I Nearly Choked On My Coffee After This Fox News Host Suggested Workers Making $20/Hr

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're not making sense. The man just pointed out that taxes for rich folk have dropped significantly in 75 years....whom do you think picks up the slack in the national revenue? As for gov't spending, it's always social services for the non wealthy that is the target....as if that's going to fill the void of rich folk and corporate taxes. And DON'T get me started on the tax exemptions for organized religions!

No my friend, Waters is as he always was .... a goofy looking stooge for some conservative hack .... as he was for that chowderhead Bill O'Reilly, as he is no for Trump via Fox News.

And I pointed out that taxing the rich doesn't fucking work. They didn't get rich by being stupid with their money. On the other hand, giving money without close supervision, to the poor who are stupid with their money doesn't work either.

No, all you did was just parrot the SOS that when properly examined doesn't hold up. THINK, YOU FOOL, THINK! The rich didn't get that way alone.....they depend on people to do the work to make their ideas a reality. I don't begrudge someone getting wealthy, but I'll be damned if I pay comparatively more taxes than they do! Before you or I were born, there was about an 80% tax rate on the very wealthy and the country had NO SHORTAGES of millionaires and such. But now, corporations get tax breaks to set up shop in various cities, but still out source overseas for labor and such....and you and I pay for the products shipped back to us which incorporated shipping costs, etc. Upper end investors on Wall St. don't pay a transaction tax which put money in the coffers for the state without any major cut back on their return profits.

And where the fuck do YOU get off calling anyone "stupid" because they are poor? Why, because you have some time and money to screw around on the net (assuming you're not a paid troll somewhere or work for the sites you post on)? Remember the S&L scandal? The Wall St. debacle. The Reagan/Bush recessions? Too-Big-To-Fail banks? A whole LOT of people that YOU consider smart (played by the rules, saved their money, invested) got poor real fast. Hell, folk like you VOTED MORE THAN ONCE for administrations that enacted economic policies PROVEN TO FAIL.

I'll dumb it down for you further: You cannot have a United States of America if a section of the population is gaining massive wealth while comparatively putting fare less into the "common good" than the majority of the population.

I know you'd rather eat crap and call it ice cream than admit to that, but I do wish you'd stop insulting everyone's intelligence with this parroted water carrying bilge for the likes of Trump and his handlers.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What is your opinion of a flat tax, no deductions? Say 20%. Give the poor a break at $30K or whatever the poverty level was at the time. Notice the problems of such a cutoff level.

Agreed. I'm against just giving cash. Provide shelter and food but no cash is a good start.

A flat tax is a great idea, the exact figure can be worked out as can a standard deduction that means you pay zero taxes essentially. A simple tax law maybe all of two or three pages long that virtually anyone can understand.

 

[Nordberg]

Is that before or after tossing in all their welfare and subsidized healthcare benefits?

Do you get food stamps and healthcare? You do not because you make too much to qualify. A person making 40 K a year, also would not qualify. Think how much we could save in costs for public assistance.

 

[cawacko]

So now everyone is supposed to be able to afford to live alone in their own apartment?

When I was a young, minimum wage service industry employee in the late 70's and early 80's, back when the minimum wage was somewhere between $2.65 and $3.25 per hour, none of us could afford our own apartments either.

We did this thing called "finding roommates".

It's where two or three people get a place together and split the rent and utilities equally amongst themselves.

So, let's say a 3 bdr. apartment rents for $2,700 a month. Three people would pay $900 each. Add another $150 each for utilities and you're at 1,050 per month each.

Divide that by 4.3 weeks in a month and each roommates fixed weekly expenses would be about $245 per week.

Someone bringing home $2600 per month would be netting $600 per week.

Take out $245 rent & utilities which leaves them with $365 per week to spend on whatever.

Doesn't sound like such a dire situation to me.


.

To your point a lot of people come to places like SF and LA to chase their dreams be it in tech or entertainment. And you'll find five or six people living in a two bedroom apartment because that's what they need to do.

And people see the high cost of rent and think 'we should increase the minimum wage' What that misses is it does not to address the supply issue. That's where the cost of rent will come down (increasing supply). A higher minimum wage will only increase the number of people looking for apartments, which will drive up rental costs. It doesn't address the root problem.

 

[gfm7175]

The minimum wage was designed to be a living wage.

Idk what "living wage" means. The minimum wage was designed to be a price control. All price controls inevitably lead to related shortages.

 

[Nomad]

To your point a lot of people come to places like SF and LA to chase their dreams be it in tech or entertainment. And you'll find five or six people living in a two bedroom apartment because that's what they need to do.

And people see the high cost of rent and think 'we should increase the minimum wage' What that misses is it does not to address the supply issue. That's where the cost of rent will come down (increasing supply). A higher minimum wage will only increase the number of people looking for apartments, which will drive up rental costs. It doesn't address the root problem.

The problem with that in the big cities you mentioned is 1) the cost of land to build on, 2) increasing construction costs (due in part, somewhat ironically, to an overall increase in wages due to unrealistically high minimum wages in low level jobs) and 3) the environmental costs of urban sprawl that will occur if they build outside the densely populated urban core areas to less developed suburban areas.

To me, the solution lies in decreased expectations and a willingness to do with less than what one wants, while working to build wealth through career advancement, etc so they can afford bigger and better homes in the future.

That is a hallmark of other cultures. Like Japan where many young professional people live in the tiniest quarters imaginable. But they have a safe, warm place to sleep, eat and bathe. They accept it because they know what's truly important. They have their priorities in order.

Unfortunately, younger people today don't believe in working towards anything. They want everything now. Including their expensive toys and gadgets to play with, hanging out at chi-chi clubs, eating at the latest hipster restaurants, driving late model cars, etc, etc, all while living in their own spacious apartments in hipster neighborhoods.

You can see in the commercials on TV for these things, how they are being marketed towards young people.

 

[cawacko]

The problem with that in the big cities you mentioned is 1) the cost of land to build on, 2) increasing construction costs (due in part, somewhat ironically, to an overall increase in wages due to unrealistically high minimum wages in low level jobs) and 3) the environmental costs of urban sprawl that will occur if they build outside the densely populated urban core areas to less developed suburban areas.

To me, the solution lies in decreased expectations and a willingness to do with less than what one wants, while working to build wealth through career advancement, etc so they can afford bigger and better homes in the future.

That is a hallmark of other cultures. Like Japan where many young professional people live in the tiniest quarters imaginable. But they have a safe, warm place to sleep, eat and bathe. They accept it because they know what's truly important. They have their priorities in order.

Unfortunately, younger people today don't believe in working towards anything. They want everything now. Including their expensive toys and gadgets to play with, hanging out at chi-chi clubs, eating at the latest hipster restaurants, driving late model cars, etc, etc, all while living in their own spacious apartments in hipster neighborhoods.

You can see in the commercials on TV for these things, how they are being marketed towards young people.

You are not wrong about the challenges of building in urban areas. The way we try to address it is building higher density in areas near public transportation. In theory at least, it allows more people to live a life without a car as oppose to just continuing to build further and further out in the suburbs.

At the core, we continue to have a growing population. If we don't build enough housing, prices are only going to continue going up (unless more people either live multi-generational in a home or have large numbers of roommates). So that's why supply is such a big issue here.

I give young people a lot of cr*p but I'll say this for them. Boomers were able to buy homes at, relatively speaking, far more affordable prices than today. There are far fewer starter homes for young people to choose from. Home ownership isn't the end all be all but for those who aspire to it, and don't make big tech money at a young age, it can be a long haul before the average person can afford to buy (where one lives of course factors in here).

 

[Nomad]

You are not wrong about the challenges of building in urban areas. The way we try to address it is building higher density in areas near public transportation. In theory at least, it allows more people to live a life without a car as oppose to just continuing to build further and further out in the suburbs.

At the core, we continue to have a growing population. If we don't build enough housing, prices are only going to continue going up (unless more people either live multi-generational in a home or have large numbers of roommates). So that's why supply is such a big issue here.

I give young people a lot of cr*p but I'll say this for them. Boomers were able to buy homes at, relatively speaking, far more affordable prices than today. There are far fewer starter homes for young people to choose from. Home ownership isn't the end all be all but for those who aspire to it, and don't make big tech money at a young age, it can be a long haul before the average person can afford to buy (where one lives of course factors in here).

There are some very nice mobile/manufactured home parks around these days.....

For those who don't turn their noses up at the idea.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Righty scream about immigrants as they take their families out for Mexican, Thai, Indian or Chinese food.

everyone I know who owns a restaurant is a legal immigrant........

 

[cawacko]

There are some very nice mobile/manufactured home parks around these days.....

For those who don't turn their noses up at the idea.

Real estate is such a local thing in terms of what each market offers and the pricing. For example, I don't know that product like this exists in places like the Bay Area and L.A. These bigger metropolitan areas, where many of the best jobs are, tend not to build that type of housing. (I love that type of housing though for what it offers and think we need more of it.)

 

[Nomad]

Real estate is such a local thing in terms of what each market offers and the pricing. For example, I don't know that product like this exists in places like the Bay Area and L.A. These bigger metropolitan areas, where many of the best jobs are, tend not to build that type of housing. (I love that type of housing though for what it offers and think we need more of it.)

I don't know if the $200K maximum price filter will still be applied to the linked page, but if you see prices higher of course, you can reset the filter for various price ranges.

Bay Area Mobile Homes & Manufactured Homes For Sale - 170 Homes | Zillow

Search Bay Area mobile homes and manufactured homes for sale.

www.zillow.com

 

[cawacko]

I don't know if the $200K maximum price filter will still be applied to the linked page, but if you see prices higher of course, you can reset the filter for various price ranges.

Bay Area Mobile Homes & Manufactured Homes For Sale - 170 Homes | Zillow

Search Bay Area mobile homes and manufactured homes for sale.

www.zillow.com

Looking through these, many of them I would consider outside the Bay Area and the others more on the fringe. That said they are an option. But there is such a small number of them compared to the total population it's not realistic for most people.

 

[Nomad]

Looking through these, many of them I would consider outside the Bay Area and the others more on the fringe. That said they are an option. But there is such a small number of them compared to the total population it's not realistic for most people.

Yes, but my point was that "they" i.e. the powers that be, those who influence things, and the potential future residents and dwellers themselves via their own increased demand, could/should cause more of those type homes to be available in such areas.

Plus it think that because of the nature of their construction, with no concrete foundation, mean less excavation, so more trees can be left in place, etc.

I just envision small parks springing up in suburban areas that retain a natural feel, with lots of trees and even utilizing permeable gravel streets as opposed to paving with asphalt.

The houses are easy and fast to construct in a manufacturing plant, transport and set up in place creating an affordable option for young, first time buyers.

Just an idea.

 

[cawacko]

Yes, but my point was that "they" i.e. the powers that be, those who influence things, and the potential future residents and dwellers themselves via their own increased demand, could/should cause more of those type homes to be available in such areas.

Plus it think that because of the nature of their construction, with no concrete foundation, mean less excavation, so more trees can be left in place, etc.

I just envision small parks springing up in suburban areas that retain a natural feel, with lots of trees and even utilizing permeable gravel streets as opposed to paving with asphalt.

The houses are easy and fast to construct in a manufacturing plant, transport and set up in place creating an affordable option for young, first time buyers.

Just an idea.

I think houses like that are a great idea. But you have multiple factors working against it (depending on where you live) including NIMBYism, large amounts of expensive red tape to get approval and often being forced to used union workers (who will also fight to not have things built cheaply off-site but rather on-site by union workers). The latter two add large amounts to cost of the homes which make them far less desirable to build economically.

 

[IBDaMann]

The rich didn't get that way alone.....they depend on people to do the work to make their ideas a reality.

We have already established that you are abysmal at economics and really shouldn't be gibbering on the topic.

The successful are wealthy because they add great value to society. The poor are poor because they aren't adding value to the same extent. You sound like a Marxist who mistakenly believes that wealth is somehow distributed, not earned.

I don't begrudge someone getting wealthy,

Booooolsch't. You are obviously a poor loser who adds no value to society, probably because you aren't competitive in any way, and you totally envy those who are successful and happy.

Taichiliberal Mantra: I'm not happy until you're not happy!

but I'll be damned if I pay comparatively more taxes than they do!

What's with the word "comparatively"? Wait, I'll explain it to you. You are doing your best to twist words in such a way as to effectively delude yourself into believing that you somehow pay more in taxes than the successful, happy people you envy who, in fact, pay much much more in taxes than you do. You do this out of shame that you don't add any value to society whereas they do. Their existence makes you stand out as a total loser and you yearn for the government to punish them for having added value to society.

Well, it's too late. Now everybody knows that your petty, juvenile whining and bitching and moaning and sniveling and griping and crying about people who are pillars of society is nothing more than your embarrassment at being totally useless.

By the way, your' complete lack of any economics acumen gives you away. Every time you post, you broadcast "Hey! Look at me! I'm totally undereducated, which is why I can't get a job and why I live in my mother's basement."

All of this explains your absolute need to worship in the churches of Climate Change, Global Warming and Science Denialism. They are your only avenues of relief from your eternal misery, i.e. fantasy of being a Climate Justice superhero who is actually an important, contributing, value-added member of society because he is a thienth geniuth and is deputized to administer Climate Juthtith to the evil thucthethful happy people who thpread their evil happineth and are happy ... and who CORRUPT THE PLANET with their nice things!

You are scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept and economics challenged ... and you broadcast it. Why should anyone believe/accept anything you write?

Before you or I were born, there was about an 80% tax rate on the very wealthy and the country had NO SHORTAGES of millionaires and such.

Before there was an income tax and began redistributing people's wealth from those who earned it to those who did not, the United States grew strong very rapidly, and without burying the next four generations in crushing debt. As soon as the government created the income tax, it put the brakes on the growth of the country but of course greatly accelerated the bloating of the government.

Donald Trump represents the undoing of this, and people such as yourself who HATE happiness in others, bitterly oppose anything of the sort.

But now, corporations get tax breaks to set up shop in various cities, but still out source overseas for labor and such....and you and I pay for the products shipped back to us which incorporated shipping costs, etc.

If you want to end this, lower the taxes on businesses so they don't have to move jobs overseas. Oh wait, you are economics challenged. Even simple concepts don't register with you.

Upper end investors on Wall St. don't pay a transaction tax which put money in the coffers for the state without any major cut back on their return profits.

I wish you would learn English. You seem to be contradicting yourself in this sentence.

Why do you care about specific taxes that are paid or not paid by others? Why do you care about the coffers for the state? Wait, I'll explain that to you. In your need to punish successful people for adding value to society and for making you face your own shame in being non-value-added, you decided to view an individual's wealth as really belonging to the government, and viewing any wealth that is not surrendered to the government as being criminal hording.

If you really cared about fairness and in not punishing people for adding value to society, you would demand a flat tax, across the board, say around 9%, i.e. have all people pay the exact same percentage, i.e. those who make/spend more pay more proportionally, i.e. total fairness.

This is where your economics incompetence compels you to scream "THAT'S NOT FAIR! Complete equity and equivalence across the board is totally unfair. That's not what's in the Communist Manifesto!"

And where the fuck do YOU get off calling anyone "stupid" because they are poor?

I'm happy to point out that you are both stupid and poor. Also your English comprehension is atrocious. I bet you are regularly mistaken for lumber.

Remember the S&L scandal? The Wall St. debacle. The Reagan/Bush recessions? Too-Big-To-Fail banks?

Remeber Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Chavez' Venezuela, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, North Korea, Ho Chi Minh's Viet Nam, etc.?

A whole LOT of people that YOU consider smart (played by the rules, saved their money, invested) got poor real fast ... and many just became dead. Hell, folk like you VOTED MORE THAN ONCE for administrations that enacted economic policies PROVEN TO FAIL.

You cannot have a United States of America if a section of the population is gaining massive wealth while comparatively putting fare less into the "common good" than the majority of the population.

Your problem is that you are economics-challenged and you don't understand that the wealth one earns reflects the "common good" (value) he adds to society. As long as you remain on the education-level of a door-stop, you simply aren't going to get it, and you will continue to push for countries such as the US to tansform into Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Chavez' Venezuela, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, North Korea, Ho Chi Minh's Viet Nam, etc.

I know you'd rather eat crap and call it ice cream than admit to that,

You're the one who wants the US to follow Venezuela's lead and force the citizenry to search for their food in the garbage cans throughout the city ... while calling it ice cream. The early bird gets the worm-infested meal. You snooze, you starve. I'm so looking forward to that here in the US so I don't have to travel if I want to indulge in the experience. But first we need for the DNC to steal a few more elections before we can lock down on the nationwide culinary scavenger hunt.

but I do wish you'd stop insulting everyone's intelligence

You have to have intelligence to insult. Get some and then you can complain.

 

[IBDaMann]

everyone I know who owns a restaurant is a legal immigrant........

Everyone in every one of the kitchens is an illegal immigrant.

 

[Nomad]

I think houses like that are a great idea. But you have multiple factors working against it (depending on where you live) including NIMBYism, large amounts of expensive red tape to get approval and often being forced to used union workers (who will also fight to not have things built cheaply off-site but rather on-site by union workers). The latter two add large amounts to cost of the homes which make them far less desirable to build economically.

Maybe in a certain few metro areas one or more of those issues might crop up, but I think in most places in the US it would be doable enough. Especially given the growing demand and lack of supply, of cheap housing alternatives.

I think the biggest thing working against it is the negative attitudes towards it of the people it would be meant to help find an affordable home.

 

[IBDaMann]

Idk what "living wage" means.

I am so glad you asked.

A "living wage" is a government-mandated minimum wage that is independent of the value added by the position and that is guaranteed to enable the employee to afford a decent rent/mortage, car payment, utilities, phone bill, entertainment, health care, groceries and fuel expenses for a family of four. Whether the employee is the CEO or the guy flipping burgers, he is human dammit! He deserves a living wage!

Say it with me: He who labors eight hours per day DESERVES a living wage!

Now that homeless guy who spends his day just trying to survive, he's a human too and he deserves a living wage as well. It's not his fault he was victimized by the very same capitalism that made his victimizers rich and happy. All businesses should pay a heavy "living wage" tax to fund those who work eight hours per day trying to survive.

Say it with me: He who labors eight hours per day DESERVES a living wage!

Of course the evil corporations who became rich exploiting their victims should at least pay them a living wage; it's the only humane thing to do. The homeless wouldn't be homeless if they hadn't been exploited in the first place, and paying them a living wage is the right way to start, and later we can talk about reparations for their victimization.

--------------------

Now that you fully understand what a "living wage" is ... the same rhetoric above is repeated periodically to bully industry into hiking up the minimum wage yet again. Whenever you hear talk (read posts) about providing a "living wage," quickly check your news feed for the current chatter about the minimum wage.

 

[LurchAddams]

Earn $100,000 A Year

Recently, Fox News host Jesse Watters received backlash after messing up some very basic math and insulting fast food workers in the process.

Someone making $40,000 a year in California brings home about $32,000 after taxes, or about $2,666 a month. Meanwhile, according to Zillow, the state's median rent sits at $2,790 a month.

As you can imagine, people were not pleased after watching Watters's take. Some didn't like how he kept adjusting the situation to make the numbers work — even though they never did.


https://news.yahoo.com/nearly-choked-coffee-fox-news-201830195.html

There's a reason that Trump wants to defund public schools that mandate math as a subject. It keeps the citizenry ignorant and more susceptible to his perverted promises.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I have seen reports that total spending for street people in CA is substantially north of $100K each on a full time equivalent basis.