Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Yes. I used the wrong word.

[werechicken]

He meant the top 1% of earners not wages. Which would have an effect if wages were not evenly distributed

[Saint]

You don't need to raise taxes to run the country, it doesn't take trillions of $ to run the country.
Hell maybe if you stuck to the way the country was supposed to be ran we wouldn't have such a large looming federal government that required trillions to run?
HMM?
Oh wait, what's that you say? oh wait, less than 60% of the country pays taxes, hows about instead you make people pay taxes instead of raise them.
Maybe you should stop giving everyone and their mother a wellfare check for just being here? I don't know, maybe use those things for people that NEED it?

What I'm saying is, it's not republicans or democrats that caused this, it's the entire country through the years that has fucked us this far, the U.S business model is like 80 years old, try fixing that instead as well.

The hell you can. The majority of that 60% can barely afford to survive and many can't even do that. The median income of 40 something thousand is propped up by the top 400 who own half of all wealth. If you remove the top and bottom 1%, the average us income is dangerously close to the cost of living. You are talking about taxes that will kill people. Thousands are already dieing because they choose not to seek medical care that they can not afford.

The us is embroiled in class warfare, and the top 1% are already winning. Leaching off the backs of indebted labor and crushing the poor into oblivion.  You sir are a feudalist advocating a return to the dark ages and the end of enlightened civilization.

Do you even know how poverty is defined in the U.S.
It includes cars and airconditioners, seriously, CARS? That's not even a need, it's a luxury of transport.

 the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter.

 the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]
In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.


This is taken from the Heritage Foundation website and confirmed with a few others by quick skimming.
Honestly the poor are living nicer than the richest people in the 1920's, which is the most prosperous time in U.S history.

[Aqizzar]

This is taken from the Heritage Foundation website and confirmed with a few others by quick skimming.
Honestly the poor are living nicer than the richest people in the 1920's, which is the most prosperous time in U.S history.

I was wondering about that [4] you left in the line.  Of course, the Heritage Foundation, the #1 source of reasons for why all of America's problems are the fault of poor people.  I love how you straight up admit to going there first and then skimming a few other unnamed websites to see if they say the same thing, smash research my man.

[GlyphGryph]

Though, admittedly, the poverty line is really really not that bad for people in good health.

The problem is that's not taking into account the people who need to spend half of that income on the medicine that keeps them and their kids alive, and another fourth on the ability to remain competitive in the workforce.

[Heron TSG]

You don't need to raise taxes to run the country, it doesn't take trillions of $ to run the country.
Hell maybe if you stuck to the way the country was supposed to be ran we wouldn't have such a large looming federal government that required trillions to run?
HMM?
Oh wait, what's that you say? oh wait, less than 60% of the country pays taxes, hows about instead you make people pay taxes instead of raise them.
Maybe you should stop giving everyone and their mother a wellfare check for just being here? I don't know, maybe use those things for people that NEED it?

What I'm saying is, it's not republicans or democrats that caused this, it's the entire country through the years that has fucked us this far, the U.S business model is like 80 years old, try fixing that instead as well.

The hell you can. The majority of that 60% can barely afford to survive and many can't even do that. The median income of 40 something thousand is propped up by the top 400 who own half of all wealth. If you remove the top and bottom 1%, the average us income is dangerously close to the cost of living. You are talking about taxes that will kill people. Thousands are already dieing because they choose not to seek medical care that they can not afford.

The us is embroiled in class warfare, and the top 1% are already winning. Leaching off the backs of indebted labor and crushing the poor into oblivion.  You sir are a feudalist advocating a return to the dark ages and the end of enlightened civilization.

Do you even know how poverty is defined in the U.S.
It includes cars and airconditioners, seriously, CARS? That's not even a need, it's a luxury of transport.

 the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter.

 the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]
In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.


This is taken from the Heritage Foundation website and confirmed with a few others by quick skimming.
Honestly the poor are living nicer than the richest people in the 1920's, which is the most prosperous time in U.S history.

1. What Aqizzar said
2. I think you're confusing 'poverty level' and 'cost of living for an average family'. Cost of living varies wildly. My family (of 5) lives on just barely more than $40k per year, which in this area is actually above average. Imagine trying to support a family of 5 in New York, Seattle, or Chicago with that kind of income. It wouldn't work.

[penguinofhonor]

Do you even know how poverty is defined in the U.S.
It includes cars and airconditioners, seriously, CARS? That's not even a need, it's a luxury of transport.

 the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter.

 the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]
In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

This is taken from the Heritage Foundation website and confirmed with a few others by quick skimming.
Honestly the poor are living nicer than the richest people in the 1920's, which is the most prosperous time in U.S history.

I enjoy how none of that mentions how much debt the poor family is in. And the comparison to the people living 90 years ago is irrelevant. Of course the richest people in the 1920's didn't have color TV and xboxes, those things didn't exist. Just because technology has advanced doesn't mean that poor people aren't allowed to advance with the rest of society.

And I'd like to see a description of the US upper class standard of living in the twenties, because if it involved living in mansions, going on cruises, having butlers, hiring people to drive you around, or anything like that then they lived far better than today's poor. Oh no, they didn't have xboxes, poor rich people.

[Phmcw]

CARS? That's not even a need, it's a luxury of transport.

What are you? 16? That's the only reason why I could see you calling a car a "luxury". A lot of jobs won't even hire you if you don't have one.

As for a playstation, as long as you don't buy it new, it's not that costly. And for larger houses, color me unsurprised : Europe is very densely populated, and middle class worked tend to live in tiny yet expensive apartment.

Honestly the poor are living nicer than the richest people in the 1920's

I should hope so, that was one century ago. I'll ask a simple question : Do YOU have a car, two TV, a big house , and one playstation? If so, are you entitled to a governmental help program?

[nenjin]

Prior to the age check, it's probably worth asking whether his parents own all those things

[GlyphGryph]

Phmcw, I know you weren't talking to me, but I do want to respond to this:

What are you? 16? That's the only reason why I could see you calling a car a "luxury". A lot of jobs won't even hire you if you don't have one.

Just to expand on this a bit: Cars in the city are a luxury. New cars are a luxury.  A car for someone working construction in a rural area is NOT a luxury, it is an essential. If your sole determiner of whether or not someone is poor is "do they have a car" or anything else oversimplified like that, you're missing some pretty major factors.

That said, cars are not NEARLY as much of a necessity as people treat them as, and the insistence on having one when they don't need one is the biggest reason a lot of the people I know are struggling financially. Like college, it is not a "luxury" by default, it can often be a crucial investment, but it can act a whole lot like a luxury when people make irresponsible decisions in regards to them.

Do YOU have a car, two TV, a big house , and one playstation? If so, are you entitled to a governmental help program?

No, no, no, no, and I don't think I'm in die enough straights to qualify for assistance, no (I actually live quite comfortably at 1000 a month, and would be living in what I consider the lap luxury if fully 60% of my paycheck didn't go to paying of college loans.) But I'm lucky - I'm healthy. My brother spends more than my entire income on the medication that keeps him alive EACH MONTH. And that is well above the poverty guideline, and yet my financial elasticity is very very small. It would only take one serious illness, one serious injury, to send me into a situation from which it is unlikely I could recover.

So really, the point still ends up against Saint in the end:
How much a person makes, and their quality of life and living conditions, are not really something you can tie directly together. We do have a ton of people who could live perfectly comfortably on their technically below poverty level incomes if they were more responsible with their money. We have a ton of people living out of debt, though. Just because they have a bunch of stuff and live comfortably does NOT mean they can afford too, or that they are making enough to survive wherever they live, or anything of the sort. Size of their family matters. Medical conditions matter. You can get 2 TV and playstations and all that stuff for free (not saying they get them that way, but you can. Most places charge extra to haul away old ones, and simply asking around is an easy way to get some sweet electronics), and having them doesn't mean you are poor. We live in a land of surplus, and you can accumulate quite a bit of "fancy" stuff for very little in the way of cash.
But it does NOT mean you are financially stable.
It does NOT mean you would be able to to pay your bills if you hadn't bought that stuff.
It does NOT mean you can provide the basic necessities for your family now, only that you had more money to make material investments (poor ones, perhaps) at some point in the past.

[Lord Shonus]

Cars in the city are a luxury.

Bullshit. Even for jobs that don't have car ownership as mandatory, which a great many do, most US cities have a rather sparse public transportation net, are not bicycle-friendly, and it's very, very unlikely for you to be able to live within walking distance of work.

[PyroDesu]

Makes me glad we don't use anything like credit cards in my family. Good not to be in a huge pile of debt.

[Duke 2.0]

Cars in the city are a luxury.

Bullshit. Even for jobs that don't have car ownership as mandatory, which a great many do, most US cities have a rather sparse public transportation net, are not bicycle-friendly, and it's very, very unlikely for you to be able to live within walking distance of work.

The ones on the East Coast are passable, but you will have to add two or three hours to each day for transport. More midwest cities are problematic, and I have no idea as to the state of the West Coast.

[penguinofhonor]

Cars in the city are a luxury.

Bullshit. Even for jobs that don't have car ownership as mandatory, which a great many do, most US cities have a rather sparse public transportation net, are not bicycle-friendly, and it's very, very unlikely for you to be able to live within walking distance of work.

The ones on the East Coast are passable, but you will have to add two or three hours to each day for transport. More midwest cities are problematic, and I have no idea as to the state of the West Coast.

Yeah, if I didn't have a car then it'd take me at least an extra hour to get to and from my job. That's in Cincinnati.

[PTTG??]

In the united states, cars are a necessity. We do not have any real public transport because for the last sixty years the entire service has been shunned as "low class".