It's not over yet

[Mikell]

States in crisis
State unemployment benefits in the crosshairs

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The jobless may soon find their state unemployment check is not in the mail.

A growing number of states are looking to cut back on jobless benefits to minimize the increase in unemployment taxes businesses pay. State officials are concerned that these tax hikes could deter companies from hiring.

Some 32 states now owe $45.7 billion to the fund, and could have to pay about $1.4 billion in interest this year. The burden will fall mainly on businesses, which will have to pay more in unemployment taxes.

Right now, companies are scheduled to pay a minimum of $72.10 per employee, up from $25.20 last year, to help cover Florida's $2.2 billion debt to the federal unemployment trust fund.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/23/news/economy/state_unemployment_benefits/index.htm?hpt=T2


I see this as the real job killer in America. Add to the equation that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, second to Japan, and the recovery will take years. We're not out of the woods yet.

[Terry Penrod]

.

The current fiscal crisis is just a tiny bump in America's long road to recovery.

Chronic unemployment combined with weak education, rampant obesity and generally poor health are all conspiring to bring this country down.

It's not just about jobs. It's about good jobs that people can count on in order to make long-range plans and investments. It's also about getting a handle on the severe problems associated with our public-school and health-care systems.

A nation of fat, ignorant, sick people is NOT a winning formula and no amount of fanatical flag waving or wishful thinking will ever change that sad fact.

America USED to be smart, lean and fit. Now it is stupid, flabby and lazy compared to its fiercest competitors. Either that all changes soon or we go down in a heap of steaming, denial-ridden, entitlement-sucking cellulite.

Cheers, Terry

[Gary V.]

You nailed, Terry.

[Mikell]

Here is a huge part of the problem. When Medicaid started in 1965, one in fifty Americans were in the program. Now that figure is one in six. Do we really have more poor now than we did in 1965? No we just kept lowering the eligibility requirements.


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/Mikell_photos/Medicaid.jpg

[Terry Penrod]

.

No doubt Mikell, that Medicaid is one of the single biggest, constant drains on our tax dollars and it is rife with waste, fraud and other problems.

Medicare is also a giant financial sink hole, but at least it only serves people who paid into the system for 10 years or more who are over 65 or have a real disability, which significantly lowers the total number of those eligible. The vast majority are also much older to begin with and therefore in the program for a shorter time, plus many enrolees pay for supplemental coverage out of their own pockets.

So I have far less of a problem with people on Medicare than with a huge percentage of those on Medicaid who pay zero and number in the multi-millions.

That too is the crux of our divided left / right society. One side wants the government to provide everything for everybody and the other side believes in self-reliance as much as humanly possible.

As a moderate, I support some entitlements like this for the most tragic among us, but NOT for average people who are perfectly capable of working. I feel the same way about food stamps, low-income housing and other massive taxpayer giveaways.

Welfare should be a short-term last resort, NOT a damned way of life!

Cheers, Terry

.

[OldsterHolster]

America USED to be smart, lean and fit. Now it is stupid, flabby and lazy compared to its fiercest competitors. Either that all changes soon or we go down in a heap of steaming, denial-ridden, entitlement-sucking cellulite.

Heh, heh, heh. One of your best comments, ever, I think.

So, given that there is no "going back," what do you think the future holds. Not what we want, but where we are headed with no answer on how to change directions. We're on a train owned and operated by the money god, and trains have mass and momentum that is not to be taken lightly. They don't stop, start, or change directions easily, and about the only thing they do quickly is jump the tracks and wreck.

I'm really not as pessimistic and negative as I may sound, and I have peace and joy in my personal life, but, like you, Terry, and many others, I look out the train window and know without a doubt that we're on a dead-end set of tracks.

It's a long train with too many passengers fitting that "steaming pile" description adding to the mass and momentum. The rich and powerful are up in the engine, driving, and they are happy with their seats and the view it provides, so they just keep inching the throttle forward. I've got a plan, though.

I've been a member in good standing of the "working poor" all my life, so my seat is pretty far back in the train, anyway. Trying to move forward towards the engine and drivers seems hopeless, so I think I'll start working my way to the caboose, and, when the front of the train starts falling off the cliff, I'm going to tie a pillow to my ass and jump off. Heh, heh, heh. Edward.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Good plan, Edward.

As for what I think will happen - a major overhaul to Medicare and Medicaid along with serious cuts to spending in a full range of other programs including certain military budgets, foreign aid, government-worker benefit packages, etc., etc.

I also believe we will eventually see some type of Social Security reform to raise the average age of eligibility with fewer long-term, cost-of-living increases plus a revamping of the tax code to weed-out numerous loopholes and (possibly) higher top-tier tax rates for the wealthiest individuals. The quickly diminshing middle and rapidly expanding working-poor classes should NOT have their income taxes raised period.

Otherwise, I would LOVE to see a true flat federal income tax / national sales tax combo for individuals and a MUCH more competitive corporate tax rate (but again, with as close to zero loopholes as possible).

Yes we have too many ultra-greedy people sucking-up all the profits. But we also have thousands upon thousands of honest businesses struggling like hell to survive. We can not make it even harder for them to grow / hire / invest and prosper.

Will a whole lot of people from top to bottom be effected by all these sweeping changes? Hell yes and that includes a bunch of good people who will need to live on less. Almost every single American will have to sacrifice something if we are ever going to get our financial house back in order and I am more than willing to accept that reality for myself. I will gladly postpone, perhaps even forego Social Security payments and Medicare benefits assuming I live long enough to qualify and if my personal income keeps growing, I will he happy to pay higher income taxes, higher capital gains taxes and higher sales / property taxes if it will help balance a FAIR budget.

Look, times are tough for the vast majority of all Americans and simply taxing the super rich into oblivion will NOT fix our problem. All of us little guys will also have to do without and adjust out lofty dreams of someday becoming rich. Sorry, there just isn't enough total national income for everybody to have the proverbial nice house in the suburbs with two cars and a cushy lifestyle - let alone a mansion and a life of luxury.

Cheers, Terry

[Mikell]

I agree with most of what the two of you have said. (Edward and Terry)
Except the point on extending the requirement age of Social Security.
The older I get the less viable I am for the workforce. I fully expect to work until I'm dead or disabled and hopefully that will be after I reach 65.
Right now I'm at 28 years of full time work. I don't expect a payoff but I would like to hold onto the little house I bought for $71,000. Don't tax me out of it. The system should be (and used to be) structured so that you pay upfront into SS so when you are on a fixed income like Edward, you've paid your dues.
I personally believe if you pay into it your whole life, after 65, NO income tax. NO property tax. A years defense budget would pay for it.

But everyone has to pay their dues and Terry you are right on about those who don't. Being on the government dole is not a career.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Mikell, the problem with keeping the current, minimum age of eligibility for Social Security is that people are living longer on average and our elderly population is expanding to absorb an ever-larger percentage of the GNP.

Given our dire financial condition, it seems prudent to (slowly) raise that age requirement at least a few years to help offset the tremendous added costs, so this country can start climbing out of the deep fiscal hole it is in.

Personally, I am willing to make that and other sacrfices to aid in the cause of an economically healthier future for our grandchildren.

As for taxing the lower-to-middle classes straight into receivership / bankruptcy - that simply can not happen. We MUST allow that very large percentage of our people to survive if not thrive, so they can maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.

If we fail to provide a livable economic environment for our workers, we will fail as a nation as so many great societies have done in the past. When the gap between the rich and working poor gets too big for too long, history has proven time and again that a country will collapse one way or another. It just isn't a sustainable formula for success.

That's why I support a freeze on lower-to-middle-class income taxes, if not a truly fair flat income tax with zero loopholes for the rich. It is also why we need to revamp our entire corporate tax structure to encourage businesses to stay here, but without giving ANY of them a free ride.

If we can somehow fix our broken tax system and get a handle on our runaway entitlement programs, we can solve this problem.

Cheers, Terry

.