41% Say American Dream Is Lost; 63% Say Economy Getting Worse

[Texashiker]

How many of them did so to avoid outrageous union labor costs?

An example being a GM assembly plant where the father or a friend of mine worked. He drove a forklift from one end of a building to another all day long and was paid $40 an hour for doing so.

If the CEO of GM can make millions, then I see no reason why an employee can not make every penny they can.

There seems to be a mindset in this nation that only "certain" people are entitled to make money, and everyone else should be stuck at $6 - $10 an hour.

If someone can make $40 an hour driving a forklift, good for them.

 

[Macamus Prime]

If the CEO of GM can make millions, then I see no reason why an employee can not make every penny they can.

COMMUNIST!!! You are communist!!!

You are asking for distrobution of wealth!!

::throws chair through a glass window::

HALP!! Police HALP!!! There is a communist on the internetz!!!!

 

[brencat]

Further, the retirement age needs to be raised. Life expectancy has increased, there's no reason retirement age shouldn't as well. As I mentioned earlier, the baby boomers, on average, will take out more in SS benefits than they paid in. This is directly attributable to increases in life expectancy.

Agreed. When SS first came out, life expectancy on average was 5 years less than the age where you became entitled to receive. That's why it worked so well for so many decades. Avg life expectancy now routinely exceeds the SS threshold age by 15+ years, and as a population we are having less children too, so there are less people paying in during their working lives.

 

[CPA]

Dave, you are seriously banking on OWS to turnaround the economy? You are truly delusional.

 

[CPA]

<--------- No iPhone, No iPad and no large TV here.

But you do have a gas-guzzling truck and a yacht.

 

[Macamus Prime]

But you do have a gas-guzzling truck and a yacht.

And I am certain he has a 1.5 million dollar house he can't pay for either.

 

[Fear No Evil]

... and 99.9999999&#37; can buy vinegar without filling out a form.

 

[Texashiker]

Further, the retirement age needs to be raised. Life expectancy has increased, there's no reason retirement age shouldn't as well.

If anything, the retirement age needs to be lowered.

There seems to be a mindset in the US that not only are people supposed to work for $6 - $10 an hour, they are supposed to work the best part of their lives away.

I think there needs to be a 40 year span from when the person started working to retirement age.

If someone started working at 18 years old, they should be able to retire at 58 years old.

This gives social security 40 years to suck as much money as they can out of people. That should be more then enough time to build up a nice retirement.

 

[brencat]

How many of those products were made in countries that exploit low wage workers?

How many of those companies moved their factories overseas, which placed the local tax burden on homeowners instead of businesses?

How many of those companies use tax loopholes to avoid paying US income taxes? Such as moving their main offices outside the US.

How many of those companies gave their board of directors and CEO a nice multi-million dollar bonuses, while paying employees barley above minimum wage?

I agree and am saddened by these developments which you point out clearly. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a solution short of protectionist tariffs which will hurt us in other ways and ultimately come down hardest on the poor which have enjoyed a better quality of life as a result of being able to afford "cheap sh*t" from Walmart. You can't legislate morality (i.e. CEO taking $1 million comp instead of $40 million).

 

[darkewaffle]

These kind of numbers hinge upon what &#37; of the American population you think has an informed/reasonable opinion.

Hint: That number probably isn't very high.

 

[CPA]

If anything, the retirement age needs to be lowered.

There seems to be a mindset in the US that not only are people supposed to work for $6 - $10 an hour, they are supposed to work the best part of their lives away.

I think there needs to be a 40 year span from when the person started working to retirement age.

If someone started working at 18 years old, they should be able to retire at 58 years old.

This gives social security 40 years to suck as much money as they can out of people. That should be more then enough time to build up a nice retirement.

Have you done the math on your theory? Cause, I have news for you - the rate of return on SS fund is less than the rate of inflation - and has been for years. Tell me, just with that simple, singular knowledge, how you expect people to live off their SS "savings".

See this is what led Greece into their problems - feel-good intentions without considering the math.

 

[Ausm]

Something along the same line as you discussed; I agree the cap on income subject to the payroll tax should be removed.

Further, the retirement age needs to be raised. Life expectancy has increased, there's no reason retirement age shouldn't as well. As I mentioned earlier, the baby boomers, on average, will take out more in SS benefits than they paid in. This is directly attributable to increases in life expectancy.

Finally, any changes that are implemented need to apply to all people - none of this "over age 55 exempt" nonsense. The over 55 crowd is who put SS in its current situation, there's absolutely no reason they should be exempt from any sacrifices made for the sake of keeping SS solvent.

I love how the GOP bang on this drum because the majority of their constituents are older but the ones that have a conscious said WTF so the GOP told Paul Ryan to STFU.

 

[Texashiker]

Have you done the math on your theory? Cause, I have news for you - the rate of return on SS fund is less than the rate of inflation - and has been for years. <snip>
See this is what led Greece into their problems - feel-good intentions without considering the math.

My post was a protest to everyone that keeps saying "raise the retirement age".

We work the best part of our lives away, and for what? Only to have the retirement age raised again and again? And for benefits to be given to people who do not deserve them, or too lazy to work.

The social security program would be just fine, if the government would stop robbing paul to pay peter.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
<--------- No iPhone, No iPad and no large TV here.

But you do have a gas-guzzling truck and a yacht.

No and No

 

[the DRIZZLE]

My post was a protest to everyone that keeps saying "raise the retirement age".

We work the best part of our lives away, and for what? Only to have the retirement age raised again and again? And for benefits to be given to people who do not deserve them, or too lazy to work.

The social security program would be just fine, if the government would stop robbing paul to pay peter.

As CPA said that's a nice sentiment but the numbers don't work. We probably could achieve it but we would need to have a significantly lower standard of living during the working years. IMO this is a personal choice but you impose it by putting in much higher SS taxes and lowering the retirement age. Even if you went that route the boomers shouldn't get to retire early because they didn't pay enough in to justify that. In fact they didn't even pay enough in to justify the current retirement age and benefit structure which is why we are calling for the age to be raised or benefits cut.

 

[bfdd]

Anyone bitching that the American Dream is gone is a quitter. It still exists, it might just be harder now a days. Although there are things we can do to improve it for people. I'm not sure paying them more is the right thing to do though. Just give people more money? That's retarded.

 

[Texashiker]

We probably could achieve it but we would need to have a significantly lower standard of living during the working years. IMO this is a personal choice but you impose it by putting in much higher SS taxes and lowering the retirement age.

Why are those the only options?

If companies want legal protection under the law, why not bill them for income tax, medicare, medicaid and social security just like everyone else?

How much money did exxon make last year? Did the company pay a single penny into social security like people do? Why should companies receive special protection under the law from being taxed?

I think there are other options besides just raising taxes on people or extending the retirement age.

Some company in china wants to import cars into the US? Thats fine, but they have to have to pay taxes "just like" everyone else, and that means "everyone".

 

[spidey07]

Why are those the only options?

If companies want legal protection under the law, why not bill them for income tax, medicare, medicaid and social security just like everyone else?

How much money did exxon make last year? Did the company pay a single penny into social security like people do?

Actually yes, they pay the full 6 something percent for every employee. Same with medicare, the employer matches the taxes paid.

-edit- it's 7.65&#37; for SS/medicare (FICA). So the employer pays 7.65% for every employee (up to HCE limit for SS) and employee pays the same.

 

[Texashiker]

Actually yes, they pay the full 6 something percent for every employee.

No, not for the employee.

Did exxon pay social security, medicare, medicaid, and income taxes on the profits the company made?

What about microsoft and google, do they pay the same taxes on their profits that I pay on my paycheck?

I think there are other options out there besides raising the retirement age, or raising my taxes.

 

[spidey07]

No, not for the employee.

Did exxon pay social security, medicare, medicaid, and income taxes on the profits the company made?

What about microsoft and google, do they pay the same taxes on their profits that I pay on my paycheck?

I think there are other options out there besides raising the retirement age, or raising my taxes.

You asked how much companies pay for SS and medicare, I showed you they pay exactly the same amount as the employee and actually even more now since the SS was reduced 2&#37; temporarily from employee contributions, employer stays the same.

And if you raise the HCE limit or elminate it, that's riot time.

You DO know what profit is, right? That's the money left over after expenses, one of those expenses is TAXES.

 

[Texashiker]

You asked how much companies pay for SS and medicare, I showed you they pay exactly the same amount as the employee

No, you showed me that the company matches the employee contributions.

"Besides" the employee contributions, does google, exxon, AT&T,,,, pay Social Security taxes, medicare, medicaid on the income the company brings in?

Here is the issue - as more jobs are sent overseas, the big companies are contributing less and less to SS, medicare and medicaid.

Company A closes a factory in Kansas, lays everyone off, moves that factory to vietnam or china,,,, the employee contributions are lost because the ex-employees in the US no longer have a job.

So not only does the company get to exploit cheap labor, it also gets around paying into SS, medicare, medicaid and local property taxes. Once the factory in Kansas is demolished, the property taxes are re-figured, and the local schools lose tax money.

Because Company A is no longer paying into the system, they should be taxed in other ways.

 

[spidey07]

No, you showed me that the company matches the employee contributions.

"Besides" the employee contributions, does google, exxon, AT&T,,,, pay Social Security taxes, medicare, medicaid on the income the company brings in?

Here is the issue - as more jobs are sent overseas, the big companies are contributing less and less to SS, medicare and medicaid.

Company A closes a factory in Kansas, lays everyone off, moves that factory to vietnam or china,,,, the employee contributions are lost because the ex-employees in the US no longer have a job.

So not only does the company get to exploit cheap labor, it also gets around paying into SS, medicare and medicaid.

Because Company A is no longer paying into the system, they should be taxed in other ways.

Of course they pay FICA on income they bring in. They pay it before they pay the employee. It's part of their overall tax.

What you want is for them to pay FICA, and then pay it AGAIN.

On your overseas stuff that's easy. Make them pay less in taxes and elminate their FICA contributions and they'll be encouraged to hire more people here as it would be less tax burden. Then eliminate mandatory witholdings and make it optional (I don't want the shitty returns of SS, I'd be much better off myself). Then raise the retirement age.

If you want to not work your whole life it's real easy to do. Save money and invest at a young age.

 

[Texashiker]

What you want is for them to pay FICA, and then pay it AGAIN.

I want companies to pay income tax, medicare, medicaid and social security on their total profits, and on the jobs that have been moved overseas.

How many jobs have been lost to free trade in the past decade? Then figure out how much money in employee contributions has been lost to companies moving overseas.

There have to be other options besides raising taxes on people, or raising the retirement age.

If company A says "we are going to pack up and move to china, and in the process lay off 10,000 people". Those lost taxes have to come from somewhere; the burden should not be placed on the people.

 

[Throckmorton]

To the 41&#37; who realize the American Dream is lost: That's what you get for being gullible and buying into Reaganomics and free trade.

 

[woolfe9999]

The entire premise of the OP is to cite a public opinion poll reflecting popular perception of the economy and where it's headed, and then to assert that perception=reality. Popular opinion is not a very accurate read on economic reality, just as it isn't an accurate read on so many other things.