One question

[samhain]

(09-02-2023, 06:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: PS you might think those kinds of loans are crazy, but several countries already have them in use.
Japan has 99 and 100 year loans.
Canada has 60, 70 and 90.
UK is offering 50
Sweden is 50, 100 (and adding 105)

So it would be wise to check how those countries regulate them.

I've never heard of this idea.  It's interesting for sure.

My minor contribution to this thread is this: people need to stop paying exorbitant amounts of cash for shit they do not need.  Vacations, brand new cars, certain types of food, clothes, etc continue to keep going up because someone somewhere will shell out the money for it.  Let retailers and corporations hold on to that inventory until they have to either bring prices down or eat it.  

There just seem to be a lot of people in the US these days that will throw whatever amount of money someone charges them at a product or service, consequences be damned.  Maybe they are paying with credit and maybe they are spending without regard to long term financial health, but these people enable sellers to continue to gouge people more and more all the time.   

[Luvnit2]

(09-02-2023, 03:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To the bolded, did you ever stop and think about how many of those 16-17 year olds are using most of their earnings to support siblings, due to their parents being no account?  It happens.

If that is the case wouldn't they be able to claim head of household. I have hired a lot of 16 and 17 year olds in my almost 50 years in business, I can't remember one who said they were supporting their family, however I had many who were supporting themselves (head of household).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-02-2023, 08:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If that is the case wouldn't they be able to claim head of household. I have hired a lot of 16 and 17 year olds in my almost 50 years in business, I can't remember one who said they were supporting their family, however I had many who were supporting themselves (head of household).

uhm aren't they exempt from taxes while in school?

[GMDino]

(09-02-2023, 08:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If that is the case wouldn't they be able to claim head of household. I have hired a lot of 16 and 17 year olds in my almost 50 years in business, I can't remember one who said they were supporting their family, however I had many who were supporting themselves (head of household).

I'd assume because the parents are still there. Even if they are supporting the entire home they would be listed as "dependent".

(09-02-2023, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: uhm aren't they exempt from taxes while in school?

No.  But if they don't make a certain amount they get fully refunded on their tax return.

At least that was the case for my two.  One is still in school.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-02-2023, 08:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd assume because the parents are still there. Even if they are supporting the entire home they would be listed as "dependent".


No.  But if they don't make a certain amount they get fully refunded on their tax return.

At least that was the case for my two.  One is still in school.

Ok, guess so, i'm not gonna bother looking it up. 
I always got mine back but that's been eons ago! 

[guyofthetiger]

As a person who lost all my money many years ago and barely survived, I had a bad attitude thinking I would never end up on the street until I almost did. I could have used financial counseling to prevent my predicament. With that said, I think a lot of families should take in their relatives on the street and help them out until they get back on their feet. The homeless person needs to be willing to change and get a job. If there is no family or willing partner to help out, the government can provide assistance. Often the first step is to get healthy mentally and physically. A friend of mine came across a school mate that was homeless. He took him some food and found he was partying with other homeless people instead of looking for work. He needs to help himself.

[*pally*]

(09-02-2023, 08:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If that is the case wouldn't they be able to claim head of household. I have hired a lot of 16 and 17 year olds in my almost 50 years in business, I can't remember one who said they were supporting their family, however I had many who were supporting themselves (head of household).

Many kids won’t admit to outsiders the challenges at home. If outsiders knew the teenagers were supporting the family, social services could step in and remove all the children. Being with bad parents and with their brothers and sisters is for them something they have decided is the better than being separated in foster care.

And most 16 year olds, unless they are 100% on their own would file as a dependent.

[StrictlyBiz]

(09-02-2023, 12:14 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Taxes.

“For 2023, the maximum limit on earnings for withholding of Social Security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) tax is $160,200.00. The Social Security tax rate remains at 6.2 percent. The resulting maximum Social Security tax for 2023 is $9,932.40.”

The super wealthy are done paying social security tax after their first paycheck of the year. Everybody knows there is a massive concentration of wealth and earnings at the top. But for some reason the people making all the money get to just stop paying social security tax once they pass a set amount each year.

I may be talking out my ass. But from my understanding that is how it works. If I’m wrong please let me know.

Eliminating that cap sure seems like we wouldn’t be having the social security is going to run out problem.

Education.

From my perspective teaching is a low paying job, kids are shooting up schools, and they are a favorite target for one of the two major political parties in this country. Really doubt we are attracting the talent necessary to educate this country’s youth with the current perception and reality of the profession.

There's a benefit cap that corresponds to the income cap. Eliminating the income cap would mean that you'd have to eliminate the benefit cap as well, otherwise it's just a 6.2% income tax increase. 

For example, if you made the the 160k cap every year, you'd get a benefit of X dollars per month upon retirement. As it stands, if you make 320k every year, your benefit is still X. 

If you eliminated the cap and made 320k every year, then your benefit would have to be 2X, otherwise, it's just an additional income tax. 

Not saying you, but I've found that a lot of people don't understand this....like my MIL. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-03-2023, 11:48 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: There's a benefit cap that corresponds to the income cap. Eliminating the income cap would mean that you'd have to eliminate the benefit cap as well, otherwise it's just a 6.2% income tax increase. 

For example, if you made the the 160k cap every year, you'd get a benefit of X dollars per month upon retirement. As it stands, if you make 320k every year, your benefit is still X. 

If you eliminated the cap and made 320k every year, then your benefit would have to be 2X, otherwise, it's just an additional income tax. 

Not saying you, but I've found that a lot of people don't understand this....like my MIL. 

Why would we eliminate the benefit cap? Are you worried about how big Elon musk or Jeff bezos social security check would be? They are not the ones who need help.

They make and have all the money. That means they need to pay more.

[StrictlyBiz]

(09-03-2023, 12:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why would we eliminate the benefit cap? Are you worried about how big Elon musk or Jeff bezos social security check would be? They are not the ones who need help.

They make and have all the money. That means they need to pay more.

Because that's how it works. Eliminating the income cap w/o the eliminating the benefit cap changes the very structure of the program. Also, businesses would be on the hook too. They pay another 6.2% into SS. That's a pretty hefty increase they'd have to bear, which would ultimately get pushed on to the consumer. 

Musk and Bezos have wealth. Im not sure about their income, but my guess is that it's not as high as many think. Although, Musk did just sell a shit ton of Tesla stocks in 2021 and incur $11B in income taxes. 

But yes, I am worried about how big their checks would be, and it's why Im not in favor of eliminating the income cap. 

[Millhouse]

How to end both? Realistically impossible as it entails various facets of human nature.

[Bengalholic]

(09-02-2023, 12:18 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Without bringing up Trump and Biden, Repubs and Dems. How does the United States end poverty within our borders? How do we end homelessness? Let's not blame, but what's your solution?


For me, We need to funnel our resources into that goal. There are great people out there who are being left behind. As a nation, we give so much money to other countries. We have to take care of our own before we take care of others. Can't buy shoes for the neighbor kid and let your kid go to school barefoot.

What are your opinions? Please let this make it further than post 3 before ignoring the rules or else you may be part of the problem.

I have 4 things that immediately come to mind:

1) Adjust the minimum wage in each state to match the cost of living for that state. Every person should have the ability to earn a living wage...being able to meet basic living expenses without constantly teetering on broke. 

2) Make all public postsecondary education free of charge, including vocational schools. Anyone that wants to earn a degree or learn a trade should be able to. Allowing everyone access to those opportunities leads to a better educated, higher trained workforce. 

3) Expand the medicaid system to automatically cover all citizens...until a better possible solution can be developed and put in place. Healthcare should be a basic right and no one should have to worry about being financially destroyed due to a health situation.

4) Put reasonable transition periods in place for people on food stamps, housing assistance, etc. once they get a job. By allowing a period where they aren't just kicked off those benefits altogether, but eased off over a period of time as they begin making money and become more self-sufficient...seems like it would reduce the number that will end up needing benefits again in the future. 

If you really want to deal with poverty, you have to start at the ground level and work your way up. Personally, I think these ideas are just common sense and all would be extremely beneficial. It just requires politicians to actually WANT to do something to address poverty...which is always the biggest hurdle. 

[SunsetBengal]

(09-02-2023, 08:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If that is the case wouldn't they be able to claim head of household. I have hired a lot of 16 and 17 year olds in my almost 50 years in business, I can't remember one who said they were supporting their family, however I had many who were supporting themselves (head of household).

That is great about being able to claim head of household, however the context of what I was commenting on was where you took issue with 16-17 year old workers being paid the same as 18 and up.  I've come to the realization that in this day and age, most 16-17 year old people that are working are doing so because they actually need the money, as opposed to my generation where if you weren't involved in extra curricular activities at school it was expected that one be productive and get a job.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-02-2023, 12:05 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Take a fraction of the money we spend to private military contractors and redistribute it among the citizenry would be an excellent start.

Tax any religious entity that puts its nose into politics in way, shape, or form and put that money back into social safety nets.

Legalize and tax the ever loving **** out of every drug. Make narcan insanely expensive and wait for the drug epidemic to solve itself.

Arm every man, woman, and child over the age of 10 and wait for the gun violence problem to solve itself.

Yes, a lot of my suggestions have body counts. Don't care. I also will not be accepting questions.

I think that if you tax the church 20% to feed the poor, they will be thrilled to accept. We're talking christian stuff here right ? 

[basballguy]

(09-04-2023, 11:01 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I think that if you tax the church 20% to feed the poor, they will be thrilled to accept. We're talking christian stuff here right ? 

They would love to (seriously) I'm sure. But most churches can barely afford to keep the lights on with donations dude.  

If you wanna target ridiculous mega churches then cool but don't act like all churches are money hoarding machines.  

[Luvnit2]

(09-03-2023, 07:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is great about being able to claim head of household, however the context of what I was commenting on was where you took issue with 16-17 year old workers being paid the same as 18 and up.  I've come to the realization that in this day and age, most 16-17 year old people that are working are doing so because they actually need the money, as opposed to my generation where if you weren't involved in extra curricular activities at school it was expected that one be productive and get a job.

There is no doubt there are 16 and 17 year olds who work to help support their family. My experience is they are in the minority. My 3 daughters played sports and worked because they wanted things like a car, a savings to help when they went to college for example. The kids that worked for me most had similar goals. For the record, I got to know these kids very well. 

My issue is in a direct way, giving all 16 and 17 year olds the same minimum wage hurts those adults who are on their own or a second wage earner in the restaurant businesses. I would much rather give $3 an hour more  in starting pay to an adult than to a minor. The issue is economics won't allow many businesses who have 50% of their workforce as minors to afford it.

Also, I think many don't realize minors have restrictions on when and how many hours they can work with school in session. Last, I hope everyone remembers minimum wage is a starting point for employment. The minimum wage in Ohio goes up every year for inflation, good and great performers can earn a couple of scheduled raises a year in my old businesses. There are opportunities for advancement with those with leadership skills.

My point is the 16 and 17 year olds starting at the same wage as adults, hurts the adults starting wage. By the way, we never started anyone at minimum wage whether 14, 16 or an adult. It is rare in Ohio for any employer to compete and get quality hires paying only minimum wage.

[treee]

(09-04-2023, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: There is no doubt there are 16 and 17 year olds who work to help support their family. My experience is they are in the minority. My 3 daughters played sports and worked because they wanted things like a car, a savings to help when they went to college for example. The kids that worked for me most had similar goals. For the record, I got to know these kids very well. 

My issue is in a direct way, giving all 16 and 17 year olds the same minimum wage hurts those adults who are on their own or a second wage earner in the restaurant businesses. I would much rather give $3 an hour more  in starting pay to an adult than to a minor. The issue is economics won't allow many businesses who have 50% of their workforce as minors to afford it.

Also, I think many don't realize minors have restrictions on when and how many hours they can work with school in session. Last, I hope everyone remembers minimum wage is a starting point for employment. The minimum wage in Ohio goes up every year for inflation, good and great performers can earn a couple of scheduled raises a year in my old businesses. There are opportunities for advancement with those with leadership skills.

My point is the 16 and 17 year olds starting at the same wage as adults, hurts the adults starting wage. By the way, we never started anyone at minimum wage whether 14, 16 or an adult. It is rare in Ohio for any employer to compete and get quality hires paying only minimum wage.

What makes you think most companies won't just pocket the extra money from the cheaper labor? 

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-04-2023, 11:18 AM)basballguy Wrote: They would love to (seriously) I'm sure.  But most churches can barely afford to keep the lights on with donations dude.  

If you wanna target ridiculous mega churches then cool but don't act like all churches are money hoarding machines.  

Good idea. Indeed, you are not going to tax churches who don't have money ... 

But if you take 50 millions to Kenneth Copeland, I'm pretty sure he will be thrilled to show his christian values by complying. 

[*pally*]

(09-04-2023, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: There is no doubt there are 16 and 17 year olds who work to help support their family. My experience is they are in the minority. My 3 daughters played sports and worked because they wanted things like a car, a savings to help when they went to college for example. The kids that worked for me most had similar goals. For the record, I got to know these kids very well. 

My issue is in a direct way, giving all 16 and 17 year olds the same minimum wage hurts those adults who are on their own or a second wage earner in the restaurant businesses. I would much rather give $3 an hour more  in starting pay to an adult than to a minor. The issue is economics won't allow many businesses who have 50% of their workforce as minors to afford it.

Also, I think many don't realize minors have restrictions on when and how many hours they can work with school in session. Last, I hope everyone remembers minimum wage is a starting point for employment. The minimum wage in Ohio goes up every year for inflation, good and great performers can earn a couple of scheduled raises a year in my old businesses. There are opportunities for advancement with those with leadership skills.

My point is the 16 and 17 year olds starting at the same wage as adults, hurts the adults starting wage. By the way, we never started anyone at minimum wage whether 14, 16 or an adult. It is rare in Ohio for any employer to compete and get quality hires paying only minimum wage.

I think you have a very narrow lens when looking at working teenagers. Suburban kids, in middle class and above homes, often work for the reasons you mention.  However, lower middle class and poor kids work for the money for daily expenses not just those extras your daughters wanted.  That teenagers'  money is essential to the daily life of their families.

But still, as my daddy used to say, "if someone does a man's work they deserve a man's salary."  A 16-year-old who is doing the same job as an 18-year-old deserves the same pay.  "Not needing the money" was the same excuse employers used to use against paying women the same wages as men.  Women had husbands or fathers to support them...even if they didn't.  And to this day women still only make 82% of what men make.

The minute you have different wage scales for different classes of employees doing the same jobs, you open it up for abuse and discrimination

What hurts the adult wage scale is paying ANYONE a starting salary that can't pay basic expenses on a 40 hour work week

[GMDino]

(09-04-2023, 11:18 AM)basballguy Wrote: They would love to (seriously) I'm sure.  But most churches can barely afford to keep the lights on with donations dude.  

If you wanna target ridiculous mega churches then cool but don't act like all churches are money hoarding machines.  

So, yes and no.

I can only use our local parishes as an example as that is where I attended.

My home parish built a brad new, larger church to replace the one that was 20 years old (with a school) in 1983.  It was paid off about five years ago.

They didn't count on a downturn in the economy, a drop in population/attendance OR a priest who stole from the coffers.

Same diocese, different church after I got married:  I was on the board for a year.  The priest wanted to put a new roof on the rectory.  We were informed that w had enough money to do it BUT under the rules we had to BORROW the money from the Diocese and pay it back with interest.  I assume this was to help keep THER coffers filled to "help" the poorer churches.  

Now, again, this was while my former parish was still struggling to pay off their "new" building that was 20 years old.  And they didn't get help.

The diocese also runs an annual campaign where each church is given a certain amount to collect in donations to help the diocese with misc things.  *IF* the parish raises more they get to keep that.

The church I was married in was closed because of a lack of priests.  We all moved to another local church (almost literally across the road) and told our church would remain as a chapel because the cemetery was located on church grounds.  The diocese tore it down within a year without telling any of us.  

Mind you that was in the black, so all the funding moved to a second, already existing location, and the new one still says they can't afford fuel every year.

tl;dr The money is there.  It is controlled by the higher ups and could be used to help the parishes but they "need" to hold on to it "just in case".

A lot of those funds go to missions to convert foreigners in the hopes they will become priests so they can move them to the US to make up for dwindling numbers here too.