2026 Mid-Term Elections

[southernhybrid]

Curious, what is a fair share, your word, not mine.

Toni's phrase, actually.

The bottom 50% made $50k or less in 2022. The 5% made over 5 times that at $260k. The 1% made well over double the 5% at $660k. Make with the standard deductions (and payroll taxes) and the bottom 50% has a lot less to tax than the 5%, forget 1%.

Most of the bottom 50%, specifically those with children, pay no federal income taxes, and may even have an effective negative federal income tax rate thanks to all the refundable tax credits.

Yes, the people who make more money pay more of the taxes, because there isn't much of the money left for the bottom 50% to pay taxes with.

And that's fair (except for shafting of the childless, especially in the bottom 50%) but let's not pretend - like Toni and others - that the well-off pay a "disproportionally" small share of the income taxes.

We need more children so there are enough people to pay into the future of SS. We need a lot more immigrants because if they work, they pay into SS, although they don't receive the benefit. There is no punishment for childless people. I only had one kid, but my neighbors have 4. That's 4 more people who will help pay into SS and 2 of them are already working. You seem to have an obsession about kids. I honestly wouldn't want to have any children in the times we live in, but we all benefit from having at least the minimum birth rate.

I think a good mental hospital might have been better for them

Keyword = “good”.
And again, no matter how good, it will only be good for some fraction of all homeless people.
Here’s a Lyle Lovett song.

I was only referring to those who suffer from severe types of mental disorders, not all homeless people. By good, I meant well staffed with nutritious food, activities, appropriate medications, group or private therapy etc. The one I mentioned where my psych training was done met all of those goals. People with disorders that could be well treated, were often discharged when appropriate. Some were simply too sick to ever be able to live on their own. The plan when most of these hospitals were shut down was to have public health nurses who were trained in psychiatric care to make home visits to these very sick folks to make sure they were stabilized at home. But, funds were never provided to keep these programs going. At least that was the plan in NC, where I was living at the time. I had considered looking into the possibility of working in such a job at the time. Plus that was back in the early to mid 80s when housing was cheaper and fewer people were homeless. Things have changed for the worse and now we have seriously mentally ill people without adequate care, food or housing. Most of them are harmless, but they need care. It's obviously complicated.

There's a really good book called, "Nobody cares about Crazy People" It was written by a man who had a seriously mentally ill son. He studied the way that very mentally sick people have been treated throughout history and then wrote about all the horrible ways these folks were treated or I guess I should say mistreated. It was well written and his owns son's experiences motivated him to write the book.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.amazon.com/One-Cares-About-Crazy-People/dp/0316341177

I couldn't get the link added to my last post, but this is the book I mentioned in my last post. I forgot he had two sons and didn't know that a documentary was made based on the book.

No One Cares About Crazy People: The Chaos and Heartbreak of Mental Health in America​

by Ron Powers (Author)
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars



New York Times-bestselling author Ron Powers offers a searching, richly researched narrative of the social history of mental illness in America paired with the deeply personal story of his two sons' battles with schizophrenia—now a documentary directed by Gail Freedman and narrated by Bob Odenkirk, with original music by Jeff Tweedy.

From the centuries of torture of "lunatiks" at Bedlam Asylum to the infamous eugenics era to the follies of the anti-psychiatry movement to the current landscape in which too many families struggle alone to manage afflicted love ones, Powers limns our fears and myths about mental illness and the fractured public policies that have resulted.

Braided with that history is the moving story of Powers's beloved son Kevin --

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Curious, what is a fair share, your word, not mine.

Toni's phrase, actually.

The bottom 50% made $50k or less in 2022. The 5% made over 5 times that at $260k. The 1% made well over double the 5% at $660k. Make with the standard deductions (and payroll taxes) and the bottom 50% has a lot less to tax than the 5%, forget 1%.

Most of the bottom 50%, specifically those with children, pay no federal income taxes, and may even have an effective negative federal income tax rate thanks to all the refundable tax credits.

Yes, the people who make more money pay more of the taxes, because there isn't much of the money left for the bottom 50% to pay taxes with.

And that's fair (except for shafting of the childless, especially in the bottom 50%) but let's not pretend - like Toni and others - that the well-off pay a "disproportionally" small share of the income taxes.

Like I said, I hate this pissing contest because it isn't about math, it is about this absurd concept of what is "fair" or "disproportional" or the poor unfortunate child-less folks.

This isn't about what is "fair", this is about simple math and how in the heck do we make the numbers work. And no one wants to talk that because it means a notable tax hike, for all, including fixed income retirees.

 

[Elixir]

I was only referring to those who suffer from severe types of mental disorders, not all homeless people.

As I was pointing out, every good solution addresses specific types of cases. Even those with "severe types of mental disorders" is too broad a group to be addressed by a single spread of "solutions". Some severe mental disorders disappear under specific circumstances, others do not. Some are amenable to biochemical intervention, some are not. Etc etc.
It is always tempting to create a "type" in our minds, and come up with what will help that "type". But people are not types, they are individuals. This problem is ultimately intractable; it requires a society-wide shift in priorities and mindset regarding those who don't "fit in".
I think we will always be picking around the margins, looking for those who are treatable by whatever means are currently at our disposal, and deferring treatment for all the rest.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was only referring to those who suffer from severe types of mental disorders, not all homeless people.

As I was pointing out, every good solution addresses specific types of cases. Even those with "severe types of mental disorders" is too broad a group to be addressed by a single spread of "solutions". Some severe mental disorders disappear under specific circumstances, others do not. Some are amenable to biochemical intervention, some are not. Etc etc.
It is always tempting to create a "type" in our minds, and come up with what will help that "type". But people are not types, they are individuals. This problem is ultimately intractable; it requires a society-wide shift in priorities and mindset regarding those who don't "fit in".
I think we will always be picking around the margins, looking for those who are treatable by whatever means are currently at our disposal, and deferring treatment for all the rest.

I basically agree, but the people I was thinking mostly about were two of my former patients. Ron has severe schizophrenia and his meds didn't really help. He was only about 40 when he entered the ALF. He was harmless. He could follow simple directions, but he was constantly talking to the voices in his head. Because he started peeing in the corner of his room, the assholes who owned the facility kicked him out. The staff were all very upset because we cared about him. I have no idea where he ended up, but if he had been in a well run mental hospital, he would have been better off imo.

The other person was the one who had severe bipolar disorder with schizo-affective disorder. She honestly believed she was a queen who owned in her words, castle palaces. She believed she had been married to several celebrities etc. She received fairly decent care, but she might have been better off in a good mental hospital where the staff was properly trained to care for people like her. She was in her late 70s, but believed she was 35, when I retired. People like the "Queen" and Ron often end up in ALFs or nursing homes these days because we no longer have good mental hospitals for them.

Some people with these severe diseases do benefit from meds, but some refuse to take their meds. I had a good friend many years ago when I was living in SC. Carol has severe bipolar disorder and she was fine as long as she took her meds, but she stopped taking them and disappeared. She called me from Texas where she was doing stunts on top of her car, and doing sex work. She eventually returned to SC and Mr. Sohy and I ran into her in a Dennys. She told us that being bipolar with mania was like being on the best drug ever. She ended up in a mental hospital for awhile. Her parents were assholes who thought she was demon possessed. I've heard that many times from crazy Christains who don't understand mental illnesses. When Carol was released from the hospital she was a different person, withdrawn and seemed depressed. We moved to NC shortly after so I have no idea what happened to her, but we obviously don't do a good job of caring for those who suffer from these diseases. I refer to them as brain disorders

My father was bipolar but he usually did positive things when he was manic, like remodel the kitchen or put a new roof on the house etc. Sometimes he stayed up all night making furniture etc. He sometimes suffered from severe depression, along with PTSD from combat. Luckily at least partly due to my mom, he never needed to be admitted to a mental hospital, but he did receive lots of care from the VA. It's complicated and I wish we could do more for these folks.

I know we are off topic, but finding better treatment for those with such diseases along with prison reform etc, should be part of what politicians try to fix. I did read that the DSM is going to be totally changed as some doctors feel we really don't totally understand these diseases. That is probably true. Perhaps we need a discussion about mental illnesses and their treatment.

 

[Derec]

When FICA revenues exceed FICA outlays, the surplus is used to gov’t bonds: the Social Security lends to the Treasury which can use the funds for any purpose.

When your income exceeds your outlays, you may decide to use some of the surplus to buy government bonds. That does not mean that the portion of your income you decide to invest in treasuries is a tax.

But the tax burden exists regardless where the tax revenues are used.

They are used to fund the insurance obligations (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) the FICA payers enjoy. That is true regardless of what the SSA choses to invest in. If say your car insurance company invests cash surplus in treasuries, that does not mean that your Geico premiums are a tax.

In any case, Toni used the term "income tax" and that's in the graphic I used to disprove her claim.

You found a graphic based on misleading statistics that support your view.

I disagree that it was misleading, and you have not shown it to be such.

It cannot possibly prove anything wrong because “disproportionately” is a relative measure that remains indefinite: what one person thinks is disproportionate, another person may not.

So, your claim is that Toni's point wasn't wrong, it just did not mean anything at all? I disagree. "Disproportionate" is not just vibes. It means "out of proportion to a meaningful baseline measure", such as in this case income. Another example would be crime statistics, where a meaningful baseline would be population.
If Toni thinks there is another meaningful baseline here, and wants to show why that is meaningful and how it results in the rich paying a disproportionately low share of taxes, she should offer some details. But "disproportionate" doesn't just mean "unfair in my opinion".

Moreover, since you have posted that you think the tax code should be more progressive, it appears you agree that the rich pay a proportionally low share.

I think progressive taxation, where rich pay a disproportionately high share of taxes, is fair within reason.
What is not fair is to claim that they pay a disproportionally low share of taxes.

Nice ironic straw man. You do realize that “whatever Derec thinks is fair” is just as meaningless metric.

It's not a strawman because I never offered "whatever Derec thinks is fair" as a baseline metric. I offered income, which is a natural metric when looking at taxation of income. Just like property values are a natural metric when looking at property taxes. Or population is when looking at population-based data such as crime rates, completing high school/college etc.

 

[Derec]

What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

It fits the data.

The wealthy TAKE a disproportionately high share of all wealth and PAY a lower percentage of what they take, than people on the bottom.

Data does not bear that out.

They also USE more “common property” (roads, airports etc) than poor people.

If a middle class person making $80k pays say $20k in federal income tax, and a rich person making $320k pays $100k, do you think the latter uses roads and other infrastructure more than five times more? And things like airports are paid for by airline fees and rents on retail spaces, so the more you fly, the more you pay for airport upkeep.

“My secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than I do, and that’s wrong.”
-Warren Buffet

Is there some data linked to this, or is it just a quote based on vibes?
How much was Buffet's income in that year? How much tax did he pay?
How much was the secretary's income in that year? How much tax did he/she pay?
What taxes are included in the calculation, if any was ever made? FICA? State and local taxes, or just federal?
Was that year representative, or was it in some way unique - a one-time windfall for the secretary (like selling an investment property or a bunch of stock) or Buffet realizing some losses which decreased his tax burden?

Without numbers to back it up, this quote in meaningless.

 

[Derec]

It shows that the rich pay a majority of income taxes. It does not show that their effective tax rate is higher than the not-so rich.

The graphic compares the share of income to the share of federal income taxes paid. The latter is higher on the top end, and the former is higher on the bottom end.

So, yes, it does show that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Higher earners profit more than lower earners for the system. They should pay their fair share.

Based on the table, it looks like a 5%er is paying his fair share and two other people's fair share besides, while a 1%er is paying his fair share and twenty-nine other people's fair share besides.

Curious, what is a fair share, your word, not mine.

The previous poster's word, not mine. Any particular reason you found my use of it, with an explanation, more deserving of challenge than her use of it with no explanation?

Back in pre-modern times when economies typically had little money, it was hard for a ruler to make his subjects pay taxes, so many rulers adopted corvee -- taxation in the form of labor. If the kingdom needed a castle on the frontier to keep the neighboring kingdom from invading, and there was no money to pay the masons' guild, then the nearby inhabitants were all ordered to show up at the site a couple days each month to help build the castle. It kind of sucked for all of them -- it was time they couldn't spend on their own trades -- but then getting invaded by the neighboring king's thugs would kind of suck too, so you do what you have to do.

So let's say Jim and Tony both show up, and carry rocks up the walls and mortar them into place. Jim's a big strong guy; Tony's kind of scrawny. Jim can lift big rocks; Tony does the best he can but can only lift little ones. By the end of a day Jim has built twice as much castle wall as Tony has. Tony observes this and complains that Jim isn't doing his fair share of the work. He says Jim shouldn't just build twice as much wall each day, but should also have to work on the castle an extra day each month. Tony argues that since Jim is twice as good a worker it's not enough for him to accomplish twice as much construction -- Jim really ought to accomplish three times as much construction.

Well, as Lincoln might have put it, I have always thought that all men should be taxed non-discriminatorily; but if any should be discriminated against it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for discriminatory taxation I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

So, to finally answer your question, I think a fair share would be for Tony to be made to work on the castle three days a month and we'll see how much he likes it.

Yes, the people who make more money pay more of the taxes, because there isn't much of the money left for the bottom 50% to pay taxes with.

Certainly. But that would still be the case if the people who made more paid proportionately more, so it isn't an argument for making them pay disproportionately more.

 

[Derec]

I’m sorry you are unable or unwilling to comprehend the simple concept that future receipts are irrelevant to the concept of the current tax payments to income ratio (the numbers Derec posted).

You are not comprehending what Bomb and I are saying here. Because FICA payments result in a specific obligation toward you by the government, they are not a tax in the same way income tax is. I.e. in turn for these payments, you are entitled to cash payments in old age and in case of disability, as well as health insurance coverage in old age and if you become indigent.
We can argue semantics all day long (what is a "tax"?), but the way the two behave is sufficiently different to also treat them differently in these discussions no matter what word you want to use.

 

[Derec]

I see that kind of deceptive question offered as an equivocation with disgusting regularity.

Well, it's true.

Note that the 500k guy probably doesn’t drive whatsoever. His chauffeur drives his own car to work, drives the boss to the airport in the company limo, where the boss boards the corporate jet just in time to make the Chicago meeting and still make it to LA for the gala dinner.

You are describing a very specific work and life style. But how common is that? For example, a surgeon making that kind of money drives himself to the hospital which may be 20 miles from the hospital or even closer, and is flying a handful times per year - e.g. one vacation and two to three conferences. The guy making $50k may have a much longer commute (because house prices are lower farther from work) and his truck may have a similar gas mileage as the surgeon's 911 and causes more wear and tear on the public roadways. And he also might be flying for a yearly vacation, or at least once every other year.

The 500k guy typically consumes (causes the consumption of) >10x what the 50k guy consumes.

I would like to see some numbers on that, not just hypothetical anecdotes.

 

[Derec]

I don’t hate men. That is your lazy characterization that you try to impose upon me

No, it is based on you always make statements about how bad men are. Sometimes you qualify it as "white men".

because I do not believe that women were made to serve men.

That wasn't even mentioned by anyone.

Nor do I agree with antisemitism whether it is directed towards Jews or towards Muslims.

Muslims are not necessarily semitic. And antisemitism in general usage means hatred toward Jews specifically, even if Arabs also technically count as Semites.

I am against discrimination against any person or group based upon perceptions of their ‘belonging’ to a group firmed around physical characteristics, genetic or cultural roots, religious or political ideology, sexuality or gender, wealth, class or perceptions of these, or any other characteristic that one is born with or into including any I have not mentioned.

I agree with some of this. But we should be able to criticize things like religion, political ideology and toxic cultural norms. There are not "characteristic(s) that one is born with" like race or gender or sexual identity. And they have real effects on the behavior.
I do not think you would be against the notion that we should discriminate against Nazis (which is a political ideology). But the same applies to Islamism (which is a mix of religious and political ideology).
And to harken back to what you wrote above, most of contemporary Islam does believe that "women were made to serve men".

You have chosen certain ideologies and it seems that you are determined to characterize anyone who dyes not agree with you as something they are not.

Not at all.

Are you incapable or just unwilling to engage in actual discussions of subjects on their merits? If so, please leave me out. I’m not interested.

I am very much capable of that. But when I criticize Islamism, your retort of "men are bad, mkay" is not just bigoted, but also completely irrelevant to the topic. Especially since when it comes to terrorism, women have participated as well.[/s]

 

[Derec]

I absolutely do believe that there must be limits on the amount of wealth and influence any person is able to accrue because we seem to inevitably accord them special dispensation from the rules, regulations and laws the rest of us must abide by.

How would you accomplish that without dispossessing people from ownership of companies they built up? I have brought that point up before, but you have not addressed it.

Since Citizens United, we now allow the wealthy to purchase lawmakers and judges as well as law enforcement to further stack the odds on their favor. This is unAmerican to its very core.

As I said, I think CU was wrongly decided. But expropriation of those who built up successful businesses is too draconian a "solution" to thta problem.

Re: ‘certain people given preferential treatment with respect to education and job opportunities, you realize that’s white men, right?

No. That was the case decades ago, but it has reversed since then.

The fact that women and persons of color have made progress in traditionally white men only fields terrifies some to the extent that they adore assholes like Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump. FFS, if you are not able to rise to the top, maybe accept your own mediocrity? Or try harder? Actually learn something and gain some skills..

I do not begrudge minorities and women from succeeding, as long as it is done on their own merits. But why should mediocre women and some minorities be promoted over better performing men and whites/Asians? And in a truly Orwellian fashion, you accuse better performing people of being "mediocre" and that they should "learn something and gain some skills"? A white or Asian applicant who has more skills and has learned more is discriminated against in favor of blacks and Hispanics who have learned less and gained fewer skills.

And you realize that working in any warehouse environment is poorly compensated, grueling, boring, dead end work, right? I have more than one family member working in similar environments. Imagine doing that in your 60’s. It ain’t pretty.

Working for $20/hr is not enough to allow one to establish financial security or to own a home these days.

It's not a great job, but ~$20/h for warehouse work is not bad pay. Of course, not every job is meant to be a lifelong career.

Housing that is being built is geared towards those who can afford $500K and up, not for people who do the work that earns Bezos and Musk their billions.

Because that's what most people want. A big house, not a two bedroom condo or a small house.
Although there are also a lot of condo complexes being built. I just went on Zillow and looked at Atlanta listings. Many <$200k listings and even some <$150k listings still exist, but they are for small houses as well as condos. If you want a 4 bedroom 2500 sq. ft. house, you have to pay accordingly.

 

[Derec]

In other words, no evidence just opinion.

I provided evidence that he is campaigning with several 2026 candidates. He is also a very popular streamer, with millions of views. That is also a fact, not opinion.

 

[Derec]

We need more children so there are enough people to pay into the future of SS. We need a lot more immigrants because if they work, they pay into SS, although they don't receive the benefit.

I agree that the current system relies on increasing population. But ever increasing population, whether through natural growth or immigration is unsustainable. Especially growth at a constant growth rate, which results in population exploding exponentially. Even a sustained 2% annual growth would lead US population to exceed one billion in just over half a century.
So, we will have to learn to function with a stable population one way or another.

As to immigrants paying into SocSec but not receiving benefits, that only applies to illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are eligible for social security benefits. And it only applies to illegals who committed an additional crime of identity theft to get employment. Those who are paid under the table do not pay income taxes nor FICA.

Large-scale immigration also has the problem of cultural incompatibility, since most migrants come from third world countries with very different cultures. We see that with the problems that mass influx of Islamic migrants has caused in Europe. US also sees some effects of this, especially in Dearnbornistan and Hamtramckabad.

There is no punishment for childless people.

Of course there is. If you have children, you can reduce your taxes a lot, often below zero, and those of us who are childfree have to pay more to compensate. That's why I was against Biden's plan to make expanded child tax credit permanent. Kamala doubled down on that idea, and even increased the amounts.

I honestly wouldn't want to have any children in the times we live in, but we all benefit from having at least the minimum birth rate.

I have nothing against people having children, but it should not result in a very skewed tax picture where people making six figures pay less in tax than childfree people making a fraction of that. Biden's child tax credit applied to people making as much as $400k, and that's not right. People making a fifth or even a tenth of that amount should not subsidize their offspring.

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, no evidence just opinion.

I provided evidence that he is campaigning with several 2026 candidates.

Unless they win, that shows nothing.

He is also a very popular streamer, with millions of views. That is also a fact, not opinion.

Okay, but that is consistent with the notion that he is reflecting views, not influencing them.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m sorry you are unable or unwilling to comprehend the simple concept that future receipts are irrelevant to the concept of the current tax payments to income ratio (the numbers Derec posted).

You are not comprehending what Bomb and I are saying here. Because FICA payments result in a specific obligation toward you by the government, they are not a tax in the same way income tax is. I.e. in turn for these payments, you are entitled to cash payments in old age and in case of disability, as well as health insurance coverage in old age and if you become indigent.

Both tax liabilities are based on income. That is the relevant part when one is trying to show a tax burden in that time period. The fact someone may get a payment 40 years from now or 20 years from now or 2 years for now is not relevant to the current burden.

Now, if you want to talk about lifetime tax burdens which are attempts to capture the effects over the life of a tax payer, that is a different matter. But current tax liability/ current income is insufficient to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

When FICA revenues exceed FICA outlays, the surplus is used to gov’t bonds: the Social Security lends to the Treasury which can use the funds for any purpose.

When your income exceeds your outlays, you may decide to use some of the surplus to buy government bonds. That does not mean that the portion of your income you decide to invest in treasuries is a tax.

But the tax burden exists regardless where the tax revenues are used.

They are used to fund the insurance obligations (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) the FICA payers enjoy. That is true regardless of what the SSA choses to invest in. If say your car insurance company invests cash surplus in treasuries, that does not mean that your Geico premiums are a tax.

FICA revenue arises from FICA taxes. My income stems from my earnings, not a tax. So your examples are comparing horse apples to apples.

In any case, Toni used the term "income tax" and that's in the graphic I used to disprove her claim.

You found a graphic based on misleading statistics that support your view.

I disagree that it was misleading, and you have not shown it to be such.

It cannot possibly prove anything wrong because “disproportionately” is a relative measure that remains indefinite: what one person thinks is disproportionate, another person may not.

So, your claim is that Toni's point wasn't wrong, it just did not mean anything at all? I disagree. "Disproportionate" is not just vibes. It means "out of proportion to a meaningful baseline measure", such as in this case income.

And what determines "out of proportion"? Unless you are claiming that your judgment is the universally acclaimed standard, you cannot possibly prove that Toni's point is wrong. You can show why you disagree, but you cannot prove it is wrong.

Moreover, since you have posted that you think the tax code should be more progressive, it appears you agree that the rich pay a proportionally low share.

I think progressive taxation, where rich pay a disproportionately high share of taxes, is fair within reason.
What is not fair is to claim that they pay a disproportionally low share of taxes.

Nice ironic straw man. You do realize that “whatever Derec thinks is fair” is just as meaningless metric.

It's not a strawman because I never offered "whatever Derec thinks is fair" as a baseline metric. I offered income, which is a natural metric when looking at taxation of income.

Income as a metric does not offer any clue as to what constitutes "proportionate" or "disproportionate". So you are, in essence, using proportionate to mean "whatever Derec thinks is fair" as the baseline metric if you think you are PROVING Toni wrong.

 

[Toni]

I absolutely do believe that there must be limits on the amount of wealth and influence any person is able to accrue because we seem to inevitably accord them special dispensation from the rules, regulations and laws the rest of us must abide by.

How would you accomplish that without dispossessing people from ownership of companies they built up? I have brought that point up before, but you have not addressed it.

Since Citizens United, we now allow the wealthy to purchase lawmakers and judges as well as law enforcement to further stack the odds on their favor. This is unAmerican to its very core.

As I said, I think CU was wrongly decided. But expropriation of those who built up successful businesses is too draconian a "solution" to thta problem.

Re: ‘certain people given preferential treatment with respect to education and job opportunities, you realize that’s white men, right?

No. That was the case decades ago, but it has reversed since then.

The fact that women and persons of color have made progress in traditionally white men only fields terrifies some to the extent that they adore assholes like Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump. FFS, if you are not able to rise to the top, maybe accept your own mediocrity? Or try harder? Actually learn something and gain some skills..

I do not begrudge minorities and women from succeeding, as long as it is done on their own merits. But why should mediocre women and some minorities be promoted over better performing men and whites/Asians? And in a truly Orwellian fashion, you accuse better performing people of being "mediocre" and that they should "learn something and gain some skills"? A white or Asian applicant who has more skills and has learned more is discriminated against in favor of blacks and Hispanics who have learned less and gained fewer skills.

And you realize that working in any warehouse environment is poorly compensated, grueling, boring, dead end work, right? I have more than one family member working in similar environments. Imagine doing that in your 60’s. It ain’t pretty.

Working for $20/hr is not enough to allow one to establish financial security or to own a home these days.

It's not a great job, but ~$20/h for warehouse work is not bad pay. Of course, not every job is meant to be a lifelong career.

Housing that is being built is geared towards those who can afford $500K and up, not for people who do the work that earns Bezos and Musk their billions.

Because that's what most people want. A big house, not a two bedroom condo or a small house.
Although there are also a lot of condo complexes being built. I just went on Zillow and looked at Atlanta listings. Many <$200k listings and even some <$150k listings still exist, but they are for small houses as well as condos. If you want a 4 bedroom 2500 sq. ft. house, you have to pay accordingly.

You tax corporations, mandate minimum compensation, and progressively tax income. You insist that corporations adhere to stringent environmental rules and regulations as well as zoning. Instead of taxpayers subsidizing the building of another Walmart, insist that Walmart ( or whatever corp) pays for the new roads, utilities, etc. rather than granting them exemptions from property taxes. We enforce anti-trust legislation and insist that large retailers fairly compensate manufacturers and suppliers instead of using their enormous sizes to control the market and the processes well as the wages. We limit the amount of media outlets of any type any organization or individual can own or partially own. A handful of people gave their hands in everything, and privately duct up the spoils amongst themselves. You get that we are not real people to them, right? We’re just little army ants and worker bees to them. A handful of individuals control what products are available for purchase, what media we consume, what ‘news’ we see/hear/read which makes it easier to elect their candidates to increase favorable laws and regulations and court rulings.

It is not easy to move from working in a warehouse to other, more remunerative and fulfilling work. $20/hr ain’t great if you can get $17/hr at McDonalds. Especially given how punishing the work can be. A lot of physically demanding work pays considerably more: work in the various trades, for example. While some billionaires and famous douches such as Ben Shapiro believe no one should ever retire, although such work is physically punishing enough that it’s hard to continue far into your 60’s if you are lucky. Many retire before 60 or when they can , shift to supervisory roles that are less hard on backs and knees. To name a couple of lines of work. Many employers industry that their workers be available on short notice, making it difficult to work a second job or attend a school or training program in a better paid field.

The desire to have McMansions is waning at least in part because fewer people can afford them. They are expensive to heat and cool and to maintain. Fewer people are opting to have families meaning that they have less need for 4 bed/bath 3000 sq ft homes.

If we are genuinely interested in helping people find suitable housing, we need to focus more on ‘starter homes’ and housing for older adults and younger ones as well. And they need to be reasonably priced, energy efficient and easy to maintain, and accessible to those with physical limitations.

A lot of adults my age are facing the conundrum of no longer needing a home the size they had when raising their children but would in fact have to spend substantially more for a smaller home that may not actually suit their desire for single floor living. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Or should. Btw, if my sister who was looking to sell her home to move into an apartment t until she figured out rent would be substantially more than her mortgage—unaffordable for her. And that is in a small area in the middle of the Midwest.

 

[Toni]

We need more children so there are enough people to pay into the future of SS. We need a lot more immigrants because if they work, they pay into SS, although they don't receive the benefit.

I agree that the current system relies on increasing population. But ever increasing population, whether through natural growth or immigration is unsustainable. Especially growth at a constant growth rate, which results in population exploding exponentially. Even a sustained 2% annual growth would lead US population to exceed one billion in just over half a century.
So, we will have to learn to function with a stable population one way or another.

As to immigrants paying into SocSec but not receiving benefits, that only applies to illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are eligible for social security benefits. And it only applies to illegals who committed an additional crime of identity theft to get employment. Those who are paid under the table do not pay income taxes nor FICA.

Large-scale immigration also has the problem of cultural incompatibility, since most migrants come from third world countries with very different cultures. We see that with the problems that mass influx of Islamic migrants has caused in Europe. US also sees some effects of this, especially in Dearnbornistan and Hamtramckabad.

There is no punishment for childless people.

Of course there is. If you have children, you can reduce your taxes a lot, often below zero, and those of us who are childfree have to pay more to compensate. That's why I was against Biden's plan to make expanded child tax credit permanent. Kamala doubled down on that idea, and even increased the amounts.

I honestly wouldn't want to have any children in the times we live in, but we all benefit from having at least the minimum birth rate.

I have nothing against people having children, but it should not result in a very skewed tax picture where people making six figures pay less in tax than childfree people making a fraction of that. Biden's child tax credit applied to people making as much as $400k, and that's not right. People making a fifth or even a tenth of that amount should not subsidize their offspring.

We’re all subsidizing Bezos, if you want something to complain about. And Musk who seems bent on producing as many children he doesn’t raise ( in his case that’s a good thing).

FWIW, childcare costs about as much as college tuition.