Most illegal immigrants are getting paid by cash.
So they would not be paying any payroll taxes.
Can someone explain why childless, single working women is a bad thing?
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
Most illegal immigrants are getting paid by cash.
So they would not be paying any payroll taxes.
In 1960 the poverty rate was above 20%. In 2020 it's around 11%. Home ownership in 1960 was 62%, it's 66% now. Technology across almost all industires has improved exponentially. The notion that the US was a better place in the 50s and 60s is complete garbage.
If the case to be made for why women should breed is for king and country you’re going to have a very hard time convincing people of it.
People would have more kids if it were more affordable. That’s been shown over and over. We won’t do it, and we won’t pass immigration reform, so we’ll have less people. That’s the choice being made and scolding people about what they should do like an old school marm definitely isn’t going to help.
No he’s not, his info is correct. There are fewer working people (Americans who pay into SS) now supporting more and more SS beneficiaries due to America’s aging population. So, projections show that by 2035/36 (unless changes are made to the SS system) recipients will only receive 75% of their SS benefits.
Individualism. Our culture is all about what you can get and how you can get ahead. The right for all their moaning about this has encouraged this themselves. As much as they may want to pretend you can you can not separate economic individualism from cultural individualism. It's all cut from the same cloth. People are told to make their lives all about them and don't worry about how what they are doing impacts others.
The idea of sacrifice for others is foreign to many Americans. No matter if it's a wealthy person voting themselves their next tax cut, or the person who leaves their marriage because they don't feel like they are getting enough out of it and f****** someone else might be more fun.
American citizens who get paid in cash most often don't pay taxes on their earnings either.
It's both and. . . I have said many times we need to pass things like paid family leave, child tax credit increases and daycare assistance increases. Those are the first and most obvious steps.
Having a thriving middle class fixes this. People are putting off kids because they can't afford it.
Th
They use fake numbers in many cases. They pay into a system they have no hope of ever accessing.
It might help but the middle class of the 50’s and 60’s that led to the baby boom doesn’t exist anymore. It never will again. 1) the pay to expenses ratio is waaaay out of whack and 2) most importantly, women today have options. They are educated. They can control their reproductive choices. They are not going back. Period.
I don't see how individualism is discouraging childbearing. Can you give me an example in real life because from my point of view having children is more celebrated now than anytime in history. Heck we now have elaborate gender reveal parties along with the customary baby showers. Everyone posts their staged child's first day of school pictures on Facebook along with the "mandatory" black or white board with the kid's age, grade, favorites, and what they want to be when they grow up.
And the no taxes on tips proposals coming out of both sides is really shitty policy.
I think he was pointing out a difference between legal immigrants…those that pay into SS & taxes vs illegal immigrants who don’t.
Without strong guardrails for abuse, I agree. I can see it being effective but I'm not confident that there won't be giant loopholes to benefit those who it's not intended to benefit.
No - he was desperately trying to ignore the fact that many, many immigrants pay into our tax system.
Even though you're getting beat up on this thread for some of your takes, and I do the same to you on occasion, this is a good post and is spot on.
Yeah it's stupid.
Earned income is earned income and should be taxed the same.
If it got passed (which it won't) you would see some crazy creativity be used.
Loopholes aside, it shouldn't benefit anyone. Why would the nature of the income (tip vs wage) dictate whether it's taxable?
Ridiculous as the proposals are, cash tips are rarely reported so a tax "benefit" already exists for the fact that only those tips that are included with electronic payments get recorded as income in the first place.
It's a stupid pandering political move that needs to go away.
Sure, but the argument is taking place at the level of why people choose what they choose.
The conservative argument is going to be that the old norms are falling away -- most people just planned to have kids because that's what everyone did -- and the new norms (as in part made popular by the childless cat lady sorts) are pushing too many towards being childless.
So the argument becomes about what exactly should be pushed as a norm. (what do most people find satisfying in life?)
The political right today is saying that the left is winning the norm battle.
The very liberal (as in concerned with personal liberty, no political party) idea that you load up people with absolute freedom of choice and they then best choose how to live is being called into question.
Do young people really know how best to unfold their lives? What should the norms be? Should we have any?
I think there are much bigger questions lurking beneath your point there.
Even more broadly... you could argue that the liberal west has given people great freedom, great technology and prosperity, and with that they're choosing to live more miserable lives by a number of measures. (the biggest one being social isolation -- family, friends, community, you name it)
I think it was Harvard that had the long term study going where the monitored dozens of people over their life time. They're in their 60s now or whatnot. More than anything they're finding that social connectedness is what seems to be most associated with happiness.
Perhaps, ultimately, maximal freedom ends up eroding some really important norms that lead to a happy and healthy populous.
I'm not sure it should but there are many types of "income" that aren't taxed, this would just be another one. As for your second point, to me that is a reason for not taxing certain types of tips. There's no good way to regulate it so spending money trying to do so is a waste. The only way I can think of to get rid of it is to abolish cash which is never going to happen in our liftimes.
Again, I'm not sold on it but I haven't dismissed it completely yet.
Makes sense. Do you think our government is incentivizing it? I sure as hell don't. Dems give it a minimal amount of attention to throw some scraps and Rs are just trying to guilt people into suffering through and giving them nothing. Yeah we aren't stupid. Start incentivizing it and I guarantee it no longer is a topic being discussed.
Yeah, socialy media.
Overall, no, I don't think children and family aren't nearly as much of a centerpiece for society as they once were. (partially because there is so much of... everything, granted)
And in the media, especially on the left, news source wise, it's almost always bitching about family. From the perspective of how tough it is (to the individual with kids) or then all the pieces about not having kids. (bit of self validation going on there)
If you read Wa Po, NYT, Atlantic, etc etc... it's mostly talking about the problems with family in one way or another. Granted, news, opinion, and analysis skews negative anymore, but I see this overwhelmingly when it comes to kids/family.
That didn't used to exist. You could argue all that negativity is feeding back into society and affecting decision making.
can you give me an example of media that's "bitching about family"?
i'm not saying you're wrong...but i just don't know what you mean by that. maybe i'm taking it too literally
My wife and I didn't have any kids. Did one round of IVF that failed and then asked ourselves what we were doing. We already believed there were too many people on the planet and too many kids without homes already. We decided to adopt a boy and a girl. We didn't do it out of a sense of civic duty. We did it because we wanted a family. Not everyone wants kids and I totally understand that. My wife wants a golden retriever puppy but we'll be getting a rescue, just like we always have.
Why can't people like you just accept and respect the fact that a lot of people don't want children for various reasons and don't see bringing more people into the world as a positive thing but still desire to have a positive impact on the world and those around them? Why are those things mutually exclusive and if they are not, why cast them as bad people?
Regulate what? Tips are taxable today to the extent that they are reported on an employee's W-2.
Tell me what types of income are not taxable today with the exception of things like executive stock options?
Wouldn't a norm be what most people do? (can't have multiple mosts)
Who is choosing? Nobody. It organically develops within a society.
Hence one of the criticisms of liberalism: eroding norms in the name of freedom. (so people don't feel unduly burdened to be this way or that -- most on here would agree that we were too strong with certain norms in the 50s, for example)
The flip side is that in unburdening some people others will choose wrong and live lives that are less than what they could have been. That's the argument right now.
I suppose you want your norms to match what brings most people happiness.
Obviously I think we can all agree that what's optimal is people landing on life choices that best suit them. That's hard for a person to know when they're young.
Right. There is already a huge tax "benefit" associated with Tips for that reason, although it's shrinking along with the use of cash. I can only assume that's one of the driving factors behind these stupid proposals.
Incentivization doesn't seem to work from everything I've read. (not so far Europe or in the East Asian countries)
Regulate the reporting of cash tips.
Gifts below $17K. Inheritance (there is estate tax for very large inheritances). Death benefits. For starters.
