Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (532208)	11/24/2009 1:02:57 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574706

"I work with a lot of people in that category, and they are all hustling to make more money, work overtime, work second jobs, do odd jobs." I've been there. And that is precisely the case. Which is what annoys me the most about the article. Again, the basic point is valid, but I've met very few people in that income group who game the system like it assumes. Like with i-node claiming that unemployment means that people prefer to get it and watch Oprah instead of working. I won't comment on his choice of TV shows, but... "Tim lives in a different world." No kidding. But he has a lot of company here.

To: Road Walker who wrote (532208)	11/24/2009 5:36:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574706

Odd jobs, and some of the not odd jobs are off the books or partially off the books and don't effect tax liability or benefits. Also not everyone with that income qualifies for extensive benefits (no kids, not in a very generous state, well you get very little) esp. without the addition of the health insurance mandates and subsidies that would come in with the current reform efforts if they get passed in to law. And then of course even people who qualify aren't always going to be benefit maximizers, I've already stated that point more than once, pointing it out now isn't contradicting me or showing how I live in some different world. But for those who are benefit maximizers you create severe perverse incentives, and even for those who are not, and so who face effective rates of say "only" 75% that's still a big problem. I personally have known people who faced the benefit trap, who received benefits and where afraid to go back to work, or to work more for extra income, because they would lose the benefits and might be worse off than before. The fact that it doesn't apply to every single low income person doesn't mean it doesn't apply to a lot of people, esp. if your talking about the broader problems of the high marginal tax rates, and not just the semi-voluntary unemployment I mention earlier in this paragraph. The more social programs we add on (assuming they are income sensitive), and the more taxes we add, the worse the problem gets. Right now its manageable, but we're creating incentives for more and more people to put their efforts in to gaming the system.