Ownership Myth

And The Two-Income Syndrome

Published on September 14, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

The current median income for a family of four is about $55,000 or approximately three times that of the poverty line at $19,000 for a family of four. The problem with these statistics when trying to arrive at a “living wage” that often is juxtaposed to the horrific rate of $5.15 an hour or $10,500, which if adjusted for inflation should be at $7.50 or $15,000, is in the difficulty of determining how much of the median and the poverty line owe to two salaries. If those at the four-family poverty line consists of two-incomes at the minimal wage the income would place the family at above the line by $2,000 or a total income of $21,000. This example, however, does not consider the costs of child care, whether governmentally assisted or out of pocket. Nor does it take into account the erosion of parental quality under such duress. For the median $55,000 may constitute some cushion for child care but leaving little room for building wealth or “ownership.” Moreover, the payroll tax, respectively, $1400 and $3500, substantially reduces the subsistence level of both groups. As for the income tax, chances are the minimal level will not be taxed at all, and those frozen on the median will be helped somewhat by having dependents; in spite of this, the move to “ownership” is out of the question.

If, however, the minimum wage rose the necessary 8.7%, it would also affect the median by perhaps an additional 5% so that the low level increased some $1800 and the median some $2700 and from there adjusted for inflation annually, some progress would be made on the road to ownership, but more importantly would increase the rolls of the middle class. This, of course, does not address the shame of the two-income family where it directly affects the degradation of raising children. Only those above the median can find the right child care through comfortably retired, or one-income grandparents or professional nanas. For the rest, most leave to chance the well-being of their children.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 7)

Texas Wahine

on Sep 18, 2004

Or, realistically, we could lower taxes...

How would that help poor families? Taxes are not a burden for the impoverished . . . at what point does lower taxes help those in need?

ShoZan

on Sep 18, 2004

How would that help poor families? Taxes are not a burden for the impoverished . . . at what point does lower taxes help those in need?

At what point do higher taxes help those in need?

stevendedalus

on Sep 18, 2004

At what point do higher taxes help those in need?

I'll answer with the no-no phrase: some fair distribution of wealth would help immensely.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 18, 2004

ShoZan: Just so you know, I am NOT saying that "the rich don't pay enough taxes" or anything like that . . .

However, taxes help by funding programs that give aid to the poor in the forms of food items, job training, reduced cost child care, cash benefits, etc. (I'm sure there is much, much more . . . that's just off the top of my head). The poor do not pay taxes, therefore, high tax rates are not a burden on them. I'd just be interested in hearing his theory on how being "realistic" and slashing taxes will help lift Americans out of poverty.

ShoZan

on Sep 19, 2004

What about the middle class and the lower middle class, taxes are killing them and they are THE ECONOMY.

How poor do you have to be not to pay taxes, when I was in the military one year I made 14,000 but still paid taxes, so how poor is poor to get the no tax break?

Texas Wahine

on Sep 19, 2004

What about the middle class and the lower middle class, taxes are killing them and they are THE ECONOMY.

Really? Taxes are killing them? Considering that pretty much everyone I know falls under that category, I don't think I would go so far as to say that taxes are killing them . . . even with taxes they have food and they have a decent roof over their heads. Having said that, I agree with you that the middle class often gets the shaft. I definitely don't have the solution.

How poor do you have to be not to pay taxes, when I was in the military one year I made 14,000 but still paid taxes, so how poor is poor to get the no tax break?

You need to get someone else to do your taxes, dude. You're getting screwed. (Maybe it's because you're single?) Last year we reported nearly $10K more than that in base pay alone, and we got everything we paid in back plus tax credits.

ShoZan

on Sep 19, 2004

Well I did get $900 back last time I filed taxes, so it may have been the case, never know.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 19, 2004

Hey, if it happens that you didn't get back the full amount that you should have, you can still get that money back later. Next time you file your taxes, have your accountant look over that year that you didn't get any money back.

1tomot1

on Sep 19, 2004

Really? Taxes are killing them?

Even economists for Morgan Stanley and many other prominent "anything-but-liberal" financial analysts have said over and over again that the tax cuts enacted by Bush move a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto the lower middle class and low income families of America.

In order to pay no taxes you have to make less than 8K (maybe less) a year.

If we are going to avoid the discussion of how a minimal step toward financial equity is minimum wage. Maybe we should consider the solution proposed by Dr. King. Not long before he was assassinated, while he working on his "Poor People's Campaign" King said that the only way to eliminate poverty and racism in America would be a radical redistribution of the wealth of the nation.

100

ShoZan

on Sep 19, 2004

Not long before he was assassinated, while he working on his "Poor People's Campaign" King said that the only way to eliminate poverty and racism in America would be a radical redistribution of the wealth of the nation.

i.e. Socialism, well EngSoc worked in 1984, why won't it work now!!!

HOORAY!!!

101

drmiler

on Sep 19, 2004

Reply #99 By: 1tomot1 - 9/19/2004 1:25:25 PM

Really? Taxes are killing them?

Even economists for Morgan Stanley and many other prominent "anything-but-liberal" financial analysts have said over and over again that the tax cuts enacted by Bush move a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto the lower middle class and low income families of America.

In order to pay no taxes you have to make less than 8K (maybe less) a year.

I don't know who your tax accountant is but you should fire him/her. My wife made 35K and I made 12 K on disability last year. Lets see unless I REALLY suck at math that's 47K, right? We paid $0 in taxes! We got BACK every penny we paid!

102

1tomot1

on Sep 19, 2004

i.e. Socialism, well EngSoc worked in 1984, why won't it work now!!!

Acutally that would be more in line with Jeffersonian (Thomas, you know the "founding father") politics. Which it's pretty safe to say is about as American as apple pie, or so the saying goes.

When he and the rest of the early American political heavyweights were working out their radical new concepts they were basing them on the economic structure as it existed at the time. They argued that capitalism at that point would maintain a more equalitarian aspect due to the nature that America was an agricultural based economy (e.g. the majority of the population at that point were small farmers etc.)

Some major changes have occurred since that time which in Jefferson's perspective would have in his words "defeated the American revolution."

A mjor one being the existence of corporations that wield a disproportionate amount of wealth and power which undermines the competitive nature of capitalism as Jefferson saw it. He wrote that "the day that monied inccorporations (corporations as we know them today) outlive their progenitor, the American revolution has been lost."

He further elaborated that the reason for this was that by individuals or groups of individuals having the ability to amass so much wealth and power and pass it to another generation, it would undermine the potential of others to have a fair shot.

So in a very simple sense a redistribution of the nation's wealth would serve democracy and the equality of oppurtunity it requires to function properly.

If you want to consider bedrock American politics as "socialsit" you're free to do so. However, as usual you would be wrong.

103

Texas Wahine

on Sep 19, 2004

drmiler:

Yup. I don't know where the 8K number came from, but it's wrong. We always get back what we paid in plus tax credits, and our income has always been above 8K.

104

1tomot1

on Sep 19, 2004

Yup. I don't know where the 8K number came from, but it's wrong. We always get back what we paid in plus tax credits, and our income has always been above 8K.

If you had read my post you would have noticed that I said NO taxes. I wasn't talking about year end tax refunds. What you are referring to is the level of refund on taxes you have already paid.

Apples and oranges.

If you read the tax codes there is a set dollar amount that shows at what level you do not have to pay income taxes period. I think 8K is in the ballpark but it may be much lower than that.

I REALLY suck at math that's 47K, right? We paid $0 in taxes! We got BACK every penny

Once again you are talking about your refund. Not the level of taxes paid. As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back. You don't get what you pay in social security, medicaid, etc. back until you ar of elegible age to collect those benefits.

Also, as I stated above what the majority of economists continue to say is that Bush's tax cuts hurt low income and lower middle class families most by making them shoulder a disproportionate share of the national tax burden. This seems to have cast some confusion, so I will attempt to clarify.

drmiler: if you have a combined household income of 47K a year you would not fall into either lower middle class or low income according to the median household income stats. In about half of the states in the country you would be the picture of average middle class, not lower. So obviously that doesn't apply to you. Also you mentioned that you receive disability as your income. I am not sure how that effects your tax status, but it may be to your advantage at filing time.

And once again, the comments about who is being hurt by the tax cuts comes from economists at places like Morgan Stanley. I didn't write their analysis for them. If you don't beleive them you are fre to do so. But personally I would trust the assessment of people who do that work for a living more than a politician with a job on the line.

Try taking a look at the website for the Economic Policy Institute for more information on our current economic situation. They just released their State of Working America analysis which provides some very insightful information that is easy to read as well.

105

Texas Wahine

on Sep 19, 2004

I have no freaking clue what you mean (my fault, not yours) . . . I understand that the money comes out of every paycheck up front and it is refunded later. I also understand that social security and all that is taken out and not refunded. I have never considered those a part of income tax. In my mind they have been something separate. So, are you saying that at 8K or under you pay in nothing . . . not even social security, medicare, etc.? Can you expand on all that a bit?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!