Posted on 02/12/2020 7:00:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
She had to feed 6 kids by working, because she did not believe in welfare. That restricted her ability to acquire higher skills. Now she depends on her kids to pay her expenses which are high at the dementia care center. She is now in her 90’s.
Again, my whole point is, our system is rigged for rich to get richer, and poor to stay poor. 85% of the tax cut money went to the top 10% richest. Poor got nothing because they don’t have enough income to pay taxes.
Again, I am not against for all out capitalism, my only point is to show how poor are programmed to stay poor by the system. Personally I have benefited tremendously by capitalism. But I was lucky. I was lucky to have the money and brains to acquire a master’s degree in engineering from a big-10 university and my skills enabled me to succeed in jobs and I made a ton of money in the stock market as well.
But my heart goes out to the SOME OF THE POOR, who have no chance.
From an old study; looked at households from 2001 to 2007.
Broken into quintiles based on earnings, and tracked how many moved into a different quintile.
lowest: 44% moved out
highest: 34% moved out
2nd lowest: 61% moved out
middle: 58% moved out
2nd highest: 55% moved out.
It is stupid to talk about the ranges of each quintile; what is important is how mobile groups are, whether they move from one to another. And we can see from data that almost half of all people move between groups over a short period of time.
5% of the people in the top 20% actually dropped to the bottom 20% during that time period.
pretty much if you are retired, you are stuck in your position. Unless you get lucking in investments, or have a relative die and leave you a pile of money, you no longer have the ability to change your lot in life.
I imagine eventually Social Security will be changed to be a fixed sum of money regardless of what you made during your life. The current system is set up like a contribution program, you get back a portion of what you put in based on your contributions — except poor people get back more than they put in after inflation, while rich people get back less than they put in.
But converting it to a straight “minimum retirement program” will be hard to reject, now that we are increasingly socialistic anyway.
On the other hand, for people in their earnings periods, your statement is false. As I note, in one study from 2001 to 2007, 44% of the poorest people moved into one of the higher income brackets, while 38% of the richest people moved DOWN into one of the lower brackets.
A costly escape, in financial, mental and physical terms.
You appear to have fallen into the left's complaint of tax cuts for the rich. If you pay three times the taxes, you get three times the tax cut. Not fair! Not fair!
Help them out, then. I'm sure you are helping your mom-in-law. Charity begins at home. Give to ease the condition of others who suffer through no fault of their own.
IU have no problem with helping those who CAN'T help themselves, but I strongly object to helping those who WON'T TRY TO help themselves.
Marat, we're poor/ And the poor stay poor/ Marat, don't make us wait any more/ We want our rights and we don't care how/ We want a revolution now...
Indeed, they rely on it. In case you haven’t noticed, Bernie Sanders isn’t courting the same young socialists he courted in the 1980s, as he honeymooned in the Soviet Union and touted the virtues of government breadlines over the American free enterprise system. Those once-young Americans have mostly grown up, started families, created thriving businesses, and worked hard to became more successful without relying on government handouts.
Bernie’s less interested in those individuals nowadays, you’ll notice. No, he’s courting the same massive bloc of young people that Ocasio-Cortez is courting, who are currently more interested in his promises of government redistribution to equalize economic outcomes. Unsurprisingly, he seems to have large swathes of support among them.
French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
Yes, if not fixed sum of Social Security checks to all, at least the same dollar amount of raise to all qualified recipients. It would help a lot to the financially handicapped. I can live with a smaller raise, because I am already receiving the highest social security checks, which simply means I had a successful work history and have other assets.
We are all Americans and I do not mind sharing a little bit with the less fortunate Americans.
My M-in-L is poor not because she was lazy. She just never had the opportunity to go to college or have the money to make profits in investing. Actually she preferred working as a telephone switch-board operator over applying for child support for the 6 kids.
So why is the gov’t giving me 3 times dollar amount in raise for my social security? I don’t need it. I would prefer if all qualified social security recipients get the same dollar amount of raise. Reason I get one of the highest social security checks is because I paid the maximum taxes for social security all my working life. Which only means I do not need the raise as much as a person who depends on social security. I think they should pass out same dollar amount of raise to all instead of percentages which favors people like me who don’t need it.
Then if you don’t need it, give some or all to her. We don’t need the government getting involved in this at all. They have caused enough problems with social security as it is.
I am not thinking about myself. My M-I-L is well taken care of. I am thinking about the millions of fellow Americans who are in the same financial situation as my M-I-L without their fault. I am speaking of people who worked all their life, raised a family and could not put aside enough for retirement.
I just read a statistic that large percentage of people approaching retirement have less than $43k in savings.
I don’t ever want to get into a mentality I got mine, so screw others.
For some, it’s a matter of living in a crab bucket, where everyone around them takes them down if they try to do anything to improve their lot.
That’s the consequence of the Government’s War on the Nuclear Family.
A nuclear family, by its’ very structure is meant to support all. Children should take care of their elderly parents, when that time comes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.