Income inequality (Page 7): Financial aid is available - but it is expensive. a small part of it is free money. most of it are student loans and many of them are not as low interest as...

surfshoptom

Samuraiz wrote:

I guess you have not lived in an economically challenged area. Financial aid for education is available for those that need it.

Financial aid is available - but it is expensive. a small part of it is free money. most of it are student loans and many of them are not as low interest as they used to be. kids are coming out of college with mortgage size loans with higher than mortgage interest rates.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

surfshoptom wrote:

Financial aid is available - but it is expensive. a small part of it is free money. most of it are student loans and many of them are not as low interest as they used to be. kids are coming out of college with mortgage size loans with higher than mortgage interest rates.

I did not write student loans, I wrote financial aid.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/

surfshoptom

Blurryeyed wrote:

LOL I am not saying by any means that people and adequate compensation is not important.... but profit is actually pretty important and certainly more important than your sense of social justice, because without profit in the society that we live in there would be no jobs in either the private or public sector...

Profit mostly benefits the rich. Profit benefits the stock holders. Keeping expenses - including wages - as low as possible is a corporate strategy. The lower the expenses - the higher the profits. And the beauty part - the income from stock is taxed at a really low rate! Who made these rules??? Maybe if income from stock was taxed like income (because it is), the deficit would be less.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Gee, I wonder who the stockholders are ?...Well Golly Day, it's Teachers Unions, other pension funds et al....So you want those profits taken from those entities?

surfshoptom wrote:

Profit mostly benefits the rich. Profit benefits the stock holders. Keeping expenses - including wages - as low as possible is a corporate strategy. The lower the expenses - the higher the profits. And the beauty part - the income from stock is taxed at a really low rate! Who made these rules??? Maybe if income from stock was taxed like income (because it is), the deficit would be less.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

surfshoptom wrote:

Profit mostly benefits the rich. Profit benefits the stock holders. Keeping expenses - including wages - as low as possible is a corporate strategy. The lower the expenses - the higher the profits. And the beauty part - the income from stock is taxed at a really low rate! Who made these rules??? Maybe if income from stock was taxed like income (because it is), the deficit would be less.

Profits benefit the poor little old lady that has these assets in her pension fund.

You are confusing income from dividends vs income from stocks. Income from Stock sales can be calculated higher than regular income (if the buy/sell is less than 1 year) then CAPITAL GAINS apply. If the buy/sell is greater than 1 year then standard rates apply. Dividends are taxed at the standard tax rate.

http://irsapex.com/dividend-tax-rate.html

Also, many retired (old hard working folks) obtain the bulk of their income from their investments. Do you recommend that their hard work, savings and investments should be nullified?

surfshoptom

Screamin Scott wrote:

Gee, I wonder who the stockholders are ?...Well Golly Day, it's Teachers Unions, other pension funds et al....So you want those profits taken from those entities?

"Gee"?? "Golly Day"??

I want corporations to pay their workers a fair wage and provide health insurance before they pay stock dividends. Why don't they? Because they don't have to because rich folks wrote the rules. Costco is an example of a company that does it right.

I want stock dividends to be taxed like income. Why aren't they? Because rich folks wrote the rules. (btw, they wouldn't be taxed at all in qualified retirement accounts)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

What's a "fair wage" ?.... That would be different in different parts of the country, thus a Federal guideline would not be "fair" in that respect would it?.... What you are saying then is that people should be paid a certain amount regardless of their output ?.... Sounds like Communism to me...Sounds like you have "wealth envy" as well... Stuck in a dead end job are we?

surfshoptom wrote:

"Gee"?? "Golly Day"??

I want corporations to pay their workers a fair wage and provide health insurance before they pay stock dividends. Why don't they? Because they don't have to because rich folks wrote the rules. Costco is an example of a company that does it right.

I want stock dividends to be taxed like income. Why aren't they? Because rich folks wrote the rules. (btw, they wouldn't be taxed at all in qualified retirement accounts)

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

surfshoptom wrote:

"Gee"?? "Golly Day"??

I want corporations to pay their workers a fair wage and provide health insurance before they pay stock dividends. Why don't they? Because they don't have to because rich folks wrote the rules. Costco is an example of a company that does it right.

I want stock dividends to be taxed like income. Why aren't they? Because rich folks wrote the rules. (btw, they wouldn't be taxed at all in qualified retirement accounts)

Dude,

dividends ARE taxed exactlythe same as income. Call you favorite CPA and he/she will clear this up for you.

http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/dividend_income.htm

If you want business to change their policies, stop giving them money. Shop somewhere else.

surfshoptom

Screamin Scott wrote:

.Sounds like you have "wealth envy" as well... Stuck in a dead end job are we?

haha. Sounds like you're grasping for straws - are we?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

No, just pushing your buttons since it's so easy to do. Seriously, you may think you know how the corporate world works, but you don't & your posts illustrate that.

surfshoptom wrote:

haha. Sounds like you're grasping for straws - are we?

surfshoptom

Samuraiz wrote:

Dude,

dividends ARE taxed exactlythe same as income. Call you favorite CPA and he/she will clear this up for you.

http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/dividend_income.htm

If you want business to change their policies, stop giving them money. Shop somewhere else.

From your reference: "Some dividends are qualified dividends and qualify for the preferred tax rate of 0% or 15%. To be a qualified dividend, the investor must have held the stock for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date."

What am I misunderstanding?

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

PrairieSeasons wrote:

Have you noticed the number of times "income inequality" has been in the news over the past week or two? It certainly seems like the left's new hot button to try to take the spotlight off of Obamacare.

I have a question, though, and that is this --

Is there any fundamental difference between the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and the current cry for solutions to income inequality?

When has there ever been any EQUALITY? People are different. some have talents in one aspect, other in different aspects.
I can not type ( self evident) or play piano, but have been noted as a pretty decent Saxophome player.
The very fact that people are different makes the world the interesting place it is.
The concept that people are "equal" leads to the philosophy of "equal outcome" this is why scolls give everyone in sports the same silly trophy.
This is detrimental to the youth.
Back in the day ( LOOOOOOOONG ago) the winners got the trophy the loser got pizza, licked their wounds and found way to get better.

When everyone gets the same pay we will look just like Cuba living on 2000 bucks a year.

CUBA has INCOME QUALITY ( well except for the commies in charge)

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

surfshoptom wrote:

haha. Sounds like you're grasping for straws - are we?

May I remind you?

"Gee? Golly Day?"

Pot....meet Kettle.

and stock sales, dividends are taxed as income and if sold in less than a year at your prevailing tax rate. As for getting a break on holding onto stock longer than that...it's all about risk. The old adage goes "don't invest what you can't afford to lose".

How many wealthy people buy lottery tickets? It's a suckers bet right? Poor folks buy them all the time. This is an example of a bad choice. The people that fuel the various lotteries are those that can least afford to

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

More telling is Obama coming off a $4 million taxpayer funded vaca complaining about Income Inequality. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?

surfshoptom

Samuraiz wrote:

.... many retired (old hard working folks) obtain the bulk of their income from their investments. Do you recommend that their hard work, savings and investments should be nullified?

Certainly not. And what you say is true. But most stock is owned by rich folks outside of qualified retirement accounts. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with profit. I'm saying that corporations that take advantage of their workers for the benefit of their stockholders - MOST of which are rich investors - is wrong.

Do you dispute that Income Inequality is a real problem? and again I'm not talking about between the guy that makes $25K and the guy that makes $150K. I'm talking about the corporate CEO that makes $15M and the increasing poor and the disappearing middle class.