I have no problem cutting the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy......but.....

it won't fix the debt problem. The government looses approximately $600 billion/year in tax revenue by those cuts. Divide that amount into $15 trillion and see how long it'll take to balance, assuming all else regarding spending stays the same.

The dummies running our country may as well propose selling the contents of Fort Knox to Cashforgold.com to balance the budget.