Hard work = $250,000 ?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Hard work = $250,000 ?
376
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 9:07am

I’ve read repeatedly that the $250,000 is hard earned money that the government has no right to tax. Personally, I don’t believe that hard work consistently results in high salaries and I’m not convinced that people who make more money work harder or deserve more than most people. Most people, I believe, do work hard and most people are rewarded with 25,000 – 45,000 salary. Not all some hard workers make more and some make less. What do you think? Is the Just World view valid?

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/beliefs7csend.pdf

most people have a strong need to believe that they live in a world that is just, in the sense that people generally get what they deserve, and deserve what they get. When confronted with data that contradicts this view they try hard to ignore, reinterpret, distort, or forget it —for instance by finding imaginary merits to the recipients of fortuitous rewards, or assigning blame to innocent victims.

Because of their imperfect willpower, individuals constantly strive to motivate themselves (or their children) towards effort, educational investment, perseverance in the face of adversity, and away from the slippery slope of idleness, welfare dependency, crime, drugs, etc. This is another recurrent finding from the sociological evidence. In such circumstances, maintaining somewhat rosy beliefs about the fact that everyone will ultimately get their “just deserts” can be very valuable. Furthermore, if enough individuals end up with the view that economic success is highly dependent on effort, they will ultimately represent a pivotal voting block, and set a low tax rate. Conversely, when individuals anticipate that society will carry out little redistribution, the costs of a deficient motivation to effort or savings are much higher than with high taxes and
a generous safety net. Each individual thus has greater incentives to maintain his belief that effort ultimately pays, and consequently more voters end up with such a world view.

For instance, data from the World Values Survey shows that only 29% of Americans believe that the poor are trapped in poverty, and only 30% that luck, rather than effort or education, determines income. The figures for Europeans are nearly double: 60% and 54% respectively. Similarly, Americans are more than twice as likely as Europeans to think that the poor are lazy (60% versus 26%).

Indeed, 59% of Americans agree or strongly agree that “in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life”; this view commands much less support in Europe, ranging from 34% in Sweden to 43% in Germany.

Is the “American dream,” according to our theory, just a self-sustaining collective illusion?

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/beliefs7csend.pdf

uCruiser.com Ticker

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:08pm

<

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2007
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:12pm

"I'm sure McCain and Palin will dutifully step up to denounce the racist violence they're probably responsible for inciting in the first instance."


Jess


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-24-2006
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:13pm

I think if you knew your history, you would know that those practices were common of mid-evil times all across europe, and it was between those of "noble" blood, and those considered by the "Blue-Bloods" to be of a lesser quality of lineage.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2008
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:18pm

I think we all realize Kristen is NOT a nazi...I think the original post that started this whole thing, which was directed to me and was about whether people with mental illness or inheritable diseases should be allowed to reproduce because they will be putting a burden on their country...that does evoke raise ethical questions that, to me, called to mind Nazi Germany. I found the question to be upsetting, to be honest, because my sister is one of those mentally ill people. But I know the poster wasn't trying to upset me, so I let it go. I don't think that mom is referring to Kristen, but to the spirit of the original post, and Kristen was not trying to support the original post necessarily, but to clarify the question it asked in light of mom's response. Geez--we sure like the drama around here. :-)


Photobucket


siggy aug 09
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 5:28pm

>> The disparity in incomes cannot be described by lack of virtue, responsibility, etc. on the part of more than a third of all taxpayers. It has more to do with our country's economic policies.<<

Ah yes, economic policies that enable poor planning. You know whenever you subsidize something you get more of it! I'd have to lay some blame on the education system as well!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 5:31pm

Huh? Living near poverty wages just because you have no federal tax liability? If only that were really the case!

The zero tax liability folks include most who are far over the poverty rate level!

Gosh I'd think everyone would actually want to be known as citizens who support their country--even if their contribution is small. To tell them they owe nothing sends the wrong message to everyone and denigrates them overall.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2008
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 5:57pm

I asked what kind of work he did, she said Financial Advisor. Here is someone who probably makes well over 250,000 and helps people invest their money and therefore earns HIS money from their investments. Man that's HARD work! So hard he had time to run around on his wife!

I'm beginning to see Financial advisor's and nothing more than use car sale people with better clothes and who take you money and you don't even get the car. His request to reduce his child support payments is just a reflection on the ethics of this type of person.

In terms of the 401K, we have been suckered.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 6:02pm

You do know that scene I'm referring to, right? It was one of the most tear jerking scenes of all times. Julia Roberts tells her mother (Sally Fields) that she would rather have a shorter life and an opportunity to be a mother than taking the safer route of no children.

Either you don't understand the scene or I don't understand you. Are you saying what I think you're saying that certain people should fore go children to show their patriotism?

I hope not. That's creepy.

uCruiser.com Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 6:03pm

>>I find it offensive that 35% of taxpayers today have such low incomes that they have no tax liability. The disparity in incomes cannot be described by lack of virtue, responsibility, etc. on the part of more than a third of all taxpayers. It has more to do with our country's economic policies.<<

That's worth repeating.

uCruiser.com Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 10-28-2008 - 6:54pm

<>


Working poor problem getting worse
Jobs paying below poverty line rise 4.7M in four years

updated 11:51 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct. 14, 2008


NEW YORK - The number of U.S. jobs paying a poverty-level wage increased by 4.7 million between 2002 and 2006, according to a new analysis of census data released Tuesday.


A report by The Working Poor Families Project, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, found conditions worsened for the working poor in the four years ending in 2006, as the number of low-income working families increased by 350,000. The project is funded by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Joyce and C.S. Mott Foundations.


The report defines a low-income working family as those earning less than twice the Census definition of poverty. In 2006, the most recent year for available data, a family of four earning $41,228 or less qualified as a low-income family.


The number of jobs with pay below the poverty threshold increased to 29.4 million, or 22 percent of all jobs, in 2006 from 24.7 million, or 19 percent of all jobs, in 2002.


"The real surprising news, the alarming news, is that both the number and percentage of low-income families increased during this period," said Brandon Roberts, co-author of the report. "This was a time when we had solid and robust economic growth."


An increase in poverty "is not just a new phenomena over the last six months," he said.


Poverty-wage jobs increased in part because 2.5 million new jobs paid poverty wages; additionally 2.2 million jobs that paid greater than poverty wages in 2002 became poverty-wage jobs by 2006, as pay failed to keep up with the cost of living, Roberts said.


In two states, Mississippi and New Mexico, 40 percent of working families were low income in 2006, according to the report.


In 11 other states, at least 33 percent of working families were low income: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.


The number of low-income families rose to nearly 9.6 million, or 28 percent of the total population, in 2006 from 9.2 million, or roughly 27 percent, in 2002, according to the report. The number of children in low-income families rose by roughly 800,000 during the same period, climbing to 21 million from 20.2 million.


During the period, the number of working families spending more than one-third of their income on housing grew to 59 percent from 52 percent.


The report sought to address what it called myths about low-income families. For instance, it found 72 percent of low-income families work, with adults in low-income working families working, on average, 2,552 hours per year in 2006, the equivalent of one and one-quarter full-time jobs.


It also found that 52 percent of low-income families are headed by married couples; 69 percent have only American-born parents; 43 percent are white and non-Hispanic and only one-quarter of low-income families receive food stamp assistance.

 

Pages