Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    (snip)"WASHINGTON (July 16) - Democrats controlling Congress ratcheted up expectations Tuesday for additional legislation to jump-start the dragging economy.

    "We will be proceeding with another stimulus package," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with several economists.

    Pelosi said that recently issued tax rebate payments of $600 to individuals and $1,200 for married couples have helped the economy but that more is necessary to offset the drag of higher gasoline prices and other costs.

    But President Bush cautioned in a White House press conference that lawmakers should "wait for the stimulus package to fully kick in" before passing another.

    The Democratic effort is still in its formative stages, but most of the proposals mentioned by Democrats were rejected by Bush during negotiations that produced the earlier stimulus measure.

    New legislation could include: additional tax rebates, heating and air conditioning subsidies for the poor, infrastructure projects, higher food stamp payments and aid to the states.

    Pelosi told reporters that she "would hope that (tax rebates) would be part of any package" but that some of the Democratic elements need to be attached."(snip)


    ... in other words, if 'Democratic elements' do get added to a second economic stimulus bill, those Americans that ARE working will see their future income taxes increased to fund additional subsidies providing reduced cost utility and fuel bills for the 'poor', increased food stamp payments to the 'poor' etc. The Moral Hazard involved is getting to be a rather LARGE issue i.e. the standard of living possible by not working and becoming eligible for these benefits is in danger of exceeding the standard of living possible by continuing to work while paying higher taxes, higher utility and fuel bills, and higher food prices !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-17-2008 at 09:24 AM.

  2. #2
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    And to that question I would pose a counter point of "At what point does it pay to keep good paying jobs on US soil?"


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  3. #3
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    And to that question I would pose a counter point of "At what point does it pay to keep good paying jobs on US soil?"
    We have one GM plant left in Dayton which manufactures the Trailblazer type SUV's. GM recently announced they are going to close it by 2010 eliminating several thousand good paying jobs. I read a number of articles over the years how this plant was very efficient with good labor-management relations. So I guess the thoughts of the workers about to be dismissed would be more poignant than mine after believing they have been doing the right thing all along. Of course, they probably don't read Stripperweb.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  4. #4
    Featured Member BrodieLux's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    It boggles my mind that anyone would oppose food stamps for the poor...especially on the grounds that someone could abuse it. That's like arguing that soup kitchens should stop offering free meals to the hungry because some slacker might take advantage!

    Who the fuck cares! Feeding the hungry is much more important than a rogue slacker, obviously! And the government's money is all our money, so food stamps are like us opening a proverbial soup kitchen instead of a church.
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSeeker View Post
    ^Pssssttttt, your stripper is showing.

  5. #5
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    the government's money is mostly imaginary (and mostly debt). welcome to the joys of fiat currency. :-/

    depersonalising social services increases the likelihood of them not working as desired. that is, when you think 'taxes' pay for social services and you don't have to feed them out of your pocket directly, they tend to work less effectively. and that's because depersonalising creates a layer of bureaucrats who will do anything to keep from losing those good-paying jobs-- poor people barely enter into it, in that respect. plus, you know, less money directly goes to the actual poor, instead feeding an army of social workers.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    ^^^ unfortunately all too true. This is part of the reason that, in states with generous social welfare programs, one in five state residents is now a gov't employee ! So yes the 'cost' of providing food stamps for the poor also includes the salary and benefit cost of X number of these gov't employees.

    And the cost of doing business in those states includes the taxes necessary to pay part of the tab for providing social welfare benefits and gov't employee paychecks - costs which do not exist for competing businesses located in Asia for example. This is even more true in regard to US labor costs, which must be set much higher than those in Asia in order to cover US taxes on employees. Thus no matter how well the US business manages their operations, they are always behind the 8 ball in regard to competitors in other countries who do not have to bear the cost of such taxes.

    I did NOT oppose, and have never opposed, the gov't providing food to the needy. My point in this thread involves the gov't providing an ever expanding cornucopia of social welfare programs that now go well beyond relieving hunger. For example, the democratic stimulus proposal would now include subsidized air conditioning and heating bills for the 'poor'. My point was about the Moral Hazard associated with generous social welfare programs ... i.e. by increasing the benefits for those who are eligible, and by increasing the taxes = reducing the after-tax incomes of those who are not eligible to pay for those increased benefits for their 'neighbors', the reality of the situation is that at some point an unskilled American worker is better off NOT working and becoming eligible for those increased benefits themselves.

    By the same token, Americans who are already signed up for social welfare benefits face an even greater 'hurdle' against attempts to become self sufficient ... because the minute they earn enough money to disqualify themselves from future benefit eligibility they face having to pay for their own health care / full price rent / full price utility bills / full price food. And all of these have to be paid for with after-tax money ! So the Moral Hazard of the situation really is that a person can choose to not work (or work a couple of days per week to keep earnings below the eligibility threshold of perhaps $20k per year), or a person can choose to work their butt off, earn $40k per year = $32k after taxes = <$20k after paying for their own health care / full price rent / full price utilities / full price food !!!

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    And to that question I would pose a counter point of "At what point does it pay to keep good paying jobs on US soil?"
    Arguably, this situation is analogous to the Moral Hazard situation which exists for unskilled / semi-skilled American workers in regard to working at a $40k per year job versus not working and enjoying free health care, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, subsidized food, essentially no responsibilities, and essentially the same standard of living.

    Put yourself in the position of a US corporate decision maker who must decide how to keep his company profitable. Thanks in part to the high corporate taxes necessary to pay for existing levels of US gov't spending (which is one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world ... see ), it is guaranteed that the US gov't is going to take a significantly larger 'bite' out of corporate profits than many foreign countries. Thanks in part to the higher individual taxes necessary to pay for existing levels of US gov't spending, it is guaranteed that hiring US employees will cost the company 7.6% in 'employer' SSI tax for every dollar of US payroll. It is also guaranteed that the hourly pay rate for US employees must be higher than that of other countries, not only to offset the $7.25 minimum wage plus 7.6% 'employee' SSI tax at the lower end of the pay scale, but also to offset the 15%-20%-25% progressive income tax which affects employees at the upper end of the pay scale.

    As a corporate decision maker, how can you possibly dig out from under a 20% or so corporate income tax disadvantage, plus a 7.6% 'employer's share' of SSI disadvantage versus foreign competitors who don't have to bear these costs (or who bear much lower costs) ? I'll even leave out other comparative cost issues like worker safety compliance costs or environmental compliance costs or litigation costs or retirement legacy costs, which further widen the competitive disadvantage versus foreign competitors. The answer is that, in a free market, you can't !

    So this essentially leaves two possible directions in which changes might be made to 'keep good paying jobs in the USA'. The first direction would be to do away with all of the additional cost factors that affect US employers but which do not affect their foreign competitors - from corporate taxes to 'employer' SSI to worker safety / environmental compliance / litigation costs. However this would mean that, in the absence of huge cuts in gov't spending, these costs would then have to be absorbed via imposing massive tax increases on US workers. As this is a practical impossibility, the other option would be to remove the cost disparities for worker safety / environmental compliance / product liability etc. by reducing US legal requirements in these areas to equal those that exist in say China - which is a political impossibility.

    The other direction would be to have the US gov't do away with the 'free market', such that US corporations would only have to compete against other US corporations ... which all pay the same corporate income tax rates, the same 'employer' SSI costs, the same worker safety / environmental compliance costs, the same litigation costs, etc. To accomplish this it would be necessary to pass a modern day version of the Smoot Hawley tariff act of the 1930's, which would impose an import tariff on all imported products which compensated for the differential in product price made possible by the foreign country's lack of high corporate tax rates, lack of minimum wage, lack of worker safety / environmental compliance, lack of legal liability etc. This has actually been proposed recently in the form of a new tariff on all Chinese imports. Various politicians and economists estimated that the necessary tariff level to compensate for all of these US business cost factors which don't exist in China to be 27%. Based on that shot in the dark number, taking the tariff route to protect 'good paying jobs in the USA' would involve increasing the US store shelf price for all imported products by up to 27%. Of course this also means that the American 'poor' and 'middle class' would be faced with a 27% increase in the price they must pay for 'bargain' products. And this also means that, to some degree at least, the American 'poor' and 'middle class' would wind up paying significantly higher prices for US made products because the 27% increase in prices for products from their foreign competitors would allow US manufacturers to raise their prices by some degree as well. One good example would be the result of imposing say a 20% tariff on Korean automobiles ... raising the price of a Hyundai from $10k to $12k immediately would also allow GM to raise the price of a Chevy Cobalt from $14k to at least $15k - thus preserving some UAW jobs. But ultimately, this approach reduces the standard of living of American workers in exchange for job preservation, due to the inevitable price increases.

    So to answer your question ... it doesn't pay !!! And because it doesn't pay, the US will continue to bleed 'good paying jobs' in the private sector at least. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the only way that 'essential' US industries can ultimately be kept operating in the USA is to nationalize them ...

    (snip)"The following industries are on a clear path toward nationalization, in order of likelihood:

    Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (mortgage finance)
    .
    major banks
    .
    airlines
    .
    Detroit automobiles
    .
    gasoline & diesel refineries
    .
    some transportation systems including trucks, railroads
    .
    home rental (limited to Fannie Mae properties)
    .
    steel industry


    Already, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) will guarantee bank losses on accounts up to $100k. Another federal agency guarantees bond & brokerage accounts up to $500k. Already, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp will pledge to provide up to 35% of pension income for anyone whose corporate pension is lost or reneged upon. In the absence of any insight, imagination, or independent thought, the nation will resort to the state to underwrite the losses, and thus to institute measures toward remedy. Enter Big Brother with a checkbook, or better described as a credit card, no no a printing press!!! However, most solutions will simply be patchwork with restoration of order the main theme. The system will turn to the same broken apparatuses that killed the system, ensuring degradation and more need for control. Eventually martial law will fit like a glove. The result will be an ugly outcome a few years from now, marred by shortages, and eventually managed shortages, as in rationing and price controls. This fits perfectly with the next chapter of the Fascist Business Model. "(snip)

    from
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-18-2008 at 07:21 AM.

  8. #8
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    In the first paragragh he states.......

    'The only possible response will be an implosion with greater state assumption of losses, responsibility for operations, and extended power.'

    Nationalization trend. lol They are on a clear path to nationalization. lol Wher is the evidence of this path?

    Markets go up, markets go down. Some take advantage and try to talk up what they are holding. If nationalization does occur, do you think you are going to be able to own gold?

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    Nationalization trend. lol They are on a clear path to nationalization. lol Wher is the evidence of this path?
    funny you should ask ...

    (nationalized health care)

    (nationalized oil refineries)

    (nationalizing defense industries)

    (nationalization of bailed-out banks)

    (nationalization of mortgage lending)


    If nationalization does occur, do you think you are going to be able to own gold?
    as a permanent resident of Belize or Costa Rica, absolutely ! Obviously your point revolves around an FDR depression era replay of 'capital controls', part of which will bar the middle class and working class ( who don't have access to hidden offshore banking ) from owning precious metals, and thus denying them the ability to protect the purchasing power of their savings the way the uber-rich will be able to.

  10. #10
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    funny you should ask ...



    They are all speculation and opinions.

    Everyone knows the Dems are our Communist Party and want a workers paradise, but............................

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d28fc66a-52a...nclick_check=1

    SEC to fight short selling of financials

    US regulators will take emergency action to stop abusive short-selling of stock in financial institutions such as mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and investment bank Lehman Brothers.

    Christopher Cox, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, told legislators on Tuesday that the agency would issue an emergency rule to stop so-called “naked” short-selling of shares in significant financial entities. The SEC will also consider new rules to extend those trading limits to the rest of the market.

    Short sellers aim to profit from share declines – usually by borrowing a stock, selling it and buying it back in the market. But in a “naked” short the shares are sold without being borrowed first. The emergency rule, which would be in effect for up to 30 days, would require anyone making a short sale to borrow the security first.

    It would apply to Fannie and Freddie – the government-sponsored entities that own or guarantee almost half of US mortgages – and all primary securities dealers including Lehman, whose shares have been battered by rumours the bank says are false.

    The action comes amid intensifying efforts by authorities to crack down on rumour-mongering intended to manipulate securities prices. The SEC has been investigating whether false rumours and abusive short selling contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns in March and the declines in Lehman’s shares.

    It is now working with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and New York Stock Exchange Regulation to conduct industry-wide “sweep examinations” of market participants, including hedge fund advisors

    “If we are successful in bringing future cases . . . I believe the penalties should be commensurate with the enormous amount of shareholder value that is destroyed by this kind of wantonness toward other people’s money,” Mr Cox said. The agency has used emergency rule-making powers in the past, for instance after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but this would be the first time it has issued an emergency rule on short selling.

  11. #11
    Featured Member BrodieLux's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    I know two dancers who have section 8 housing, food stamps and get their cash tax-free. It happens, some people game the system. Heating and air conditioning aren't frivolous concerns, though, especially in areas of the country where you can die without either if you are elderly or otherwise frail. So I dont think its a bad or odd idea, considering those folks.
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSeeker View Post
    ^Pssssttttt, your stripper is showing.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: at what point does it pay to quit working ???

    Heating and air conditioning aren't frivolous concerns, though, especially in areas of the country where you can die without either if you are elderly or otherwise frail. So I dont think its a bad or odd idea, considering those folks.
    Unfortunately for those elderly frail people, if they have worked and saved all their lives they will probably NOT get social welfare assistance with their heating / cooling bills, because the 'income' from their 401k retirement savings withdrawls will make them ineligible for those social welfare benefits !!! But on the other hand if they have not worked much, and not saved much, the gov't will subsidize their cooling / heating bills ... along with their rent, food etc.


    “If we are successful in bringing future cases . . . I believe the penalties should be commensurate with the enormous amount of shareholder value that is destroyed by this kind of wantonness toward other people’s money,” Mr Cox said. The agency has used emergency rule-making powers in the past, for instance after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but this would be the first time it has issued an emergency rule on short selling.
    If the SEC wants to ban short selling, fine. But what gives the SEC the right to confine this ban to financial stock shares while still allowing the practice for tech company shares, commodity ETF shares, index stock shares etc. ? And even more to the point, what gives the SEC the right to confine this ban to SOME SPECIFIC financial stock shares, while allowing other financial stocks to be shorted as always ? This is the most blatant case of gov't favoritism of certain companies and an unofficial gov't bail-out that you will ever see ! Of course this is only the wildest of coincidences, right ?

    (snip)"Funny how campaign contributions from big money donors are usually presented in the press as a corrupting influence but when it comes to hedge funds and private equity firms, the lack of political involvement is often portrayed as something close to anti-democratic.

    But maybe it's just us. Because we can't read Jenny's lede without imaging what this would sound like if you substituted Tony Soprano for Chuck Schumer.

    On a cold evening in late January, Senator Charles E. Schumer invited a who’s who of hedge funds to dinner at Bottega del Vino on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. More than $100 billion worth of wealth sat around the table, including Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Capital; Steven Cohen of SAC Capital; Stanley Druckenmiller of Duquesne Capital; and James Chanos of Kynikos Capital, according to a person who was briefed on the dinner.

    Mr. Schumer, the New York Democrat, had some simple advice for the billionaires in his midst: If you want Washington to work with you, you had better work better with one another. (Mr. Schumer and the hedge fund managers declined to comment).

    Then there's also the quote Tim La Pira:

    “The small proportion of money they are spending is related to the fact that they are not heavily regulated,” said Tim La Pira, a lobbying researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics. “Heavily regulated industries like banking or oil and gas spend an enormous amount of money because they have a history and legacy of being regulated.” Now read that paragraph again from the point of view of a lawmaker hoping to raise money from hedge funds for re-election or a lobbyist in search of fees. And now you can stop wondering why we had those hedge funds hearings today."(snip)

    from

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-18-2008 at 07:29 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Pay my bills... so I can quit?
    By Kisca in forum Life Support
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-08-2011, 03:48 PM
  2. Working ot & 1st week's pay
    By carmenssecret in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 09:03 AM
  3. No point working in December
    By 242_fair in forum Hustle Hut
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 10:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •