National Economics: Keynes or Hayek? Or something else?

[Utah]

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

[U-Ute]

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

Because most American's don't view themselves as "middle America". More like "temporarily embarassed millionaires".

[Scratch]

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

[LA Ute]

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

Plus if we taxed the top 1% at 80% the additional revenue produced would not amount to enough to finance big increases in public outlays. At least that's what I have read.

[Utah]

Because most American's don't view themselves as "middle America". More like "temporarily embarassed millionaires".

Wow. Truth bomb there. Good point.

[Utah]

Plus if we taxed the top 1% at 80% the additional revenue produced would not amount to enough to finance big increases in public outlays. At least that's what I have read.

Why would taxing the top 1% equal big increases in public outlays? It wouldn't shock me if it actually decreased public outlays.

For example, how many small businesses were put out of business by WalMart? How many Americans making $60-80K as a small business owner lost their jobs and became Walmart employees and dependent on the government welfare?

I'm not so sure cutting incentives for the very few would hurt everyone. In fact, I wonder if cutting incentives for the top 1% might actually even the playing field and raise the rest of the ocean.

Kind of like how long distance phone calls used to be insanely expensive...then the 1% was knocked out and now it's free.

Anyways, I'm just spitballing here. Just thinking out loud. Not trying to offend anyone.

[Utah]

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

The reality is that most people cannot make a ton of money, because most people can't compete with WalMart, IHC, McDonald's, etc.

The other reality is that most people aren't investing a lot of money. In fact, I'd argue most of the problems are caused by the Baby Boomers...people that have had more wealth than any other generation ever, and all they did was buy McMansions and SUV's...and now have no savings, no retirement, and are filling up jobs, raising student loans rates, and using up medicare.

Like the long distance phone example, maybe cutting the head off the top would lead to more opportunity and more wealth for everyone. Yeah, the Walton's would have to get a job, but 1.4 million walmart workers would get off food stamps.

I think I'd take that.

[LA Ute]

Anyways, I'm just spitballing here. Just thinking out loud. Not trying to offend anyone.

LOL. If you had offended anyone here you would have heard from the Offense Committee. So far that Committee has never acted.

1781

[Utah]

I like other's opinions. I want to learn. I'm starting to blame Reagan for the death of the middle class. I think that dude may have destroyed small businesses with his policies. So, I want to learn. See if I'm pointing in the right/wrong direction here.

[Scratch]

I like other's opinions. I want to learn. I'm starting to blame Reagan for the death of the middle class. I think that dude may have destroyed small businesses with his policies. So, I want to learn. See if I'm pointing in the right/wrong direction here.


Destroyed small businesses? In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent.

[chrisrenrut]

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

First, I'm no economist, so take this all with a grain-o'-salt. The effects of the changes you list above would have massive ripple effects, the breadth and scope of which would be impossible to predict. But there are some big effects that may be predictable.

I believe France recently started taxing the rich at a very high rate. The immediate noticeable effect it had was that most of the rich left the country (they are the one class of people that have the means to do so).

Taxing corporations at at higher rates definitely dis-incentivizes growth and expansion. You can't tax corporations higher, make them pay employees more, mess with the healthcare market to jack up benefit rates, and still expect growth and innovation. Corporations have to show profits to lure investors. If profits are eaten up by taxes, benefits, and higher wages, how will they pay dividends, or meet or exceed market expectations to lure investors to buy their stock? Without investment capital, how will companies innovate and grow?

I haven't thought much about inheritance tax. But something doesn't seem right to say that that money earned by me can't be left to my family when I die. Why should the government or society have claim to 80% of what I earned when I die?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect, and that some change isn't needed. But how often do we see the government step in to "fix" something, only to have unintended consequences overshadow the intended effect (cough, cough, ACA).

Edit: BTW, if this conversation continues, can we move to its own thread in a more appropriate forum?

[mUUser]

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

[LA Ute]

This is where we'll put the interesting discussion that our bother poster Utah started.

[Two Utes]

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

[Scratch]

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

This is spot on. I made partner a couple of years ago (and thanks to that I'm approaching the upper middle class after spending years in the lower class while in school and then was just able to buy a single family home after living the previous 18 years in small apartments and a condo), and as a very small owner in a business that employs over 50 people I can assure you that we know exactly what it costs to bring on a new employee and we can do a pretty good job of estimating how much revenue that employee will generate, so there is no doubt that as our costs to hire people increase the number of people we hire decreases. It has been pretty shocking to see how various laws and policies directly impact our job creation.

And by the way, for what it's worth the majority of our employees are not lawyers, and many of them do not have college degrees, but I believe the lowest-paid employee here is making the equivalent of about $24 per hour. These are the types of jobs that we want our economy to produce and are also the types of jobs that are being severely limited by government policies.

[U-Ute]

The biggest problem I have with our current tax structure is this: people who have enough money to invest and live off of the returns as income then get that income taxed at a lower rate than someone who has to make their income in a more traditional fashion. Furthermore, the way that businesses are structured, shareholders and executives reward each other with ever increasing stock prices and options instead of investing in their business. Meanwhile all of this profit is taxed at the lower rate.

[Diehard Ute]

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

What in life is fair?

The general idea that all things in life should be fair is bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

I disagree. I think justice is always worth striving for or at least thinking about.

Fair and just are two entirely different things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

[Two Utes]

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.


You are right. And life isn't fair.

[LA Ute]

You are right. And life isn't fair.

There you go again, bursting my bubble.

[LA Ute]

This is an interesting take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431115/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-politics-envy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.
True. And getting help from the government to the detriment of your competition helps, too.

[Utah]

First, I'm no economist, so take this all with a grain-o'-salt. The effects of the changes you list above would have massive ripple effects, the breadth and scope of which would be impossible to predict. But there are some big effects that may be predictable.

I believe France recently started taxing the rich at a very high rate. The immediate noticeable effect it had was that most of the rich left the country (they are the one class of people that have the means to do so).

Taxing corporations at at higher rates definitely dis-incentivizes growth and expansion. You can't tax corporations higher, make them pay employees more, mess with the healthcare market to jack up benefit rates, and still expect growth and innovation. Corporations have to show profits to lure investors. If profits are eaten up by taxes, benefits, and higher wages, how will they pay dividends, or meet or exceed market expectations to lure investors to buy their stock? Without investment capital, how will companies innovate and grow?

I haven't thought much about inheritance tax. But something doesn't seem right to say that that money earned by me can't be left to my family when I die. Why should the government or society have claim to 80% of what I earned when I die?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect, and that some change isn't needed. But how often do we see the government step in to "fix" something, only to have unintended consequences overshadow the intended effect (cough, cough, ACA).

Edit: BTW, if this conversation continues, can we move to its own thread in a more appropriate forum?

Also, we are talking about effective tax rates. Eisenhower taxed the uber rich at 90%...yet their effective tax rate was 50%. Also, maybe the super rich would leave America...but where would they go? We like to bang on our country, but how many places have free speech? Freedom of religion? Right to bear arms? Not many. Where would they go?

And let's be real. If the Waltons left the US, how would that hurt us? They are being taxed at <15%. It's not that big of a chunk that is leaving. And that is my whole gripe. Why am I taxed at 29% and they are taxed at <15%? Even it out. Tax me at <15%. Or tax them at 29%.

I don't agree that corporations growing and expanding is necessarily a good thing. How many small businesses were put out of business by Walmart? How many employees were making more money and not on food stamps working at local electronics shop that were put out of business by Walmart and are now making $8/hr and on food stamps?

Also, if profits are eaten up we will see a drop...but then it will stabilize, Americans will innovate, and profits will rise again and the economy will survive.

About the inheritance tax. Let's go back to the Waltons, because they are the easiest to attack. They haven't done anything. They were born and won the lottery. YET, they use federal roads more than anyone, they use food stamps more than anyone, they use medicaid more than anyone. Their whole business model is about hiring people, putting them on food stamps, then having them work for them then pay them with taxpayer money for walmart goods. So, while their dad did some amazing things, he did it with the help of the government, yet he gives back less than any of us.

Also, the thing about the inheritance tax...I'm not talking about you or me. You and I will leave our kids...what??? 10 million? Divided by three kids? So 3 mill each? Don't tax that.

Look at it this way: America is the country where you can be anything. You can create anything. With hard work and determination, you can do it all. That is changing. I'm not saying take everything. What I am saying is this:

$400,000 a year puts you in the top 1% on income. $10,000,000 allows you to live on $400,000 a year conservatively and have that income for the rest of your life. So, why not give the Waltons $10,000,000 each? That puts them in the top 1% of income. That gives them opportunity that you and I will never have. If they want, they can turn that $10,000,000 into 1 billion like their dad did...if they want to work for it. OR they can live off $400,000 a year and live better than 99% of America.

What that also does, is that allows dad to pay America back for the roads that he used. For the water works he used. For the electrical lines he used. For all the taxes he never had to pay that every other small business had to pay. It allows dad to pay America back for all the food stamps his employees used, and all the medicaid that his employees needed because he paid them so little.

We aren't "stealing" or "taking" anything from Sam Walton. America gave Walton a lot of what he has. This allows him to pay America back and take care of his kids for the rest of their lives.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do know that allowing the corps to run everything though lobbyists, super PAC's, tax breaks, etc will not work long term.

Remember AT&T and PacBell? Remember how expensive long distance used to be? Then the government stepped in, broke up the monopoly, and now long distance is free.

Capitalism is great, when restrictions are in place. Regulations has become a bad word today, but they are not bad. Not at all. Unregulated capitalism creates a system where one guy owns everything and that is anti-American.

Bring back the American dream to everyone, not just the Millers and Waltons, etc.

And, for the record, I'm all for more taxes, as long as they are across the board. I'll pay my share. All I am asking for is that those above me pay their share. The fact that I pay 29% of my income and Romney pays 13% in taxes...do you not see the issue with that?

[Utah]

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. COMPLETELY. The Waltons get more government aid than anyone...yet they give the least back. I want them to pay their share. That's it. It's not stealing or taking or being pissed at someone that has the "skills' (even though the Waltons don't necessarily have the skills to make money...they were born into it).

Also, do you think Trump has the "skills" to be successful? Do you realize that when he received his fortune, had he put it into a money market account and done NOTHING the last 30 years, he would have the same amount of money? Does Trump have the "skills" to be successful, or was he just lucky enough to inherit 40 million?

And that is my issue. Here we have Trump running for president...because he dad was rich. There is nothing to show that he has any special talent or skill. He was just born into money. Is that the system you want?

[Utah]

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

I love the buzzwords. You throw socialism out there...No one has asked for socialism. Did you realize that un-regulated capitalism creates monopolies that ends up with one or two dudes...or dudettes running everything? Look at our elections right now:

Trump is leading. The guy has done nothing other than inherit money.

I want regulation.

I mentioned the long distance example above. Perfect example of why we need regulation.

I'm curious, are you a small business owner?

[Utah]

This is spot on. I made partner a couple of years ago (and thanks to that I'm approaching the upper middle class after spending years in the lower class while in school and then was just able to buy a single family home after living the previous 18 years in small apartments and a condo), and as a very small owner in a business that employs over 50 people I can assure you that we know exactly what it costs to bring on a new employee and we can do a pretty good job of estimating how much revenue that employee will generate, so there is no doubt that as our costs to hire people increase the number of people we hire decreases. It has been pretty shocking to see how various laws and policies directly impact our job creation.

And by the way, for what it's worth the majority of our employees are not lawyers, and many of them do not have college degrees, but I believe the lowest-paid employee here is making the equivalent of about $24 per hour. These are the types of jobs that we want our economy to produce and are also the types of jobs that are being severely limited by government policies.

Your post is exactly why we NEED regulation. Your lowest paid employee gets $24/hr. Walmart pays $8/hr. Small businesses take care of their employees. Corporations do not.

You guys act like I'm attacking small businesses and middle class Americans. I'm not. I'm talking about the 0.01%. They guys making millions of dollars a year and paying 13% in taxes.

You make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. You have employees. You take care of them. I want to empower you. All I want is the upper, upper class to pay their share. Why do you pay 29% in taxes and they pay 13%?

You pay your employees better. You have a better working environment. You don't put your employees on welfare. You aren't as quick to fire an employee. So, why are you penalized for doing all those things?

[Utah]

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

Exactly. Trump, the Waltons, Huntsman...those guys are where they are because they were the right sperm at the right time. Yet, we want to shelter, protect, tax them less...why? I don't understand it.

[Utah]

What in life is fair?

The general idea that all things in life should be fair is bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Life will never be fair. BUT, if we don't try to level the playing field, then one or two will rule all.

Let's apply this to sports. Without salary caps, without revenue sharing, without all the teams looking out for one another, LA would win every title and there would only be 4-5 professional teams.

[Utah]

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

The problem is, it is quickly becoming "did you inherit enough" to become successful.

[Utah]

True. And getting help from the government to the detriment of your competition helps, too.

This. 100 times this. Why don't people realize this. Walmart pays their employees so low that they qualify for food stamps. Then they have their employees shop at Walmart. Then they get tax breaks for more Walmarts.

Who pays for all those tax breaks and food stamps? You and I do. Why should Walmart make billions off you and me? Because they can afford lobbyists? Because they can create super PAC's to get their guy elected? How is that American?

All I am asking for is that Scratch gets the same breaks that Walmart gets. Take their tax breaks, plus the amount of money they get off food stamps, plus the money that they get from employees of theirs that are on food stamps and give that break to Scratch.

Let Scratch have a chance to compete.

Let have Mom and Pop grocery store have the same advantages Walmart has. Let Mom and Pop have the opportunity to create the millionaires Walmart has created. And let's be honest, if Mom and Pop had the same opportunities, they'd probably take better care of their employees, which would lead to less people on government aid, just like Scratch takes care of his employees.

[LA Ute]

This is an interesting take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431115/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-politics-envy

‘Money, it’s a crime,” said Pink Floyd. Or was that Bernie Sanders? It might as well have been.

“When the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, that’s not fair,” Sanders told an energized crowd during his New Hampshire primary victory speech Tuesday. “The top three drug companies in this country made $45 billion in profit last year. That is an obscenity. . . . We must tell the billionaire class and the One Percent that they cannot have it all at a time of massive wealth and income inequality.”

Despite the noises about incarceration rates and climate change, the theme of Bernie Sanders’s campaign was clear: Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! And it’s working. Not only did the Vermont senator win Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary by 22 points; according to exit polling, he won men and women, moderates and liberals, those with college degrees and those without, those who own guns and those who don’t, and previous primary participants and first-timers. The only voters who preferred Hillary Clinton were those older than 65 and those from families making more than $200,000 per year.

In other words, envy sells. And make no mistake, that is what Sanders is selling. After all, socialism is inevitably a politics of envy: Wealth is by definition finite, so more in your pocket means less in mine — and if I have less than I want, it must be your fault. Because Sanders has no room in his cramped understanding of the world for the complex interplay of free economic actors, he must default to simplistic moral explanations — Greed!: of Wall Street bankers, pharmaceutical companies, and America’s 536 billionaires — and simplistic solutions: to wit, frog-marching Goldman Sachs executives down Fifth Avenue and divvying up their stuff. They’ll have less, so you’ll have more.

And everyone wants more.

Coincidentally, Donald Trump — who, like Sanders, crushed his nearest rival by 20 points — is exploiting the same itch. “We are going to make America great again,” he said in his own victory speech Tuesday night, “but we’re going to do it the old-fashioned way. We’re going to beat China, Japan. We’re going to beat Mexico at trade. We’re going to beat all of these countries that are taking so much of our money away from us on a daily basis.” And, later: “We are now going to make [deals] for your benefit. We’re going to make the deals for the American people.”

Unlike Sanders, Trump has no determinate position on any matter of public policy, but that’s of little importance. He is not pitching a movement; he is pitching himself. His promise is not any particular slate of policies; it’s Donald Trump writ large. An America with Trump at the helm is one in which America “wins,” like Trump wins; makes good deals, like Trump makes good deals. In Donald Trump’s America, everybody gets to live a little like Donald Trump. This is at least partly why Trump’s supporters are so vicious toward his detractors: The latter threaten their chances to live bigger.

It’s envy, en masse, on both sides. Somebody else has it (cheaper tuition, cheaper health care, business-class tickets, a Mercedes, &c.), and I want it. Under Sanders, top-hatted Uncle Pennybags will do the perp walk; under Trump, we’ll put the screws to Beijing and Uncle Pennybags himself will cut me in on the deal; but in either case, I get what should’ve been mine all along. And all for the low, low price of a vote.

Those who believe that politics is little more than personal psychodrama played out on a grand stage might be closer than usual to the truth this election cycle. Neither Trump nor Sanders, despite their claims, is ushering in a revolution. They are ushering in a politics more petty, vulgar, and low — more animated by voters’ base inclinations — than any in recent memory. If New Hampshire is any indication, voters are not about anything so high-minded as constitutional government or national security or racial justice or even “hope and change.” They’re about me getting mine, by hook or by crook.

Free college, free health care, and winning. This election is the Gollum-cry of the masses: WE WANTS IT. — Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431115/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-politics-envy

[Utah]

I don't like that article. It is a buzz word bonanza. A click bait fluff piece.

Look! Everyone is JEALOUS.

Of course people are. They were fed a huge pile of lies. What are you taught your whole life?

Go to school. Work hard. You will become successful. That isn't true anymore.

Let's compare a couple of things. My father and father in law both went to professional post grad programs.

My FIL graduated with $25,000 in debt. He made $75,000 his first year out.
My father graduated with $18,000 in debt after 10 years of schooling. He made $35,000 his first year out.

I know my business. Most people in my field graduate with about $300,000 in debt and that number is rising. The average salary for those people is $105,000 right out of school.

Do you guys NOT see the difference?

What is going on right now is not the same American that the baby boomers grew up with. Baby boomers get out of high school and went and worked at the mill with health insurance and an pension. They bought a house for $15,000 and a car for $1,500 while making $25,000 a year. That's easy. That's the American dream.

Compare that to this: People in my work graduate with $300,000 in debt. Houses are $250,000. Cars are $30,000. That is almost $600,000 in debt. They make $105,000 their first year out.

Salary of $105,000 vs $600,000 in debt

versus

Salary of $25,000 vs $17,000 in debt.

The system is broken and broken BIG time.

[LA Ute]

What is going on right now is not the same American that the baby boomers grew up with. Baby boomers get out of high school and went and worked at the mill with health insurance and an pension. They bought a house for $15,000 and a car for $1,500 while making $25,000 a year. That's easy. That's the American dream.

Speaking as a baby boomer myself, I think you're really talking about the baby boomers' parents' generation.

I do think there's a problem because I know my own kids are looking at an entirely different prosperity landscape than I was at their age. Still, I don't think the solution is for the government to step in and increase the forced redistribution of wealth that's already under way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

The system is broken and broken BIG time.

True. But I don't agree with most of your sentiment here.

People need to learn to make sound financial decisions. Going into debt $300k for a $100k a year job isn't necessarily a good financial decision.

That being said, given how people can't afford houses it seems rather odd that house prices have stayed where they are. It appears that banks have put an artificial floor under the housing market so they don't lose money. They are doing this by not offering loans and keeping foreclosed homes off of the market. By controlling both the supply and demand they can keep house prices artificially high.

[Utah]

Speaking as a baby boomer myself, I think you're really talking about the baby boomers' parents' generation.

I do think there's a problem because I know my own kids are looking at an entirely different prosperity landscape than I was at their age. Still, I don't think the solution is for the government to step in and increase the forced redistribution of wealth that's already under way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. I think we need more regulation because all of the deregulation caused all of this. The best example of this is PacBell/AT&T in the 80's. Long distance phone calling was outrageously expensive. Why? Because there was practically a monopoly on long distance phone services.

The government stepped in, broke up AT&T/PacBell and suddenly competition reigned in everywhere, which lead to more people getting long distance, which led to where we are today, with long distance included in the cost. I can call any state in the country and not pay a penny more.

We need more regulation.

We need more taxation. We should go back to the additional tax brackets. What this does is two fold: It forces the Waltons to pay back what they use. 2 - It forces employers to take care of their employees.

You ever heard of the Christmas bonus? Wonder where it comes from? If you are taxed at 90% (let's take the Eisenhower tax bracket system), then come the end of the year your accountant looks at you and says:

"Bro, you've got $100 left over. You can do one of two things. 1 - You can pay it to Uncle Sam in taxes or 2 - You can reinvest it in your business. You can improve working conditions. YOU CAN BONUS YOUR EMPLOYEES. Your call."

Most employers bonuses out to their employers. JP Morgan gave their employees a year's salary as a bonus at one time. Why does this not happen as much anymore? It is simple: There is no incentive to.

Nowadays, your accountant says this: "Bro, you've got $100 left over. Congress has lowered taxes so low, you can keep it, or use it on your business."

So, what do the Waltons do? They keep it.


I don't think the question is jealousy, or taking money from those who "earned it" and giving it to those who "haven't earned it".

I think the question is this: Are the Waltons paying their share? They use more resources than anyone, yet pay some of the least of anyone?

Why? Why are we ok with that? Why is it ok that the Waltons use the most and pay the least?

Why is it that small business owner next to the Waltons uses 1/100th resources as the Waltons but pays TWICE as much? Does that makes sense?

Doesn't to me.

[wally]

....

The system is broken and broken BIG time.

I graduated with $3,000 of student debt 11 years ago with my graduate degree. I only needed that loan because I blew my budget that year on an engagement ring, and I wasn't sure if the hottie I was conning into marrying me would have it checked out to see if I slipped her a CZ instead of the real deal.

Here's how I did it: I lived cheap as hell in dingy basement apartments and worked throughout my college career. I ate beans and rice and every free food I could find. I accepted the fact that I would probably have to be happy attending a "domestic" college option for in-state tuition credit instead of going to some exotic location for the experience of a lifetime! My college decisions were very utilitarian. I chose a degree based off of market demand for it and based off of my general aptitude for it.

The country does not owe anybody an easy living. even if I accept your numbers at face value, and assume that the $105k and $300k are static, why can't those people live like they are only making $65k (guess what, a lot of people actually do this!), and pay off the debt in 5 years? What is the tragedy here?

Also, one more minor quibble: you keep inferring that "the Waltons" are somehow using public infrastructure that they didn't pay for, or inadequately paid for. This is false. Corporations pay quite a bit in this regard. Whether by the fleet registration fees and fuel taxes, or the water and sewer impact fees they pay for a new facility that they build, they are paying their way, and usually pretty fairly, at least where I come from.

[Diehard Ute]

I graduated with $3,000 of student debt 11 years ago with my graduate degree. I only needed that loan because I blew my budget that year on an engagement ring, and I wasn't sure if the hottie I was conning into marrying me would have it checked out to see if I slipped her a CZ instead of the real deal.

Here's how I did it: I lived cheap as hell in dingy basement apartments and worked throughout my college career. I ate beans and rice and every free food I could find. I accepted the fact that I would probably have to be happy attending a "domestic" college option for in-state tuition credit instead of going to some exotic location for the experience of a lifetime! My college decisions were very utilitarian. I chose a degree based off of market demand for it and based off of my general aptitude for it.

The country does not owe anybody an easy living. even if I accept your numbers at face value, and assume that the $105k and $300k are static, why can't those people live like they are only making $65k (guess what, a lot of people actually do this!), and pay off the debt in 5 years? What is the tragedy here?

Also, one more minor quibble: you keep inferring that "the Waltons" are somehow using public infrastructure that they didn't pay for, or inadequately paid for. This is false. Corporations pay quite a bit in this regard. Whether by the fleet registration fees and fuel taxes, or the water and sewer impact fees they pay for a new facility that they build, they are paying their way, and usually pretty fairly, at least where I come from.

I know of people who took out thousands in student loans....because they made poor financial choices. They've never graduated, most of that money didn't go towards school.

Corporations do pay a lot. And in many cases they do things like pay off duty officers because they're needing more coverage than the government can provide. (Something anyone who chooses to do so can do btw)

I'll just sit here and wonder how my wife and I both have done just fine while living on modest government pay. We live comfortably with no debt. And we certainly aren't making the $100,000 a year being suggested for teacher pay by Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utah]

True. But I don't agree with most of your sentiment here.

People need to learn to make sound financial decisions. Going into debt $300k for a $100k a year job isn't necessarily a good financial decision.

That being said, given how people can't afford houses it seems rather odd that house prices have stayed where they are. It appears that banks have put an artificial floor under the housing market so they don't lose money. They are doing this by not offering loans and keeping foreclosed homes off of the market. By controlling both the supply and demand they can keep house prices artificially high.

I agree with your debt idea. BUT, the problem is, what college degree doesn't put you in that type of debt? Look at our beloved University of Utah:

Average cost per year for resident: $16,000
Average cost per year for non-resident: $34,000

Times that by 5 years (the average amount of time needed to get your degree) and you have these numbers:

Average cost per year for resident: $80,000
Average cost per year for non-resident: $170,000

How many jobs with bachelor's degrees pay that much money? And that doesn't even count post-grad work that is even more expensive.

In high school, you are told to go to college. You gotta go to college. College is the way to success. Looking at those numbers, you see that is bullshit. For most college graduates, they were scammed and scammed big time. Most graduates are now stuck with a noose around their necks that will drag them down for the next 30 years....why 30 years? Because as soon as they graduate, their payments are so high, they are forced to refinance to a 30 year loan.

The system is broken. Big time.

[Utah]

I graduated with $3,000 of student debt 11 years ago with my graduate degree. I only needed that loan because I blew my budget that year on an engagement ring, and I wasn't sure if the hottie I was conning into marrying me would have it checked out to see if I slipped her a CZ instead of the real deal.

Here's how I did it: I lived cheap as hell in dingy basement apartments and worked throughout my college career. I ate beans and rice and every free food I could find. I accepted the fact that I would probably have to be happy attending a "domestic" college option for in-state tuition credit instead of going to some exotic location for the experience of a lifetime! My college decisions were very utilitarian. I chose a degree based off of market demand for it and based off of my general aptitude for it.

The country does not owe anybody an easy living. even if I accept your numbers at face value, and assume that the $105k and $300k are static, why can't those people live like they are only making $65k (guess what, a lot of people actually do this!), and pay off the debt in 5 years? What is the tragedy here?

Also, one more minor quibble: you keep inferring that "the Waltons" are somehow using public infrastructure that they didn't pay for, or inadequately paid for. This is false. Corporations pay quite a bit in this regard. Whether by the fleet registration fees and fuel taxes, or the water and sewer impact fees they pay for a new facility that they build, they are paying their way, and usually pretty fairly, at least where I come from.

Nice story. It isn't reality anymore. I graduated from Utah in 2006 with zero debt as well. It was $6,000 a year to go to Utah then.

It is now $16,000 a year for schooling. That's almost three times as much. Your story is exactly what I am talking about. Your experience isn't reality anymore.

Also, with $300,000 in debt and a salary of $105,000, after taxes and student loan payments, you are left with about $45,000.

The country does not "OWE" anyone anything. BUT, why was ok for you to go to school for as cheap as you did, when it is now almost three times more expensive? Do you not see a problem there?

So, you say the Waltons pay their fare share when their taxes are <15%? And Scratch pays 29%? And Scratch uses a heck of a lot less public resources than the Waltons do?

[Utah]

I know of people who took out thousands in student loans....because they made poor financial choices. They've never graduated, most of that money didn't go towards school.

Corporations do pay a lot. And in many cases they do things like pay off duty officers because they're needing more coverage than the government can provide. (Something anyone who chooses to do so can do btw)

I'll just sit here and wonder how my wife and I both have done just fine while living on modest government pay. We live comfortably with no debt. And we certainly aren't making the $100,000 a year being suggested for teacher pay by Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mind me asking when you start working? How much did you pay for your schooling?

[Utah]

Also, one more minor quibble: you keep inferring that "the Waltons" are somehow using public infrastructure that they didn't pay for, or inadequately paid for. This is false. Corporations pay quite a bit in this regard. Whether by the fleet registration fees and fuel taxes, or the water and sewer impact fees they pay for a new facility that they build, they are paying their way, and usually pretty fairly, at least where I come from.


When Romney ran for president his tax returns showed that he payed 13% in taxes. 13%. Are you ok with that? When you probably pay double the taxes that he does?

I'm not talking about going after the rich because they are rich and they suck and I'm not rich and that makes me sad. I want everyone to be rich. I want everyone to have the opportunity to be rich.

I'm talking about just evening out the playing field. If the Romney's/Buffet's/Waltons are paying 13% in taxes, why am I paying 29%?

[wally]

Nice story. It isn't reality anymore. I graduated from Utah in 2006 with zero debt as well. It was $6,000 a year to go to Utah then.

It is now $16,000 a year for schooling. That's almost three times as much. Your story is exactly what I am talking about. Your experience isn't reality anymore.

Also, with $300,000 in debt and a salary of $105,000, after taxes and student loan payments, you are left with about $45,000.

The country does not "OWE" anyone anything. BUT, why was ok for you to go to school for as cheap as you did, when it is now almost three times more expensive? Do you not see a problem there?

So, you say the Waltons pay their fare share when their taxes are <15%? And Scratch pays 29%? And Scratch uses a heck of a lot less public resources than the Waltons do?

When I went to school, in state tuition was about $2-2.5k per semester for me. now it is about $3.5k. ( Reference: http://fbs.admin.utah.edu/income/tuition/tuition-calculator/ )

I think that my experience can still be "reality" for the frugally inclined, but not for those with an entitled mindset.

Again, reading comprehension: Taxes are only part of the revenue that funds public utilities, and even then, when it comes to most local utilities (water, sewer, garbage, etc.) it is based on a percentage of PROPERTY tax, not income tax. So a person in a $1M home will pay a lot more than a person in a $200k home.

Where are you getting this information? every so often one of my siblings comes up with all of these kinds of concerns and it usually has roots in some over-simplified or downright false Exposé show that is intended to rile people up on emotion rather than encourage critical thinking.

[Scratch]

The problem with pointing out the low rate on corporate dividends is the fact that it ignores the 35% corporate income tax rate. In other words, if a company Mitt Romney owns makes $10 million in profits, the company has to pay $3.5 million in corporate taxes before paying Mitt's dividends, which if it's 13%, would mean Mitt would pay an additional $845,000. The actual tax rate on those corporate profits, therefore, is about 43.5%. That's a lot higher than what you're paying.

And as for your claims that Wal-Mart is costing us tons of money, first, look at what Wally has pointed out regarding Wal-Mart's economic contributions Additionally, studies that say that the existence of Wal-Mart has lowered shopping bills by $250 billion a year. That means that Wal-Mart, from a purely financial basis, is a huge economic boon to this country. Again, big does not equal bad because of the savings economies of scale provide to all of us. You say that all of us are paying for Wal-Mart to exist, but Wal-Mart's existence is really saving American consumers (and, quite often, the most needy American consumers) huge amounts of money.

[Rocker Ute]

Utah points out something troubling and it ties this back into sports. NFL guys go broke because they make financial decisions like Utah described students are doing. Go to school and finance everything and leave with $300k in debt. Even worse, go buy a house and a new $30k car and finance all of that too. Never considering potential income or when that might dry up. It's all pretty stupid.

I was recently talking to a college kid who was complaining about his debt. He had no job and when I suggested he get one he looked at me like I was crazy and said, "I don't want to get stressed out, I just want to focus on school."

Nice thought that has no place in reality. I couldn't believe it. I'd personally hire a guy with a lower GPA that told me he worked through college than an entitled kid like this one.

I got through school like Wally did. I lived very modestly, I drove a junker, I didn't eat out, I mooched off of good souls for food too. I worked nearly full-time and took night classes. I took lots of hours. I applied for scholarships anywhere and everywhere. I got out debt free.

Then I worked for a couple of years, saved up money and did the same for grad school.

Then when I graduated I drove a clunker for another 7 years. The 1993 Pontiac Bonneville does have its charm.

No there aren't the same handouts and no there aren't things like pensions any more. (Although the rant about JP Morgan bonuses... have you read about the Goldman Sachs bonuses? Those suckers are alive and well).

But anyway, no there aren't handouts but there is also more opportunity with innovation. There is an entire tech sector that allows you to make millions selling $1 apps while sitting in your jammies. Work conditions have never been better.

The system may be broken but not in the way you think. It is broken because college students are making such horrible financial decisions.

One other thing regarding careers, I'll tell you the same thing I've told a number of people including kids in college who can't pick a major. You need to get over the notion of job satisfaction. It doesn't exist. Yes it will be nice if you love every minute of your work but for 99% of the population they don't experience that. Pick a job that you can succeed at and find satisfaction in meaningful things, like family and friends. Nobody ever put on their tombstone, 'I wrote 20,000 legal contracts...'

Finally, Walmart. I was at Walmart a couple of days ago... I'll say this as nicely as possible... A good number of the employees there are essentially unemployable at any other location. If it isn't employment there, it is for the LDS church or otherwise out on the streets.

But there they get training and can move up or on. Minimum wage isn't and shouldn't be considered a permanent wage. If you are on minimum wage for more than a year the problem isn't the system, it is you.

I am all for a hand up -- you might say I'm preoccupied with that notion right now. But that is what it is. You don't want to be a greeter at Walmart for the rest of your life, you want to move up or move to another organization that will pay you better because you have some skills and have shown some stability. You could reasonably argue that Walmart is taking a risk on a lot of people and keeping them off the streets.

And I don't want to belittle that. I admire anyone who seeks honest employment and there is no shame in that. But we've all got to keep improving and moving up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scratch]

Great post, Rocker, and I'm in the same boat. As an undergrad I almost went to Duke, but ultimately spoke to a lot of people (including a Rhodes scholar with degrees from Oxford, Yale, and Stanford) who convinced me that the smart financial decision would be to go to the U on scholarship. Even on scholarship I worked full time (making minimum wage) and actually graduated with a little savings (not much, but certainly no debt). I then decided to incur law school debt because it made sense financially to do so. I worked my butt off, my wife (who I married at the end of undergrad) worked her butt off, we drove an old Toyota for years (and only had one car for about 6 years), lived in crappy apartments, and graduated from a very expensive law school with under 100K in debt.

There are more good career paths out there than ever before, but people need to accept personal responsibility for their choices when they refuse to work hard and make poor career decisions (including poor educational decisions, because college is a career decision). As long as people keep making these horrible decisions the market will keep letting them make those decisions.

[Scratch]

I don't know a thing about economics, but I know I don't like the idea that we deserve all our advantages.

Absolutely correct. As has been said in this thread, nothing is fair, and there will be plenty of instances where someone works hard and makes good choices but can never compete with trust fund kids. That said, in America, the person who works hard, makes good choices, and accepts personal responsibility will be successful (absent completely uncontrollable disasters). The problem is that our culture isn't particularly good at infusing those values and helping people develop the ability to make good choices.

[Rocker Ute]

For many students, it makes more sense to focus entirely on school, get good grades, and come out with $100,000 in debt than it does to work for minimum wage, get lousy grades, and come out with $90,000 in debt. If you can work and still excel in school, great. That probably means you were given significant talents and will be successful. If, however, work is killing your GPA, grades are the better long term investment.

Sorry guys, but these "when I was your age" lectures don't do it for me. I've had the same experiences you and Scratch describe - I suspect most of us have - but we were set up for success from day 1. I've done the poor grad student thing too, but I never got close to true desperate poverty. I don't know a thing about economics, but I know I don't like the idea that we deserve all our advantages.

Becoming a doctor and incurring that kind of debt... Okay. Going to a prestigious law school... Okay. Going to b-school at the U and refusing to work and racking up enormous debt... Dumb.

Among other things besides getting a job he didn't need to be living with his wife in a fairly nice rental house in my neighborhood. Nor did they need to drive the cars they did. In state tuition for business school is no reason to come out with massive debt.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Sorry guys, but these "when I was your age" lectures don't do it for me. I've had the same experiences you and Scratch describe - I suspect most of us have - but we were set up for success from day 1. I've done the poor grad student thing too, but I never got close to true desperate poverty. I don't know a thing about economics, but I know I don't like the idea that we deserve all our advantages.

To summarize what's already been said here, there's no doubt that everyone comes to adulthood with different advantages, even if those advantages arise simply from God-given talent. It isn't fair, it's just life. The question is, what, if anything, should the government do to compensate for those differences?

[U-Ute]

The problem with pointing out the low rate on corporate dividends is the fact that it ignores the 35% corporate income tax rate

Corporations keep all of their profits offshore to keep from paying those taxes. In the case of GE, they actually got a refund a few years ago. This is why I believe we need to drop the corporate tax rate to whatever rate would bring all that money onshore, then tax capital gains at the same rate as income to encourage companies to invest in their employees instead of their shareholders.


. In other words, if a company Mitt Romney owns makes $10 million in profits, the company has to pay $3.5 million in corporate taxes before paying Mitt's dividends, which if it's 13%, would mean Mitt would pay an additional $845,000. The actual tax rate on those corporate profits, therefore, is about 43.5%. That's a lot higher than what you're paying.

The money he makes is on buying/selling stocks which is taxed at capital gains rates. CEO's cut expenditures (lay off staff, move operations overseas) to artificially boost stock prices, which they get back in stock options, again taxed at capital gains rates. Employees are excluded from this loop.

At issue here is the ability make an income purely based on capital gains.


And as for your claims that Wal-Mart is costing us tons of money, first, look at what Wally has pointed out regarding Wal-Mart's economic contributions Additionally, studies that say that the existence of Wal-Mart has lowered shopping bills by $250 billion a year. That means that Wal-Mart, from a purely financial basis, is a huge economic boon to this country. Again, big does not equal bad because of the savings economies of scale provide to all of us. You say that all of us are paying for Wal-Mart to exist, but Wal-Mart's existence is really saving American consumers (and, quite often, the most needy American consumers) huge amounts of money.

But at what cost? Their employees do put a strain on the welfare system. Cheaper isn't necessarily better. McDonalds is cheap too but it will kill you.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Funny Wal-Mart anecdote: during the run up to the 2008 election one of the Democratic candidates held a rally at a Barnes and Noble in Manchester, NH. The B&N happened to be situated in a Wal-Mart parking lot. During the speech he launched into a diatribe about Wal-Mart and their poor salaries, lack of benefits, etc.

Afterward one of the Boston papers ran an editorial about the speech, and showed the actual numbers. In fact the Wal-Mart employees across the board made a few dollars more per hour, and had better benefit packages than, their equivalent counterparts at B&N. (checkers vs checkers, stockers vs stockers, managers vs managers, etc). And in fact the store manager for that particular Wal-Mart had a salary and bonuses of over $125k-$150k, plus very good benefits.

[Diehard Ute]

Corporations keep all of their profits offshore to keep from paying those taxes. In the case of GE, they actually got a refund a few years ago. This is why I believe we need to drop the corporate tax rate to whatever rate would bring all that money onshore, then tax capital gains at the same rate as income to encourage companies to invest in their employees instead of their shareholders.



The money he makes is on buying/selling stocks which is taxed at capital gains rates. CEO's cut expenditures (lay off staff, move operations overseas) to artificially boost stock prices, which they get back in stock options, again taxed at capital gains rates. Employees are excluded from this loop.

At issue here is the ability make an income purely based on capital gains.



But at what cost? Their employees do put a strain on the welfare system. Cheaper isn't necessarily better. McDonalds is cheap too but it will kill you.

In Utah many Utah STATE employees qualify for welfare. Seriously. Perhaps we ought to start there first before moving onto the private sector?

And we also need to address what choices all employees have made.

Do you not have the skills to earn a large wage yet have had 5 kids because you believe somehow you'll be taken care of? I know of several families like this. Is that really the employer or the governments issue?

It's society's issue. We do a lousy job at teaching choice and consequences and personal responsibility

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

Funny Wal-Mart anecdote: during the run up to the 2008 election one of the Democratic candidates held a rally at a Barnes and Noble in Manchester, NH. The B&N happened to be situated in a Wal-Mart parking lot. During the speech he launched into a diatribe about Wal-Mart and their poor salaries, lack of benefits, etc.

Afterward one of the Boston papers ran an editorial about the speech, and showed the actual numbers. In fact the Wal-Mart employees across the board made a few dollars more per hour, and had better benefit packages than, their equivalent counterparts at B&N. (checkers vs checkers, stockers vs stockers, managers vs managers, etc). And in fact the store manager for that particular Wal-Mart had a salary and bonuses of over $125k-$150k, plus very good benefits.

According to a CNN article last year, the average wage for Walmart retail employees is close to $13/hour. Still not great, but a lot better than has been quoted as part of previous examples. Also, like Rocker said, these employees are working jobs that fit their skill level. If they are skilled and work hard, they'll have opportunities to move up.

[Sullyute]

I just want to say that i have enjoyed this thread. I agree that the tax laws need to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up. But i don't see that happening with our current politcal stagnation. I would love to see a true leader from either party sacrifice his or her chance at re-election and makes some difficult decisions that would hurt in the short term but help in the long term (stabilize social security, upgrade infrastructure, gut the tax code, less spending on military, lower the deficit, etc.). A pipe dream, i know.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Economics is my academic background.

Increasing economic inequality is a serious concern among economists, and not for the reasons others cite: social justice, fairness, etc.

China today is wrestling with fairly serious economic instability, in large part because there is no social safety net, and the Chinese culture emphasizes frugality, savings, etc. China's economy is about 50% consumption based. The US economy is about 70% consumption.

(The Chinese government has been trying to encourage greater spending among their growing middle class, with poor results. Since the Chinese economy grew mostly on cheap exports, and the rest of the world is saturated with cheap Chinese products, or otherwise are struggling with economic growth themselves, it's having a boomerang effect on China.)

Why is excessive savings bad? Because in economics, Savings = Investment, and so excessive amounts of savings are not justified by underlying economic activity. Economies can't grow by 50% a year, for a variety of reasons, and so you end up with excessive money chasing business prospects that can't meet the expectations of the investors.

Individuals can save at very high rates, but if *everyone* did that, the economy would nosedive. Put another way, a national economy is not like a family budget, because what I spend money on becomes your job, and vice versa. Zero or negative savings is undesirable, too, certainly.

As economic inequality increases, it has a negative impact on aggregate growth, because the very wealthy have very high savings rates, money that is not being recirculated in economic activity in the form of demand for goods and services, jobs created, etc.

Here's some startling information: the US economy is roughly comparable to other advanced economies, in terms of economic inequality. Where the US diverges from other advanced economies is in tax structure, and social spending. US taxes on the wealthy are comparatively low, and the US spends lower amounts of money on "transfers", ie, social programs.

This is why the US GINI index is worse than the rest of the developed countries, and moving toward 3rd world levels.

(The topic of economic inequality is uncomfortably ironic, for me, personally, because while my academic background is Economics, my career has been in IT. Technology is having an acute impact on inequality... and not in the right direction. Technically gifted people can and do have an impact far beyond the traditional measure of economic contribution, ie, "the sweat of the brow". Any two IT professionals in the same job can differ in productivity levels by 10 times, easily. Even the Scandinavian countries are seeing technology widen inequalities, very quickly, and these are the countries that strongly cultivate the "we're all in this together" ethic.)

[U-Ute]

In Utah many Utah STATE employees qualify for welfare. Seriously. Perhaps we ought to start there first before moving onto the private sector?

And we also need to address what choices all employees have made.

Do you not have the skills to earn a large wage yet have had 5 kids because you believe somehow you'll be taken care of? I know of several families like this. Is that really the employer or the governments issue?

It's society's issue. We do a lousy job at teaching choice and consequences and personal responsibility

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not saying we should force Wal Mart into paying people more. My point is that the way things are structured now, we encourage corporations to not take care of their workers.

That being said, the last time I checked the State of Utah offered benefits to offset the lack of a paycheck (pension, insurance, etc). That may no longer be the case with the budget cuts that states have had to make (except for Legislators of course).

[Diehard Ute]

I'm not saying we should force Wal Mart into paying people more. My point is that the way things are structured now, we encourage corporations to not take care of their workers.

That being said, the last time I checked the State of Utah offered benefits to offset the lack of a paycheck (pension, insurance, etc). That may no longer be the case with the budget cuts that states have had to make (except for Legislators of course).

Well when your pension is based on the salary you earn I don't believe that's an offset.

An employee who makes $17 an hour will receive a pension of roughly $21,000 a year after 30 years in the position. And that's people hired prior to 2011. Those who were hired after get $13,000 a year after 35 years.

While the state has decent insurance still, most municipalities have dumped the good insurance due to rising costs.

Legislators get retirement after a much shorter service period, and they also get health insurance. Something other state and local employees do not get.

Something many would find interesting. The average starting pay for a teacher in Utah is roughly the same as a DCFS social worker with a masters degree and 10 years experience.

When I hired on to the police department we had 1,500 people apply for 20 positions.

Today we're lucky if we get 200. Our dispatch center is lucky if they get 7-10 qualified applicants for 5 positions.

Most of this is the low pay coupled with the gutted benefits system


DCFS turnover is out of control. Mostly because of lack of pay and no raises beyond an occasional 1% cost of living raise (which is usually outpaced by the increased employee insurance cost)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Two Utes]

I don't like that article. It is a buzz word bonanza. A click bait fluff piece.

Look! Everyone is JEALOUS.

Of course people are. They were fed a huge pile of lies. What are you taught your whole life?

Go to school. Work hard. You will become successful. That isn't true anymore.

Let's compare a couple of things. My father and father in law both went to professional post grad programs.

My FIL graduated with $25,000 in debt. He made $75,000 his first year out.
My father graduated with $18,000 in debt after 10 years of schooling. He made $35,000 his first year out.

I know my business. Most people in my field graduate with about $300,000 in debt and that number is rising. The average salary for those people is $105,000 right out of school.

Do you guys NOT see the difference?

What is going on right now is not the same American that the baby boomers grew up with. Baby boomers get out of high school and went and worked at the mill with health insurance and an pension. They bought a house for $15,000 and a car for $1,500 while making $25,000 a year. That's easy. That's the American dream.

Compare that to this: People in my work graduate with $300,000 in debt. Houses are $250,000. Cars are $30,000. That is almost $600,000 in debt. They make $105,000 their first year out.

Salary of $105,000 vs $600,000 in debt

versus

Salary of $25,000 vs $17,000 in debt.

The system is broken and broken BIG time.


You are speaking nonsense. "Go to school, work hard. You will become successful. That isn't true anymore." Really? Says who? I guarantee you if you choose the right profession, go to school, work hard, be smart, YOU will become successful.

If you borrowed 300k to go to school other than law, medicine or and ivy league business school or equivalent, you are dumb. if you received one of these degrees, if you work hard and have half a brain you will become successful.

I had some really damn rough years when I started out in the practice of law. I often wondered if I could make it in the field of law. I wasn't getting paid jack (and contrary to you folks nowadays, the legal market here was definitely worse in the early-mid 90s than it is now). Some of the folks I worked for were complete POS'es But I made it. I did the 10,000 hours in a bunch of different things. I'm a decent lawyer now. And my life is better. But I still work my ass off.

Dan, go to school, get a good degree, work hard, don't be stupid with your money and YOU will become successful. Unless of course you have been defeated already (or perhaps you want to be defeated).

[U-Ute]

A Harvard Business School research paper on Shared Prosperity (http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/challenge-of-shared-prosperity.pdf) in America.

[mUUser]

.....I know my business. Most people in my field graduate with about $300,000 in debt and that number is rising. The average salary for those people is $105,000 right out of school......

May I ask what was your field of study and where did you go to rack up that kind of debt?

[Sullyute]

May I ask what was your field of study and where did you go to rack up that kind of debt?

If I had to guess, I would say pharmacist.

[Mormon Red Death]

Nice story. It isn't reality anymore. I graduated from Utah in 2006 with zero debt as well. It was $6,000 a year to go to Utah then.

It is now $16,000 a year for schooling. That's almost three times as much. Your story is exactly what I am talking about. Your experience isn't reality anymore.

Also, with $300,000 in debt and a salary of $105,000, after taxes and student loan payments, you are left with about $45,000.

The country does not "OWE" anyone anything. BUT, why was ok for you to go to school for as cheap as you did, when it is now almost three times more expensive? Do you not see a problem there?

So, you say the Waltons pay their fare share when their taxes are <15%? And Scratch pays 29%? And Scratch uses a heck of a lot less public resources than the Waltons do?
https://financialaid.utah.edu/paying-for-college/cost.php

Tuition at the u of 9k a year.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

My neighborhood has a few duplexes and an small apartment building that attract a lot of newlyweds students.

Utah talks about things being different and I agree. A lot of these students coming through don't work, live quite well, and focus just on school. I've had a few conversations where they'll be a bit incredulous if you ask if they are working and will say, "I just need to focus on school, I don't need the extra stress..."

Whereas when I was in school (not really that long ago - 20 years) everybody I knew except the kids of very rich parents worked while going to school or had a summer job. Most of us lived pretty modestly and didn't rack up the debt.

Now I would say less that 20% work at all. So yeah, no wonder you racked up debt.

A lot of kids today are expecting to make a ton out of school and don't want to climb the ladder. Two Utes story is pretty true to life... you work hard and pay your dues, the Audi comes later. Why does anyone need a $30k car out of college?

We were hiring an entry level accounting position. Had a bunch of dime-a-dozen recent grads come through applying. One kid we interviewed from BYU, when told his entry level salary commiserate with his experience turned his nose up and said, "Good luck finding anyone not illegal to take that pay...".

We did, he contacted us a month later asking if the position was still open.

I'm with two Utes, get a good education and work hard and you will be successful, or have a great chance at it. Don't get an education and your chances go down dramatically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Automation doesn't kill jobs - it kills wages. An argument.

https://medium.com/@ryanavent_93844/the-productivity-paradox-aaf05e5e4aad#.nguuqasqz

[Utah]

May I ask what was your field of study and where did you go to rack up that kind of debt?

Dentist.

[Utah]

My neighborhood has a few duplexes and an small apartment building that attract a lot of newlyweds students.

Utah talks about things being different and I agree. A lot of these students coming through don't work, live quite well, and focus just on school. I've had a few conversations where they'll be a bit incredulous if you ask if they are working and will say, "I just need to focus on school, I don't need the extra stress..."

Whereas when I was in school (not really that long ago - 20 years) everybody I knew except the kids of very rich parents worked while going to school or had a summer job. Most of us lived pretty modestly and didn't rack up the debt.

Now I would say less that 20% work at all. So yeah, no wonder you racked up debt.

A lot of kids today are expecting to make a ton out of school and don't want to climb the ladder. Two Utes story is pretty true to life... you work hard and pay your dues, the Audi comes later. Why does anyone need a $30k car out of college?

We were hiring an entry level accounting position. Had a bunch of dime-a-dozen recent grads come through applying. One kid we interviewed from BYU, when told his entry level salary commiserate with his experience turned his nose up and said, "Good luck finding anyone not illegal to take that pay...".

We did, he contacted us a month later asking if the position was still open.

I'm with two Utes, get a good education and work hard and you will be successful, or have a great chance at it. Don't get an education and your chances go down dramatically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those damn millennials....just work harder.

You guys have missed the point. I'll use my parents as examples: My father is a lawyer and my father in law is an optometrist.

My father graduated from BYU Law with $18,000 in debt. His first house was $24,000, his first car was $1,500. He made $26,000 his first year out.

My father in law graduated from Optometry school with $36,000 in debt. His first house was $100,000, his first car was $10,000 and he made $76,000 his first year out of school.

The average dentist graduates with $300,000, comparable houses cost $200,000-350,000, comparable cars cost $20,000, and starting salaries with corporations are $96,000-120,000.

Do you not see the difference?

But, yeah, work a part time job throughout school and everything will work out the same.

p.s. I worked all through undergrad, graduated with no debt from Utah. I then went to dental school, obtained scholarships that saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and worked all four years. But yeah, it's all those damn, lazy millennials. lol.

[Utah]

Also, if you worked for $9/hr for 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that is a little over $9,000 a year. Do you honestly think that will make a dent when professional schools are charging $70,000 a year?

Come on now.

70,000*4 = 280,000
9,000*4 = 36,000
280,000-36,000 = 244000

Go get those part time jobs boys and girls! It's the answers to all your problems!

[Utah]

University of Utah dental school cost: $36,000 for instate. $67,000 for out of state. PER YEAR.

When I went to school, there was no school in Utah. So, in state tuition? Kind of hard to obtain.

Rosman Dental School in Utah: $73,000 per year.

Now, keep in mind that all of this is just tuition. Not books, not equipment, not room and board. Just tuition.

But, yeah, the answer to your problems are that $9/hr part time job.

[Utah]

And of course, no blame is to be placed on the parents that raised these kids by getting photos taken every six months, awarding trophies to all these kids, taking them to Disneyland every year, buying them all the name brands growing up, racking up all the debt, buying houses they couldn't afford, and getting into their 50's with not retirement and into their 60's still needing job, etc, etc, etc...

It's almost comical the ignorance and lack of accountability. Guess where we can see where all those lazy millennials get it from, right?

[sancho]

The average dentist graduates with $300,000, comparable houses cost $200,000-350,000, comparable cars cost $20,000, and starting salaries with corporations are $96,000-120,000.


I don't have a problem with dentists, doctors, and lawyers racking up a lot of debt in graduate school. With such huge salaries, a few hundred thousand in debt is more than manageable.

With so much school debt, though, who would ever want to be a teacher or a social worker? The fancy pants schools don't even have education, social work, or nursing degrees for this reason.

I think working as a student is good for time and money management and for work ethic, but you are right that the days of working your way through school are over.

[Rocker Ute]

Those damn millennials....just work harder.

You guys have missed the point. I'll use my parents as examples: My father is a lawyer and my father in law is an optometrist.

My father graduated from BYU Law with $18,000 in debt. His first house was $24,000, his first car was $1,500. He made $26,000 his first year out.

My father in law graduated from Optometry school with $36,000 in debt. His first house was $100,000, his first car was $10,000 and he made $76,000 his first year out of school.

The average dentist graduates with $300,000, comparable houses cost $200,000-350,000, comparable cars cost $20,000, and starting salaries with corporations are $96,000-120,000.

Do you not see the difference?

But, yeah, work a part time job throughout school and everything will work out the same.

p.s. I worked all through undergrad, graduated with no debt from Utah. I then went to dental school, obtained scholarships that saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and worked all four years. But yeah, it's all those damn, lazy millennials. lol.

I'll say this as nicely as I can... you really are a moron.

[Diehard Ute]

I don't have a problem with dentists, doctors, and lawyers racking up a lot of debt in graduate school. With such huge salaries, a few hundred thousand in debt is more than manageable.

With so much school debt, though, who would ever want to be a teacher or a social worker? The fancy pants schools don't even have education, social work, or nursing degrees for this reason.

I think working as a student is good for time and money management and for work ethic, but you are right that the days of working your way through school are over.

Yeah I'm sort of chuckling here.

My social worker wife, who is a supervisor, 9 years with the state and with a masters degree doesn't make $45,000 a year.

If you combine her salary and mine we make about what Utah here is listing for a starting salary in his field.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I'll say this as nicely as I can... you really are a moron.

Okay, I'll elaborate before you do your 'nice analysis' post. You've glommed on to one thing I said among many issues based off my experience. Along with not working they also 'live very well' that means they are living in a relatively expensive rental situation, they drive very nice cars and they go and do fun things, like go to Hawaii during spring break, accumulating all of that as debt. So it really isn't so much a millennial thing as it is a spoiled child thing. And by spoiled child I mean a person who expects both during college and immediately after graduation to have all the things their parents worked years to get.

What you've been whining about is a very "first-world problem". However you cite four economic issues in your comparisons: 1. Cost of education, 2. Cost of housing, 3. Cost of transportation and 4. Income.

Now the reason I call you a moron is because only a moron would take those four economic factors and tie the issue to the one least related to, and the one that has the least effect on the other three, cost of education. So those are the cards you are dealt, smart people deal with them wisely.

I was a business grad, my first job out of school paid $24,000 year - and no this wasn't 1960, it was 2000. It was a job that got me on a track to advance where I wanted to go, and I ultimately went to grad school, where my income after grad school was $60k. That gave me opportunities to do new things and increase my earning power. My wife was a school teacher, she made $23k with little hope of improving that. We lived modestly, we graduated without debt, we drove clunkers, we didn't go out to eat. Oh, and my part time jobs (which we actually close to full-time - with a full-time school schedule) paid $12/hour even back then. It wasn't easy.

Either way... what Two Utes said is right. Get a good education, work hard and you will succeed. It might take you longer to climb out of debt, but your earning potential is exponentially higher. I don't see a lot of doctors and dentists living on food stamps. And so you have more debt... Drive a clunker and pay it off faster. Buy a town home instead of a 3500 sq/ft home in a nice neighborhood, until you get out of debt and can actually afford it.

Also, don't clap your hands when you realize what has happened with the housing market. 9 years ago the economy collapsed and most people lost 20-50% of the value of their homes. It wasn't until last year where homes caught back up to pre-recession prices, which means almost 9 years of wealth lost. If homes kept up with just inflation during that time, on a $300k home that is nearly $60k lost. In other words, the home worth $300,000 today (and 9 years ago) should be worth $360k. That seems like a benefit for the people who have entered the housing market lately (we won't even get into mortgages in the 3s). Wages have been stagnant during that same time too, yet expenses keep going up. Your education cost in the past compared to today and income/housing expenses scenario is a reality most Americans are living today. Lost NPV of money not ever earned and never invested.

Yet people clap their hands for Obama and point at the stock market and don't realize that the people who caused real harm to people on main street are richer than they have ever been. Mainstream America is poorer than it was 9 years ago. Other factors that go into the numbers your cited: It costs more to build a house than it did in 1960. There is less land, labor costs are higher, building materials and code is higher. In the SL Valley basically there is no unpurchased land right now for development. Average square feet is also higher. Those things all drive up housing costs.

THOSE are the factors you should be concerned about. Cost of living going up, wages stagnated.

But those are also hard things to control, so you have to make an educated decision. You have to decide what is more important to you, earning potential, debt accrued and how to mitigate that and the lifestyle you are willing to sacrifice for a bit for a better lifestyle in the future. Even if you continue to make all the wrong decisions, your overall quality of life is still markedly better than pretty much any period of time in the history of mankind, other than 1955-1975. And I'd argue with computers, smart phones, affordable flight, Arby's 5 for 5 deals, life is even better than then.

[Diehard Ute]

Okay, I'll elaborate before you do your 'nice analysis' post. You've glommed on to one thing I said among many issues based off my experience. Along with not working they also 'live very well' that means they are living in a relatively expensive rental situation, they drive very nice cars and they go and do fun things, like go to Hawaii during spring break, accumulating all of that as debt. So it really isn't so much a millennial thing as it is a spoiled child thing. And by spoiled child I mean a person who expects both during college and immediately after graduation to have all the things their parents worked years to get.

What you've been whining about is a very "first-world problem". However you cite four economic issues in your comparisons: 1. Cost of education, 2. Cost of housing, 3. Cost of transportation and 4. Income.

Now the reason I call you a moron is because only a moron would take those four economic factors and tie the issue to the one least related to, and the one that has the least effect on the other three, cost of education. So those are the cards you are dealt, smart people deal with them wisely.

I was a business grad, my first job out of school paid $24,000 year - and no this wasn't 1960, it was 2000. It was a job that got me on a track to advance where I wanted to go, and I ultimately went to grad school, where my income after grad school was $60k. That gave me opportunities to do new things and increase my earning power. My wife was a school teacher, she made $23k with little hope of improving that. We lived modestly, we graduated without debt, we drove clunkers, we didn't go out to eat. Oh, and my part time jobs (which we actually close to full-time - with a full-time school schedule) paid $12/hour even back then. It wasn't easy.

Either way... what Two Utes said is right. Get a good education, work hard and you will succeed. It might take you longer to climb out of debt, but your earning potential is exponentially higher. I don't see a lot of doctors and dentists living on food stamps. And so you have more debt... Drive a clunker and pay it off faster. Buy a town home instead of a 3500 sq/ft home in a nice neighborhood, until you get out of debt and can actually afford it.

Also, don't clap your hands when you realize what has happened with the housing market. 9 years ago the economy collapsed and most people lost 20-50% of the value of their homes. It wasn't until last year where homes caught back up to pre-recession prices, which means almost 9 years of wealth lost. If homes kept up with just inflation during that time, on a $300k home that is nearly $60k lost. In other words, the home worth $300,000 today (and 9 years ago) should be worth $360k. That seems like a benefit for the people who have entered the housing market lately (we won't even get into mortgages in the 3s). Wages have been stagnant during that same time too, yet expenses keep going up. Your education cost in the past compared to today and income/housing expenses scenario is a reality most Americans are living today. Lost NPV of money not ever earned and never invested.

Yet people clap their hands for Obama and point at the stock market and don't realize that the people who caused real harm to people on main street are richer than they have ever been. Mainstream America is poorer than it was 9 years ago. Other factors that go into the numbers your cited: It costs more to build a house than it did in 1960. There is less land, labor costs are higher, building materials and code is higher. In the SL Valley basically there is no unpurchased land right now for development. Average square feet is also higher. Those things all drive up housing costs.

THOSE are the factors you should be concerned about. Cost of living going up, wages stagnated.

But those are also hard things to control, so you have to make an educated decision. You have to decide what is more important to you, earning potential, debt accrued and how to mitigate that and the lifestyle you are willing to sacrifice for a bit for a better lifestyle in the future. Even if you continue to make all the wrong decisions, your overall quality of life is still markedly better than pretty much any period of time in the history of mankind, other than 1955-1975. And I'd argue with computers, smart phones, affordable flight, Arby's 5 for 5 deals, life is even better than then.

You're quite correct. My first job out of college in 1999 paid me $25,000 or so.

My job through HS and College paid me $4.65 to start, eventually I was making $7.

My first job that paid me more than $30,000 a year was my first year in law enforcement at about $37,000.

Wasn't easy. But those are the choices I made. The careers I chose. I knew going into all of my jobs I would have to be smart with money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Along with not working they also 'live very well' that means they are living in a relatively expensive rental situation, they drive very nice cars and they go and do fun things, like go to Hawaii during spring break, accumulating all of that as debt.

A common trap I saw in (only some) law and med students at Duke was the "I'm already $200,000 in debt, what harm is there in adding a $1500 sound system?" That kind of thinking was completely foreign to me, but, to be honest, all those people are earning $500k per year now, so they were probably right.


(we won't even get into mortgages in the 3s).

3.25%, baby! Purely lucky timing!

[Rocker Ute]

A common trap I saw in (only some) law and med students at Duke was the "I'm already $200,000 in debt, what harm is there in adding a $1500 sound system?" That kind of thinking was completely foreign to me, but, to be honest, all those people are earning $500k per year now, so they were probably right.



3.25%, baby! Purely lucky timing!

Well, we know a number of people in the US who live pretty comfortably off of $70k a year. So if you are a dentist or doctor who walked out of school with $300k of (very low interest) debt but also landed a $120k/year job starting you could feasibly have that debt completely paid off in 6-7 years. Live the $70k lifestyle, which isn't exactly subsisting off dog food by any stretch of the imagination until you are debt free.

Sorry, but whining about debt that can be paid off in that time span while still living relatively well just doesn't garner sympathy from me, particularly when $350 - $1M salaries are on the horizon. I've got an orthodontist friend my son is going to. He offers interest free financing, so it is pretty easy to figure out what he earns an hour (about $900/hour). His business is pretty fascinating from a business perspective. He has 4 chairs that he has filled at all times and moves from them, with people rotating in and out. If I figure my son's visit takes an hour (it doesn't it is 30 minutes max - but let's make the math slightly easier) he is making about $900/hour. Of course, he has overhead etc, but he is doing pretty well for himself.

[Utah]

lol at all the "I worked so hard, wo is me, just work harder" posts. Again, you guys have completely missed the point.

Rocker, you are right, that this is complex and involves many different systems. Education, transportation, housing, and income. That is exactly my point. You say millennials are lazy and coddled. I say that is a stupid response, because it isn't based in reality.

I say that's ridiculous, when my dad graduated from school and to "get started" with life (buy a house, a car, get out of debt) cost him $43,000. His starting salary was $26,000.

My father in law spent $146,000 to "get started". His starting salary was $76,000.

Both parents grew up in a time where "getting started" was less than two year's salary.

Look at kids in my profession. "Getting started" costs them 4 year's salary ($520,000 in debt and salary of $120,000).

Do you not see the difference? Do not not see how your "I worked hard, they should too" looks silly when their hole is twice as deep as your hole? You said your starting salary was $24,000. What was your debt load? How much did you pay per year for schooling? How many years did you spend in school?

But, hell, they are "rich" anyways, so they should just work harder right? lol.

Also, your last post, most kids graduating now have government loans with 6-8% interest. That isn't low.

You could pay it off in 6-7 years? Let's look at this intelligently. Let's do six years @ 7% interest. Split the difference. If you make $96,000 (the starting salaries here in Utah)...nevermind, let's go $120,000. Let's be liberal here.

In Utah, your taxes would be about $42,000 a year.

So, if you deduct 120,000-42,000 you get $78,000. You are going to pay those loans off in 6 years. That is $5,115 per month or $61,380 per year. That leaves you $16,000 a year to live off of.

Is that living the $70,000 a year lifestyle? Weird.

And, why should they "live the $70,000 a year lifestyle"? If they wanted that, they wouldn't have gone into medicine. There are a lot easier ways to "live the $70,000 a year lifestyle".

But I'm the moron.

Oh, and your orthodontist? How long has he been in business for? Let's get on even footing here before we start comparing. I agree that guys that graduated in the 1990's and earlier...hell, guys that graduated before 2008 have a much, much different reality than guys who graduate now. Let's use some real intelligent examples, not just "you start out making more than I ever did, you should be rich" ignorance.

[Utah]

Sorry, but whining about debt that can be paid off in that time span while still living relatively well just doesn't garner sympathy from me, particularly when $350 - $1M salaries are on the horizon.

Again,y
Again, your ignorance is showing. The average dentist employee makes $120,000. The average dentist owner makes $160,000. The average specialist is right around $220,000.

Yeah, there are guys making what you claim, but that is not the norm, but the exception by a LARGE margin.

[Utah]

You're quite correct. My first job out of college in 1999 paid me $25,000 or so.

My job through HS and College paid me $4.65 to start, eventually I was making $7.

My first job that paid me more than $30,000 a year was my first year in law enforcement at about $37,000.

Wasn't easy. But those are the choices I made. The careers I chose. I knew going into all of my jobs I would have to be smart with money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was your debt starting your career? You sound like my dad. "Oh, I made $1.65 when I worked in college, wah, wah, you are so spoiled now a days, you make $9/hr". That comment is irrelevant. Who cares what you made per hour? You have to compare it to today's numbers. Could you pay your way through school and pay for housing and pay for food and transportation on that $1.65 per hour? Yeah, my dad could. He graduated with a BS and no debt. He then went through a master's program working part time with no debt. He only took on debt when he started law school.

So, that $1.65 per hour was pretty damn good that it covered his housing, his food, and his schooling. I'd take that any day of the week. Does that $9/hr cover schooling, room and board and transportation anymore?

Would $9,000 cover tuition, room and board and transportation?

If not, then your story is commendable, but irrelevant.

[sancho]

Again,y
Again, your ignorance is showing. The average dentist employee makes $120,000. The average dentist owner makes $160,000. The average specialist is right around $220,000.


After 100k, all I hear is rich.

Any of us could have done the med, dental, law route, so we have no right to complain. But you have nothing to complain about either.

I think we all agree that undergrad tuition is nuts, and I don't think any of us believe that millennials are dumb and lazy.

[Mormon Red Death]

Again,y
Again, your ignorance is showing. The average dentist employee makes $120,000. The average dentist owner makes $160,000. The average specialist is right around $220,000.

Yeah, there are guys making what you claim, but that is not the norm, but the exception by a LARGE margin.

Talking with Dentist is just like talking with MDs about salary. There is an old saying from major league baseball:

"There are two truths to baseball. There is never enough pitching and no one ever made any money"

[Utah]

I don't blame sancho and MRD. I get it. BUT, Rocker said that a new Dr could live on $70,000 (which to be fair, he said that lifestyle, which means after taxes it is $50,000 cash) and pay off their loans in 6 years. If they were to pay off their loans in six years, they'd live on $16,000 a year.

That's a little bit of a difference.

My posts aren't to whine about my life. My life is great. I work hard (well, less hard then I did five years ago) and I do well. I'm not rich, but I can do take care of myself and put some away as well.

My point with all this is that I would LOVE to have it as hard as my dad had it, making $1.65/hr.

I would LOVE to have it as hard as Rocker had it (BUT, to be fair, I am making some assumptions here about his debt load).

Rocker keeps throwing out these statements that just aren't applicable and being very condescending along the way.

Let's take it a step further: I graduated with about $200,000 in debt, which was very low for my class. I made a great salary right out of school, especially when you compare it to the average American.

What about the kids who graduate with that type of debt and make half what I made my first year?

I know Rocker says, "just work harder, don't buy so many toys", but you need to remember that these kids are TOLD, under no certain terms, that they are to ONLY focus on school. My program told us we were not to have part time jobs. Our loan officers TOLD us that our school was our job, and we needed to be focused on that and then gave examples of kids who flunked out because they had part time jobs.

This is a complex, terrible problem we have. It is broken on so many levels. From predatory lending, to school costs rising too fast, to healthcare costs being outrageous, to a broken tax system...to blow it off as "you are just lazy"....

That's not ok. It's ignorant.

[Utah]

After 100k, all I hear is rich.

Any of us could have done the med, dental, law route, so we have no right to complain. But you have nothing to complain about either.

I think we all agree that undergrad tuition is nuts, and I don't think any of us believe that millennials are dumb and lazy.

I'm
I'm not sure I'd use the word complain. What I'm saying is that it costs twice as much to get started as it did 30 years ago. Is that not a problem? Whether you are a teacher making $25,000 a year or a Dr making $120,000?

The first post was about taxes.

How can we expect the American Dream to live on,whether you are a teacher or a Dr or a cop, when we outprice people from obtaining that dream?

Why is it we are ok with Trump bankrupting out of his tax burden, or giving the Miller's a 20 million dollar tax break, then turn around and raise the food tax and the FLAT income tax here in Utah? Why is it we are ok with the federal government loaning out money at 6-8% to people with no money, and then subsidizing housing at interest rates in the 3% range?

In this country, all the breaks are for those who don't need them.

How does what we are doing right now make any sense?

[LA Ute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBf66wAMpVQ