living paycheck to paycheck

[Judge Jude]

a good employer wouldn't even need to be incentivized

[DMT]

And then here is an 11 minute speech he made about a year ago - talking about the debt and spending. I think if you would take the time to listen you would likely agree with everything he is saying:

"A country cannot go on forever spending this way" Rand Paul.

Yet like all his Republican colleagues, voted for an irresponsible tax cut that has benefitted almost no one but the rich. Here is his op-ed wishing the tax cuts had been $2.5 Trillion instead of $1.5 Trillion!

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-heres-why-i-plan-to-vote-for-the-senate-tax-bill-and-my-colleagues-should-step-up

Forbes reviewing the effects of those tax cuts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/who-benefits-from-the-tax-cut-10-months-later/#12b495b126bb

But so far, the cuts have not been linked to an increase in labor share or more investments. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s current capital spending index indicates private business investment plans have remained in negative territory since 2015. The most certain effect of the tax cuts has been to help fuel a massive increase in the federal deficit and debt.

So where is all the money saved from corporate tax cuts going? First, to companies’ bottom lines and second to stock buybacks, which were recently at a record high.

[TranaGreg]

Im saying that there is a party that doesnt want to waste our money and continue to over spend. We want less regulation and money in people's pockets

My sense is that the culture of personal spending at levels that results in living paycheck to paycheck isn't going to be solved by a government that reduces regulatory burdens. Just my opinion.

[nots]

My sense is that the culture of personal spending at levels that results in living paycheck to paycheck isn't going to be solved by a government that reduces regulatory burdens. Just my opinion.

Not going to be solved by a paternalistic government that mandates and over regaulates either. Just my opinion.
‘A fool and his money are soon parted’. As true now as it was 200 years ago.

[DMT]

BG, I'm not going to debate you on tax policy because you are an extremist. Arguing from a moral perspective that billionaires shouldn't pay a higher share than the poor is just fundamentally wrong and until you come back within the realms of decency, we will have nothing further to discuss.

[baldgriff]

BG, I'm not going to debate you on tax policy because you are an extremist. Arguing from a moral perspective that billionaires shouldn't pay a higher share than the poor is just fundamentally wrong and until you come back within the realms of decency, we will have nothing further to discuss.

They already do pay more than the poor person. They just dont pay "enough" from your perspective. I want everyone to pay equally in proportion to what they have/produce. I also think that if you make bad decisions with your money (and believe me I have made many) - it will affect your future wealth/savings.

[DMT]

They already do pay more than the poor person. They just dont pay "enough" from your perspective. I want everyone to pay equally in proportion to what they have/produce. I also think that if you make bad decisions with your money (and believe me I have made many) - it will affect your future wealth/savings.

Just like they pay "too much" from your perspective. This actually sounds like back-tracking from previous systems defending a flat tax structure. Did you support the $1.5T tax cut? Do you still after their effects?

[B-Fly]

Not going to be solved by a paternalistic government that mandates and over regaulates either. Just my opinion.
‘A fool and his money are soon parted’. As true now as it was 200 years ago.

Actually, paternalistic mandates are the only way to ensure that people put away a reasonable portion of their income for savings/retirement (e.g., Social Security contributions). That doesn't end the discussion about whether (more) paternalistic mandates should be imposed, versus paternalistic nudges and educational campaigns, versus pure tough-love "You fail to save wisely, you suffer the consequences, including potentially starving on the streets", or what mix of positive and negative incentives would help. But your post ignores that paternalistic government mandates essentially are the only way to "solve" the problem at hand, in the sense of making it go away.

[TranaGreg]

Actually, paternalistic mandates are the only way to ensure that people put away a reasonable portion of their income for savings/retirement (e.g., Social Security contributions). That doesn't end the discussion about whether (more) paternalistic mandates should be imposed, versus paternalistic nudges and educational campaigns, versus pure tough-love "You fail to save wisely, you suffer the consequences, including potentially starving on the streets", or what mix of positive and negative incentives would help. But your post ignores that paternalistic government mandates essentially are the only way to "solve" the problem at hand, in the sense of making it go away.

well said - I was going to post something similar - to those saying regulations aren't the answer, what other options exist to get people to save more & move away from living paycheck to paycheck?

[baldgriff]

So lets look at it a different way. Lets use Revo's immigrant student that has 50k in equities saved up.

Here is a kid that has amassed some 50k in wealth - solely based on making very shrewd, disciplined and difficult decisions. He likely works some kind of low wage job, but has put his money to work. He invested in companies and that investment put people to work, developed new products, maybe helped cure some disease. His gain is that his investment returned dividends to him and the equities grew in value due to the positive things that the companies did.

So what your saying is that just because he made good decisions to make more money with the very little money he had to start with - he should now be responsible to pay more than his co-worker who makes the same amount in labor pay - but chooses to go to the bar every weekend, has 2 kids with different women and still lives at home. How in any way is that equitable to the guy who made good decisions to amass his "wealth"?

I dont think I back tracked at all. I said I want everyone to pay equally in proportion to what they have/produce. That means they pay the same amount of tax based on what they make/earn. One guy may pay $10 and the other guy $1000 - solely based on what they make/earn. Whereas you would prefer to saddle the immigrant making very good decisions with his money a higher tax burden solely because "he has more". How is that fair or equitable?

[B-Fly]

So what your saying is that just because he made good decisions to make more money with the very little money he had to start with - he should now be responsible to pay more than his co-worker who makes the same amount in labor pay - but chooses to go to the bar every weekend, has 2 kids with different women and still lives at home. How in any way is that equitable to the guy who made good decisions to amass his "wealth".

Wait, who was advocating for this? Not DMT. He's talking about a higher top marginal tax on the highest income earners, not taxing two $40,000/year working stiffs different amounts so that the one spending frivolously pays less than the one who saves.

[nots]

well said - I was going to post something similar - to those saying regulations aren't the answer, what other options exist to get people to save more & move away from living paycheck to paycheck?

I said over regulation, not no regulation.
But a better question to ask might be why you and BFly think the government, who’s very own Social Security program will be forced to reduce benefits by 23% in 2034 because of a lack of financial planning but is afraid of addressing the issue, is suited to nudge others in a paternalistic way to save for retirement?

[baldgriff]

Wait, who was advocating for this? Not DMT. He's talking about a higher top marginal tax on the highest income earners, not taxing two $40,000/year working stiffs different amounts so that the one spending frivolously pays less than the one who saves.

Im generalizing here..... Ultimately if the kid keeps making good investment decision - he will be in a higher earned tax bracket than his co-worker. Im making this oversimplified to find out why it is fair or equitable to have one person pay more solely because they made really good decisions with their money?

People should pay an equal amount based solely on what they make/earn. The kid with the 50k in equities is at some point going to be in a higher tax bracket based on solely good decisions - and those good decisions will then require him to pay more than his co-worker.

[nots]

Wait, who was advocating for this? Not DMT. He's talking about a higher top marginal tax on the highest income earners, not taxing two $40,000/year working stiffs different amounts so that the one spending frivolously pays less than the one who saves.

Taxing high earners is all well and good, but it doesn’t get you anywhere near Medicare for all, the Green Deal, free tuition and whatever else we are talking about now. You must, must, increase taxes on everyone to fund these programs. When I see the left advocate for that, I will know this is more than a talking point.

[baldgriff]

I said over regulation, not no regulation.
But a better question to ask might be why you and BFly think the government, who’s very own Social Security program will be forced to reduce benefits by 23% in 2034 because of a lack of financial planning but is afraid of addressing the issue, is suited to nudge others in a paternalistic way to save for retirement?

That would be proper education on how to spend money - how to invest money - and do it in schools. How about we teach our kids basic life skills in school - you know balance a check book, how to cook meals, how to budget your funds, etc....