BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 05-06-2014, 07:36 AM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is online now
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
No doubt you are correct about the right. But the same can be said for the left.

What is needed is economists that have nothing to gain nor lose.
There are tons out there. There are entire journals with published data from researchers that have tackled all of these issues before. The problem is no politician wants to look at them as it may disprove their point or upset the lobby paying them, and the media is so worried about presenting two sides to an argument while only allowing discussion on the subject for about 3 minutes (you know, you do have to get to the next story about the youtube video of a dog doing some cute trick), that nobody ever gets informed. The media is also lazy, and that would require hours of reading material to be informed on the issue, and why do that when you can watch internet videos.
  #112  
Old 05-06-2014, 01:18 PM
the_narrow_way's Avatar
the_narrow_way the_narrow_way is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 5,140
Default

I think the minimum wage should be a sliding figure, based on what it would take for a single person working an average of a 30-hour work week to make enough annually to reach the official poverty line, with adjustments for inflation and cost-of-living. When a minimum wage worker doesn't even make enough to reach the poverty line, then something is clearly out of whack.
  #113  
Old 05-06-2014, 01:42 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_narrow_way View Post
I think the minimum wage should be a sliding figure, based on what it would take for a single person working an average of a 30-hour work week to make enough annually to reach the official poverty line, with adjustments for inflation and cost-of-living. When a minimum wage worker doesn't even make enough to reach the poverty line, then something is clearly out of whack.
It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way. It was not until the ACA was passed has the 40 hour work week been reduced to 30 hours. That 30 hours was a mistake and it should be raised to 40 hours. The only reason they passed the ACA with this 30 hour rule was so more individuals would have to purchase insurance.

Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.
  #114  
Old 05-06-2014, 02:10 PM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is online now
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way. It was not until the ACA was passed has the 40 hour work week been reduced to 30 hours. That 30 hours was a mistake and it should be raised to 40 hours. The only reason they passed the ACA with this 30 hour rule was so more individuals would have to purchase insurance.

Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.
Yeah, I agree on that. I know in Australia it also slides based on age (so a 16 year old makes less than say a 23 year old, who has the bills and essentials to pay for a 16 year old does not).
  #115  
Old 05-06-2014, 03:49 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,980
Default

I threw the part on EIC in to see what sort of response it would get. It is needed, but should also have an asset test that accompanies it. Have had a few clients over the years who owned profitable C Corps yet qualified for EIC.

I would like to see tax refund anticipation loans eliminated for low income filers getting EIC. No reason they should give dirt bags like Liberty exorbitant fees for getting their refund a week or so early. Glad to see h & r get out of this slimy business.
  #116  
Old 05-06-2014, 03:57 PM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,025
Default

The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.
  #117  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:23 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 2,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
I threw the part on EIC in to see what sort of response it would get. It is needed, but should also have an asset test that accompanies it. Have had a few clients over the years who owned profitable C Corps yet qualified for EIC.

I would like to see tax refund anticipation loans eliminated for low income filers getting EIC. No reason they should give dirt bags like Liberty exorbitant fees for getting their refund a week or so early. Glad to see h & r get out of this slimy business.
I'm on board with that.

While we're on the subject of personal income taxes, I think an employer who dictates the terms of employment, and then issues their employees 1099s (independent contractor forms) should be put out of business through draconian fines, if not imprisoned if it is their standard course of business. I prepared more than a dozen returns for people who wound up paying not only their own income taxes (which weren't taken out of their checks like they thought), but are then on the hook for the employer side of FICA, S/S, etc. These people are uniformly not financially savvy, although I don't think most people would realize it was happening to them. You have shitty employers not only paying poorly, but then they offload their taxes onto their employees. Technically, it is illegal, but if the employee speaks up, they get fired. It is shameful. To prepare a return for someone who made less than 10 grand, and then owes 2K for the year...it's infuriating.
__________________
Bullshit Centrist and Ondrej Palat fan club member
  #118  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:34 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannybolt View Post
I'm on board with that.

While we're on the subject of personal income taxes, I think an employer who dictates the terms of employment, and then issues their employees 1099s (independent contractor forms) should be put out of business through draconian fines, if not imprisoned if it is their standard course of business. I prepared more than a dozen returns for people who wound up paying not only their own income taxes (which weren't taken out of their checks like they thought), but are then on the hook for the employer side of FICA, S/S, etc. These people are uniformly not financially savvy, although I don't think most people would realize it was happening to them. You have shitty employers not only paying poorly, but then they offload their taxes onto their employees. Technically, it is illegal, but if the employee speaks up, they get fired. It is shameful. To prepare a return for someone who made less than 10 grand, and then owes 2K for the year...it's infuriating.
I couldn't agree more. I parted ways with a client a few years ago, a freaking bar owner of all things, who INSISTED that it was perfectly legal to issue 1099s to all employees. It's not.

The USDOL has been castrated more than audit staff at the IRS so forcing clowns like this to comply with the law is practically impossible.
  #119  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:35 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeykShade View Post
The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.
EITC is the lifeblood of many buy here/pay here car lots.
  #120  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:51 AM
the_narrow_way's Avatar
the_narrow_way the_narrow_way is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 5,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way.
The only reason I suggested 30 is because that is a typical max hours for non-managerial staff now. 40 is fine by me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.
Don't put words in my mouth. Who, anywhere, is asking for employers to pay employees for hours that they didn't work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeykShade View Post
The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.
It's not just appliances, it is often spent to catch up on bills or on the kids directly for clothes and toys, or their medical and educational expenses. I even might be game for a restriction on the EIC credit that prevented it being spent on 'luxury' items like TV's or cars.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.