The rich get richer and . . .

[DeeJay]

A person making 40k gross pay can't buy a house in the Seattle area.
Maybe a one bedroom condo.

Because their taxes are to high.

 

[LadyEagle]

Not according to this:

Restaurant manager Jason Cheung and his archaeologist wife, Amber Earley, were in for a shock last year. Longtime renters in North Seattle's Ravenna and Northgate neighborhoods, they found that having two good jobs wasn't enough to buy them a house in those areas.

In fact, with the King County median house price rising 16.3 percent last year, it seemed this middle-class couple's chances of owning a single-family house anywhere in Seattle were slipping away.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/homevalues/mainstory2006.html

 

[DeeJay]

Not according to this:



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/homevalues/mainstory2006.html

If the goverment was not taking more then a third of their checks (in seattle probably alot more) then they would have the money to keep up with the rising home cost.

 

[Eric B]

So it's ONLY taxes; not overly high costs? (I guess that is the fault of taxes too, right?)

 

[Eric B]

I find that ironic too. I also find it wierd, because I never saw anyone say that.

Well, maybe not here, directly, but that has been the general message of the Right.

Who do you think pays the wages of the workers? It isn't the company. They have no money. It is you, the consumer, who pays the wages. And so when wage cost goes up, the company passes that right on down to you so your cost of living goes up.

A company is not materialistic. It cannot be, by definition. It is people who are materialistic.

My point was, a company is made of PEOPLE. We act as if companies can do no wrong, but it is the same "materislistic" people running them, and are thus able to gain all the more material.

After reading this stuff again, it seems to me that we have very different ideas about how humanity should be treated. My belief that all men are in teh image of God, no matter whether they are Americans or not, drives me to a very different position on this. My belief that money is not that important drives me to a very different position on this.

But in all this, I have yet to see anyone from your side give a biblical basis for why Americans should keep getting richer while the rest of the world doesn't even have basic living conditions such as electricity, running water, refrigeration, etc.

Well I'm not saying what you have been arguing against on this point regarding neglecting other countries. Still, if the debate is about taking all the jobs over there, then don't blame taxes, weflfare, or other liberal policies for all the problems that arise here from that. Don't say the people running the companies are totally non-greedy for running off and leaving, yet the people who ar eleft behind and must struggle more are the ones who are materialistic. But that seem ot be what one side is doing. (Is it even the families with the house and two cars and other trinkets complaining about this stuff? Don't they lean towards the right wing position that it is taxes, welfare and illegal immigrants causing all of the problems? As others have said, on $40,000, in many places, especially cities, families would not be living like that. I can't at $60,000!)

 

[DeeJay]

So it's ONLY taxes; not overly high costs? (I guess that is the fault of taxes too, right?)

A big part of it, yes. And how much more could you buy if you made 33% more money

 

[El_Guero]

Well,

If you were so against paying more in taxes, then why aren't you for bringing home the jobs that the democratic led NAFTA sent to china and india.

More than 10,000,000 jobs at a claimed cost of $100,000 each (approximately a $35,000 loss in tax revenue - income and social security for each job).

That is a loss of more than 35 billion a year in taxes. And they are not paying the cost of keeping the world free from terrorists - we are. So in real dollars - the American workers and soldiers are paying the most by far.

I could buy a lot more sleep at night if our money was not paying countries that are not seeking our best interests.

A big part of it, yes. And how much more could you buy if you made 33% more money

 

[Pete]

Ecclesiastes 5:10 :sleeping_2:


But wow, 53mil, imagine how many copies of this he could get with that... :smilewinkgrin: Maybe enough for it to sink in :smilewinkgrin:



(I hope link works, imdb was down when I looked it up and had to go with what Google said....Blame them if it's wrong movie )

 

[Pastor Larry]

A person making 40k gross pay can't buy a house in the Seattle area.
Maybe a one bedroom condo.

So? Why should we measure something by whether or not a person can buy a house in Seattle? What makes that the standard? They could buy a house a lot of other places.

People making less than 40K can live comfortably. (Ask me how I know.)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Still, if the debate is about taking all the jobs over there, then don't blame taxes, weflfare, or other liberal policies for all the problems that arise here from that. Don't say the people running the companies are totally non-greedy for running off and leaving, yet the people who ar eleft behind and must struggle more are the ones who are materialistic.

I think taxes and the like are part of the problem. I think materialism is a huge part of the problem. The reason why people "can't live" on a salary is the cost of living. Why does living cost so much more? Because the people from whom you buy goods and services have to pay accelerating wage costs, and therefore have to raise their profits to go with it. Furthermore, people pay higher costs so there is no incentive to lower costs. The economy is complex to be sure. But the main point is that we as Christians should have a different view. Being a Christian is not about "America first" in jobs or anything else. Yet some act like employing poor people in third world countries is a sin.

 

[Daisy]

I find that ironic too. I also find it wierd, because I never saw anyone say that. The market does determine value. Look at your house. What's it worth? Whatever someone will pay for it. Labor is the same way.

That might be true if the someone buying your house is paying cash, otherwise the lender will decide the most it's worth whether the buyer is willing to pay more or not. Banks have been known to factor in the buyer's race and sex and the house's location on the wrong side of a red-line when deciding how much to lend. If your "house" is a co-op then the price can be even more arbitrary.

Who do you think pays the wages of the workers? It isn't the company. They have no money. It is you, the consumer, who pays the wages. And so when wage cost goes up, the company passes that right on down to you so your cost of living goes up.

Companies do have money - I don't have any idea in what way you mean that they do not.

A company is not materialistic. It cannot be, by definition. It is people who are materialistic.

By what definition? Of 'company' or of 'materialistic'? Please explain.

After reading this stuff again, it seems to me that we have very different ideas about how humanity should be treated. My belief that all men are in teh image of God, no matter whether they are Americans or not, drives me to a very different position on this. My belief that money is not that important drives me to a very different position on this.

I agree with you that all people are in the image of God (male & female). However, money is important as it gives a person a lot more choices and makes life easier - food, health, shelter, clothes (important in the cold north) and, most of all, time. I agree that it's importance is often overstated here in America and "enough is as good as a feast" as the saying goes. Americans, as a society, don't have much concept of "enough", imo.

But in all this, I have yet to see anyone from your side give a biblical basis for why Americans should keep getting richer while the rest of the world doesn't even have basic living conditions such as electricity, running water, refrigeration, etc.

You know, I totally agree with you here.

 

[carpro]

What do these people do with all that money?
I do agree that many corporations have a tendency to forget the important people (those of a lesser status) who are part of making the big wheels roll but it is still their money and we have no say in how they handle it.

None of us know how we would actually use an enormous amount money if we were in the same situation but I would rather be blessed by God with spiritual riches than to be blessed by man with earthly riches.

I don't know what they do with it and don't care. It is theirs to do with as they please.

You are correct. When they stand before God, they will have no more money than you do.

 

[carpro]

That might be true if the someone buying your house is paying cash, otherwise the lender will decide the most it's worth whether the buyer is willing to pay more or not.

No.

Banks can only determine how much they will finance. They do not determine "value".

 

[Eric B]

I think taxes and the like are part of the problem. I think materialism is a huge part of the problem. The reason why people "can't live" on a salary is the cost of living. Why does living cost so much more? Because the people from whom you buy goods and services have to pay accelerating wage costs, and therefore have to raise their profits to go with it.

This makes it sound like it is really the fault of those demanding higher wages, but then we need higher wages to meet all the higher prices.

Furthermore, people pay higher costs so there is no incentive to lower costs.

And I believe this is because they've been swayed to accept them, and by having the finger pointed elsewhere: to "welfare slugs", "liberals and their failed socialist schemes", "illegal immigrants", etc.

As I had pointed out on my page on the issue:
But does anyone think where all that money big business leaders keep flowing and increasing is coming from? Maybe it's the costs themselves, as well as even taxes spent on other causes and govt. waste, rather than only "government programs" eating up the money. But nobody questions this. People seem to think "you can't change that; it's too entrenched", but then it seemed that the high taxes and liberal programs like welfare and affirmative action were also entrenched back in more liberal days, but with enough outcry, they began to be overturned. But why only those things and not high prices and executive largess? Some liberals tossed around ideas such as salary or price caps, evoking cries of socialism and denial of freedom from conservatives. As it is, rent control is even criticized by some, (because after all, the poor landlords are facing rising costs as well), but I wouldn't be able to live where I do without it. Everyone who offers products or services points to "rising costs" as to why they must also raise costs. For one thing, why isn't there a move to try to figure out where this cycle is starting from? Everyone just points elsewhere, and then they all ultimately come together to blame taxes. Plus, are they raising prices enough to meet the rising costs, or are they tacking on nice raises for themselves at the same time, making it look like the increase is for "just meeting costs", but are really pocketing much of it? When everyone does this, passing it all down to the consumer, no wonder costs for everything are so high! No wonder some even advocate caps. But this isn't even necessary. Make this as publically unfashionable as welfare and affirmative action have become, and then things may change. Put leaders on the spot for thinking they are "entitled" to a certain percentage raise every year no matter what the economy or financial situation of the company is, just like they themselves tell workers. Don't sit back and passively allow your money to pad the rich for life, while telling the poor and unemployed "nobody owes you a living". But it's not important enough. Once again, it seems like people want their money back from undeserving minorities, not from their fellow "productive" leaders. [one person here recently told me when they jack up prices, "it's not our money"!]

Then, addressing the issue of our "materialism" and how there is no incentive to lower costs:

[cont'd]
If they can't afford to go to a Disney park, or must struggle to do so, it's not that perhaps the park costs too much; it's all the taxes being taken from them and given to the poor (Or perhaps the corporations running the park are taxed too much). The poor are wrong if they think they are due "a living", but of course, "the productive" middle class are all due fancy vacations, and the rich executives; exorbitant salaries and perks; just because their names are on a payroll with a title. Americans are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for sports and entertainment, thousands for theme parks and other vacations, more thousands for materialistic consumption, as well as accepting an overpriced basic cost of living; yet when they see that their pocketbook is empty, the only thing they demand to be cut is social programs and foreign aid. May this be deliberate? Once again, who is behind the voices telling everybody that the problem is only taxes spent on programs and not executive greed?

 

[Pastor Larry]

This makes it sound like it is really the fault of those demanding higher wages, but then we need higher wages to meet all the higher prices.

It partially is. The higher wages come before the higher prices in most cases.

And I believe this is because they've been swayed to accept them

To accept what?

... it seemed that the high taxes and liberal programs like welfare and affirmative action were also entrenched back in more liberal days, but with enough outcry, they began to be overturned. But why only those things and not high prices and executive largess?

Welfare and Affirmative action are government issues. Wages and salaries are not, nor should they be.

As it is, rent control is even criticized by some, (because after all, the poor landlords are facing rising costs as well), but I wouldn't be able to live where I do without it.

So what would you do then? Find another place to live. You do not have a guaranteed right to live where you do. And there are plenty of places where you could live cheaper without rent controls.

Americans are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for sports and entertainment, thousands for theme parks and other vacations, more thousands for materialistic consumption, as well as accepting an overpriced basic cost of living; yet when they see that their pocketbook is empty, the only thing they demand to be cut is social programs and foreign aid.

Exactly my point. They are materialistic.

Much of your post there doesn't seem to make much sense, but be that as it may, nothing will drive prices down faster than lack of sales. You see it in the automakers now where they are offering huge incentives to buy new cars. They can't sell because the cost is too high.

And when people demand more money, and get it, that money has to come from somewhere. It will be tacked onto wages. Living in a huge economy, we don't realize the effect. But if you operated a business you would see it.

So in the end, the problem is complex. No single thing will change it much. If you cut the CEOs salaries (which you really couldn't do), you still wouldn't have enough money to raise the "working man's" wages much. Furthermore, CEOs make that much money because of the perceived value that they bring to the company. If a company wants to pay that, let them. And if you don't want to support it, then don't buy their products.

 

[Daisy]

No.

Banks can only determine how much they will finance. They do not determine "value".

On yes, banks often control the market. Unless, as I said before, your buyer is paying cash.

 

[carpro]

On yes, banks often control the market. Unless, as I said before, your buyer is paying cash.

Once again.

No.

They only determine what they will loan against the property and that is influenced by more factors than just the market value as determined by what should be an independent real estate appraiser.

 

[Eric B]

It partially is. The higher wages come before the higher prices in most cases.

It's a cycle. It did not start one day when workers just got greedy and began demanding more, and then the prices went up. (And the "wages" would also include the executives, as well, and who gets more and bigger raises?)

To accept what?

The higher costs.

Welfare and Affirmative action are government issues. Wages and salaries are not, nor should they be.

I wasn't saying that government should get involved; what I said was that people complained enough and the government changed those policies (but then people are still complaining about those things, however. What else do they want?)

So what would you do then? Find another place to live. You do not have a guaranteed right to live where you do. And there are plenty of places where you could live cheaper without rent controls.

Yesh, some filthy rat trap (and the place I just moved out of was basically like that, and still straned our budget, and we don't have all those amenities most other Americans have (cars, vacations, etc) and while the conditions of the new apartment are somewhat better, it is still very old, and as the rents all go up, we are paying more, aas that is all there is. Unless we move into some shelter or something. But I guess that's what we're supposed to do, because only CEO's have any rights around here!)

Exactly my point. They are materialistic.

Much of your post there doesn't seem to make much sense, but be that as it may, nothing will drive prices down faster than lack of sales. You see it in the automakers now where they are offering huge incentives to buy new cars. They can't sell because the cost is too high.

And when people demand more money, and get it, that money has to come from somewhere. It will be tacked onto wages. Living in a huge economy, we don't realize the effect. But if you operated a business you would see it.

So in the end, the problem is complex. No single thing will change it much. If you cut the CEOs salaries (which you really couldn't do), you still wouldn't have enough money to raise the "working man's" wages much. Furthermore, CEOs make that much money because of the perceived value that they bring to the company. If a company wants to pay that, let them. And if you don't want to support it, then don't buy their products.

If you think it doesn't make sense, then perhaps it was because it was only an excerpt, which I had to greatly trim to fit into the 10,000 character limit.
I'm not suggersting government intervention or cutting CEO's salaries, but rather public awareness of all sides of the situation, rather than this whole stupid right-left back and forth blame game that only focuses everyone's attention away from the real issues, and keeps the ball of confusion rolling. Again, they rose up and got Welfare and Affirmative Action changed. People need to think of how to challenge these other problems, and perhaps stop byuing overpriced products, if necessary. "Just don't buy" is always thrown around in discussions like this, but nothing will happen if only I stop buying things. It has to be everyone. But as long as people blame government only (taxes, etc), and conservative rhetoric continues to insist on how the little guy has no "right" for this and no right for that, while always speaking up for for the rights of the powerful, then we will never get anywhere.

 

[LadyEagle]

No.

Banks can only determine how much they will finance. They do not determine "value".

Sure they do. That's why there is a bank appraisal on a property before the bank agrees to give you a loan.

 

[billwald]

There are other reasons money doesn't cover the bill. For example, half of credit card holders owe an average $8,000 balance, a third of new cars sales are "upside down," and half the new births are to single mothers.