From Mike Shedlock's excellent blog:http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/08/fed-study...Fed Study Finds 2 million in "Forced Retirement", 52% Cannot Afford an Unexpected $400 Expense"I have talked about "forced retirement" 174 times over the course of the past few years.I defined the term as those who retired because they had to, not because they wanted to.Why might they have to? Easy. If someone of retirement age wants a job and needs a job and needs income, but does not have a job, the choice (after unemployment benefits expire) is to retire.These people should be considered unemployed, but they are not. Instead they dropped out of the labor force.We can now put some numbers on "forced retirement" thanks to a Fed study that shows 40% of households show signs of financial stress Four out of 10 American households were straining financially five years after the Great Recession -- many struggling with tight credit, education debt and retirement issues, according to a new Federal Reserve survey of consumers.This latest snapshot, which the Fed said was aimed at monitoring the recovery and risks to financial stability, adds to the understanding of the severity of the Great Recession's effect on households and individuals."
Tied up in this statistic is a lot of psychology.The person laid off from a $100K per year job thinks he/she is worth $100K. After diligently seeking employment at that level for x months, most are faced with the decision that a job might be available for $60K or so. Are they willing to take a pay cut?For those living paycheck to paycheck, loss of job can be devastating. Commitments to mortgage, car payments, kids in college put a strain on things.But one has to ask did they promptly trim expenses? Or are they living the dream keeping up appearances?Some are legitimately stressed, but how many have failed to manage expenditures. Over spending. No reserves. No emergency fund.Its sad. But lets hope they learn the right lessons and do better in the future. More importantly, lets hope future generations learn from this experience.One thing about forced retirement, it can be difficult to reverse when jobs become available again. Some seek disability payments instead.
" More importantly, lets hope future generations learn from this experience."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Like we learned from the Great Depression?Or any of the legion of prior economic disruptions in history?Howie52
I certainly know people who learned the lessons of the Great Depression very well. And they did pass their views on to children and grandchildren.But then 50 yrs later, future generations seem to forget. But then anti intellectualism and disinterest in news and history takes its toll.We know what they should do, but how do you get them to like it?
"We know what they should do, but how do you get them to like it? "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Perhaps.Just perhaps.There should be television shows which celebrate hard work and savingsrather than celebrities and splashy consumerism?Instead of government sponsored lotteries there should be sur-taxeson unneeded cosmetic surgeries? Instead of government-paid disabilities there should be government paid jobs that the less disabled can do to earn their disabilitypayments. Howie52There are a lot of ways to encourage prudence - but instituting such programs takes work and political risks.Neither items is included in the platforms of either politicalparty.Other than the tea-party adherents.
There should be television shows which celebrate hard work and savingsrather than celebrities and splashy consumerism?You can make all the television shows you want, but getting people to watch them, that's the trick. It's like eating vegetables; you can make them available cheap, but people are still gonna go to McDonald's and drink Cokes.Instead of government-paid disabilities there should be government paid jobs that the less disabled can do to earn their disabilitypayments. Now you have a gigantic infrastructure (managers! factories! billing!) to run and nobody's going to go for that. Personally, I would increase the staff of fraud enforcers, and offer bounties for people who uncover disability fraud. I'm totally in favor of disability insurance; I'm totally against its abuse.Other than the tea-party adherents.Isn't it the tea-party guys who are cutting the enforcement arm of the IRS, the fraud detection of the VA and Medicare, and slicing the bone of almost every other government program, whether it's deserved or not? You know, "if it's government, it must be bad. But keep your hands off my Social Security!"
"Isn't it the tea-party guys who are cutting the enforcement arm of the IRS, the fraud detection of the VA and Medicare, and slicing the bone of almost every other government program, whether it's deserved or not? You know, "if it's government, it must be bad. But keep your hands off my Social Security!"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Only if you believe propaganda.Howie52There are groups that do not support any government programs.There are more that do not support programs that do not work andnever have ----- and likely never will.And there are many more that do not support government intrusioninto individual liberty, rights as defined in the Bill of Rights,and government attempts to regulate individuals through intimidationand regulatory fiat.
Only if you believe propaganda.Ah. You mean "the propaganda" from the tea party itself, right?House Ravages IRS, Guts $1.1 Billion from Tax Enforcement BudgetThe House voted Monday to cut more than $1 billion from the IRS’s tax enforcement budget, giving Republicans a big helping of revenge against an agency they’ve battled all year. http://www.teaparty.org/house-ravages-irs-guts-1-1-billion-t...You'll notice that's from "teaparty.org". Now let's check the comments, shall we?"Why not reduce its budget to zero?""Not enough cuts. Only budget enough for employees to deposit payments. Nothing more. Tech budget should also be zero"Oh, and those radical libs in the military!Bachmann plan would cut veterans benefitsTea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has unveiled a plan for cutting $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing Veterans Affairs Department health care spending and cutting veterans' disability benefits.http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20110128/NEWS/101280313...If you don't understand this, you're just not paying attention.
My program: Get the taxes back to pre-Reagan levels. Quadruple the size of the IRS.Spend money on infra structure in this country not in Israel or Iraq or Egypt.Rebuild America and punish the theiving tax cheaters.This is not rocket science.
"Why not reduce its budget to zero?""Not enough cuts. Only budget enough for employees to deposit payments. Nothing more. Tech budget should also be zero"Funny how these mavens of personal responsibility want everything for nothing.
My program: Get the taxes back to pre-Reagan levels. Taxes under Reagan were 18% of GNP. It's worth noting, however, that the taxes did not cover the expenditures, resulting in "Reagan’s deficits – 4.3 percent of GDP – were the highest in US history except World War II."http://www.georgetowner.com/articles/2012/oct/31/history-tax...So it would be fair to decide whether you want those tax rates - and that deficit, or whether a different structure would be valid. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you wanted to pay for Reagan's deficits, the tax rates would be nearly identical to today.By the way. Federal tax revenue as a percent of GNP under Obama: lower than under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. There is a spike in expenses in '09, '10, and '11 thanks to the economic collapse in '08, but even that is beginning to come down and now stands lower than 4 of Reagan's 8 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#me...Quadruple the size of the IRS.Spend money on infra structure in this country not in Israel or Iraq or Egypt.I'm OK with this.This is not rocket science.Based on how hard it is to get accomplished you'd think it is.
Get the taxes back to pre-Reagan levels. Taxes under Reagan were 18% of GNPyou saw the "pre-" I presume.
"If you don't understand this, you're just not paying attention. "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Perhaps you have not been paying attention to the VA.How does one attempt to "fix" a severely flawed organization?An organization that has gone so far as to reward those whodirectly prevent the organization from performing the servicesit was intended to provide?How can you merely increase funding to such a remarkable failure ofa government program?But still there is not a full recognition of how badly flawed theVA has become. Your comments make this failure to recognize the magnitude of the VA problems obvious. Yet how can you arrange tofix a failed organization when one "group" that must be involved inthe fix cannot see how far gone the organization is? How does arestructure begin?This is true for both the VA. The IRS has a large problem - more so in it's use as an attack dog against an "enemies" list. You seem to see the government as all one thing or all another.That is not the nature of representative government - at least noteffective government. That seems to be the great flaw in thethinking being used recently. You want to call folks withdifferent ideas wrong, dumb, vile, racist, and just about any other name under the sun. That divides and robs the nation ofthe intelligence of - really all sides in a debate. The start of the Tea Party - the roots of it - are not againstgovernment - but they are against wasteful and ineffectivegovernment. To my mind, congress needs to start discussions - and preparelegislation by putting forward a plan. You get people to discuss - you don't say "this is the way it shall be" you say "lets talk about what give and take there may be found". Ifyou need to get people to pay attention - you very well mightstart out by saying "cut the program completely". Generally, youno more expect legislation to match an initial proposal than you expect a game of poker to be won on the first card drawn.Howie52
you saw the "pre-" I presume.Actually, I missed that. Thanks. Because it makes the argument even better.Taxes as a percent of GDP in:1972: 17.01973: 17.01974: 17.71975: 17.31976: 16.61977: 17.21978: 17.51979: 17.51980; 18,01981: 18.51982: 19.11983: 18.61984: 19.21985: 19.21986: 19.91987: 18.81988: 17.01989: 15.71990: 15.6They were in the low 17's to the low 19's during the Clinton years, then…Went to 19.9 in Bush's first year, then sank back to 18.8, 17.0, and 15.7 in the following years.In Obama's term:2009: 14.62010: 14.62011: 15.02012: 15.22013: 16.7Therefore, the conclusion is…taxes are already lower than they were "pre" Regan. Or During Reagan, for that matter.Numbers from the Tax Policy Center:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...Federal household tax rate is lower than it has been at any time since 1972 (which is as far back as this particular chart goes:)http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/a-tax-impact-from-grand...
Taxes as a percent of GDP in:I suggest you go back and review the numbers. You didn't do a good job of cutting and pasting.PSU
And your corrected version is posted where?PF
Right or wrong I am think % of GDP is not what I was writing about. I want to make the tax code more progressive as a way to put more money in the hands of the spenders.
And your corrected version is posted where?When did I say I was going to do the work for Goofy?PSUlazy since 1902
The start of the Tea Party - the roots of it - are not againstgovernment - but they are against wasteful and ineffectivegovernment. And this is why nobody who matters takes the Tea Party seriously. That's like saying you are against zombies or in favor of puppies. *Everybody* is against waste and ineffectiveness. Everybody. Everybody wants the government to work better. The Tea Party has offered *zero* solutions in that regard. For various reasons, I've been following the career of Tea Party darling Sen. Mike Lee fairly closely. As far as I can tell, he has yet to support--not even author, but support--a specific bill that would eliminate one dime of government waste. Sure, he coupled defunding Obamacare with the government shutdown. That meant millions of government workers got paid for doing nothing, while Mike Lee grandstanded. Doing nothing and getting paid for it is the poster child for wasteful and ineffective government. Oh, and Obamacare didn't get defunded and nothing changed. And Mike Lee is *proud* of wasting all that money. Says he would waste it all again because it was waste of money for a cause he supports. He likes wasteful and inefficient government if it benefits him. But hates it if it benefits other people. What the Tea Party needs to do if they want to move beyond laughing stock territory is say something like this: The VA is necessary, but there are some problems with it. Here are our proposed solutions to those problems.
What the Tea Party needs to do if they want to move beyond laughing stock territory is say something like this: The VA is necessary, but there are some problems with it. Here are our proposed solutions to those problems. Yes, this. If they would offer realistic solutions to the problems they see, more people would join them in their efforts. Instead, they seem to grandstand and get stuck on one or two issues, and don't know the meaning of the word "compromise."They might not be able to fix EVERYTHING, RIGHT THIS MINUTE, but why not try to fix what they can or at least offer more solutions that can get the brainstorming going?MinxieAgainst wastefulness and inefficiency but I just can't stick with the Tea Party politics.
I suggest you go back and review the numbers. You didn't do a good job of cutting and pasting.I didn't cut and paste, I typed. And yes, I didn't catch that there was an extra line for some reason between 1976 and 1977. which transposed the next several lines by one year. That is a mistake, but doesn't change the overall narrative: taxes are as low - or lower - than they were pre-Reagan, during Reagan, during Bush I, and during Clinton.But, in the interest of correctness, here are the corrected numbers, along with some explanatory comments:1972: 17.01973: 17.01974: 17.71975: 17.31976: 16.61977: 17.51978: 17.51979: 18.01980: 18.51981: 19.11982: 18.6 ~ (first year of Reagan tax cuts) ~ (deficit accelerates)1983: 17.0 1984: 16.91985: 17.21986: 17.01987: 17.91988: 17.61989: 17.81990: 17.41991: 17.31992: 17.01993: 17.01994: 17.51995: 17.81996: 18.2 ~ (tax receipts begin to climb thanks to capital gains on stock market bubble)1997: 18.6 ~ (more capital gains; higher salaries too)1998: 19.2 ~ US budget goes into surplus1999: 19.2 2000: 19.9 2001: 18.8 ~ budget surplus ends2002: 17.0 ~ (Cheney convinces Bush "Deficits Don't Matter"; tax cuts passed)2003: 15.7 ~ (deficits begin to accelerate. Spending for Iraq War begins)2004: 15.62005: 16.72006: 17.62007: 17.92008: 17.12009: 14.6 ~ (tax receipts plunge as thousands fall into lower tax brackets or are unemployed)2010: 14.6 2011: 15.02012: 15.22013: 16.72014: 17.3 ~ (estimate) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...
there was an extra line for some reason between 1976 and 1977.That was a "one quarter" short fiscal year when the US government switched from a June 30 year end to the current Sept 30 year end.--Peter
And here is another reason nobody takes the Tea Party seriouslyhttp://www.politusic.com/best/is-medicare-socialized-healthc...
"*Everybody* is against waste and ineffectiveness."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I disagree.The VA managers who directed falsifying of records were - and are -not against waste and ineffectiveness.They applaud it.They award bonuses for it.And the people who suggest that shoveling MORE money into the broken system also do the same.People who argue against measures of effectiveness - against monitoring performance of - oh say teachers - are not against waste or ineffectiveness.people who use the IRS or the FTC or the FCC or the LRB or the DHS or the Justice Department or any other of the legion of convoluted and conflicting ies and departments for political attack purposes -they want ineffective and wasteful government.Politicians who have the gall to claim there is "nothing more that can be cut" - not only are disingenuous - but want waste andineffective government.If you do not measure performance - and are not willing to dispose ofthe criminal, wasteful, inept and ineffective people and programs,you also want waste - and ineffective government.Howie52Frankly, the Tea Party folk are the only ones who make any sense intheir view of what a bottomless pit and increasingly dysfunctionalbeast our government has become over the years.
I disagree.The VA managers who directed falsifying of records were - and are -not against waste and ineffectiveness.They applaud it.They award bonuses for it.And the people who suggest that shoveling MORE money into the broken system also do the same.People who argue against measures of effectiveness - against monitoring performance of - oh say teachers - are not against waste or ineffectiveness.That is, with all due respect, a puerile argument, like most of the Tea Party's arguments. The VA does not "award bonuses for waste and ineffectiveness." There were unintended consequences to some of the programs put in place, and clearly not effective oversight, but it's ridiculous to suggest that someone sat around a table someplace and said "Hey, let's do this because it's wasteful and ineffective." "Monitoring the performance of teachers" is one of those things that sounds great in theory. But how do you do that--effectively--without considering and addressing all of the extraneous things that contribute--or prevent--student learning? That's how I see the Tea Party--sound bites that sound great in theory, but when a thinking person scratches the surface, there's nothing there. Politicians who have the gall to claim there is "nothing more that can be cut" - not only are disingenuous - but want waste andineffective government.If you do not measure performance - and are not willing to dispose ofthe criminal, wasteful, inept and ineffective people and programs,you also want waste - and ineffective government."Things that can be cut" and "dealing with criminal and inept people" are 2 different things. I agree that people who are not doing their job shouldn't be there any more. Someone was not paying attention at the VA, I'll agree with that. But there is an enormous difference between "let's cut Medicaid" and "Let's manage it better." The problem, of course, is that the Tea Party can't seem to differentiate between these 2 statements. Frankly, the Tea Party folk are the only ones who make any sense Sweet Jesus, this is a frightening statement.
Solutions to the problem are not what any party really talks about. It seems they are so focused on getting back in office that solving problems is the last thing on their minds! I would really like to see a President or a Senator govern.
Once you explain who's benefits/programs will be cut, or who's taxes will be raised to pay for necessary Gov't services or debt reduction, you start to lose support.That's why politicians rarely provide any specifics and lack credibility.intercst
Hate to see the Retirement board waylaid by this political discussion. There are plenty of other boards here on the Fool or elsewhere for such a thing...............soybeans
"That is, with all due respect, a puerile argument, like most of the Tea Party's arguments."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I know it must be frightening to you to see something new.And it is the normal simplistic reaction to attack what is new and what you do not understand.When you are so tied into the status quo and something threatens theold "dyed in the wool" power structures - the old guard, I canunderstand you being against new and different ideas.Don't worry. You will get used to the ideas and may even learn to see wisdom from other groups than the same tired old crew.Howie52
"Hate to see the Retirement board waylaid by this political discussion. "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Both retirement and investing are influenced by political questions.And retirement is a very individual circumstance - and individualscarry their views with them in their pockets - like lint. And - for thebetter or for the worse - we have government programs and policies that do impact both retirement and investing.There will always be a thread here or a thread there that brings outindividual's views on life, the universe - and politics or politicallyskewed items.But political discussions do not of necessity have to fall into apropaganda-filled diatribe - although there is a rather disturbing tendency for exactly this to happen on the boards - the "otherboards" intended for such things in particular. The ability to maintain a level of respect for a different opinion is something you do not tend to find on most boards.So, as long as everyone knows how to "play nice", an occasional walkinto the shadow of the valley of political discussion will not harm any discussion board irreparably.Just not on a routine basis. Howie52The problem with politics tends to be the "win or lose" nature ofdebate - and elections I guess. And people do love to win. And to win at all costs - even if winning entails declaring with a straightface that your "opponent" is descended from the lowest and disgustingslugs - when in fact the opponent is your brother or sister.So, politics - and creating legislation - is considered a lot likemaking sausage. Watching it occur will tend to turn one againstthe idea of politics and creation of laws and enforcement of laws.But our constitutional republic requires that we be involved - at leastto the point where we listen, express our opinions where helpfuland vote.
I know it must be frightening to you to see something new.Is this a knowledge claim about the state of mind of the OP? (It is sometimes hard to know this sort of thing about someone even in person; on the internet, it is next to impossible. Are you adding in some previous information from other her posts?) And it is the normal simplistic reaction to attack what is new and what you do not understand.Is this then not really focused on the OP in particular but on people in general? Or are you still thinking that her reaction is a simplistic attack upon new things that she doesn’t understand?In other words, are you making a general statement about a human tendency to attack things that are new and not understood, or are you saying that the OP has failed to understand a new message and then reacts by attacking it? A similar problem arises with the statement that ... I can understand you being against new and different ideas.Don't worry. You will get used to the ideas and may even learn to see wisdom from other groups than the same tired old crew.Is this the use of the word "you" here addressed to the OP specifically? (Again, I wonder how you know so much about this individual) or is it a general statement, like "I understand how people resist new and different ideas, but they get used to them, and may even find wisdom in them.”As a third party to this exchange of posts, it seems to me that there is something unsaid that is really at the root of the problem here. The OP doesn’t think anything really new is being said (“it’s puerile,” that is, it falls into a known category of defective ideas), but you seem to believe that something really new is being said. I think by something “new” you mean more than something that does not exist at this time and place, but something that has not existed at all before, even at other times and places. (Yes?) Maybe if you could explain this new thing, and, in particular, how it really is new, that could help.TIAculcha
My program: Get the taxes back to pre-Reagan levels. Quadruple the size of the IRS.Spend money on infra structure in this country not in Israel or Iraq or Egypt.Rebuild America and punish the theiving tax cheaters.This is not rocket science.Sorry for the late reply but I couldn't resist.No it isn't rocket science. But what requires rocket science is figuring out how to get all those hated and corrupt Congressman and Senators of both parties out of office so someone can implement this very basic program.Moe
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |