Fixed that for ya.:p


The law says, if they don't give notice they have to pay them for it.

Legal battle to ensue....Great another way for the lawyers to get rich and the people who are rightfully deserving of the money to get even less.

Somebody asked earlier how we had positioned to avoid the crash.

My wife and I were about 80% invested contrary to the market, mostly in ETFs like SDS and SKF. There was a little bit of nervousness when short sales froze ... overall, a very good holding.

I think we're at or near the bottom, so I'm switching over to a more standard basket of stocks.

I got the benefit of the WARN act back in 2003 when OFS/Lucent laid everybody off...
Good times, good times.

Wait.

A COOKIE company just went belly up?

O.
M.
G.

This is really bad.

That's the way the cookie crumbles

I heard this morning on GMA that the average american has lost 19-25% of the value of their 401K investments. The overall market is down 40%, so as long as you were diversified, hopefully you haven't taken too bad a hit. (What to Do With Your Money
Mellody Hobson and John Bussey discuss the government's plan for the economy.)

I just got my last quarterly statement, and have lost 10% so far since the first of the year. I have been a bit conservative up to this point, but I am making a point to now shift my allocations so I am dumping a lot more into more and different stocks than I was till now. I am youngish, and figure I'm gonna buy while it's cheap and have time to wait for the market to recover.

Just to reiterate what Dana said - council housing was the standard option after the war for working class people. It was really appreciated because private landlords didn't labour under a fraction of the regulations they do now and renting was always a gamble. With the council as your landlord you were not going to be kicked out without notice, have your rent doubled or live in somewhere hazardous to your health.

Certainly, living in London - or on its outskirts - you had to have property in the family if you weren't renting.

My Grandad lived all his life after the war in council accommodation. Syill does - his bungalow is council owned, built specifically for pensioners as part of a new estate in the 1980s. He worked hard all his life in low paid, low skilled jobs and now has a decent standard of living as he was lead to believe all the years of paying in Social Security. He's better off than many single men his age living in their own houses. He won't leave anything behind for Mum or Uncle Jim, but again his generation and his class never expected to, and his children certainly don't expect it.

I grew up in a council house. My parents still live in it now, although they bought it in the 80s. Mum says she wishes she'd never bought it because the repairs and maintenance would still be paid for by the counil if they hadn't, and it probably needs rewiring. They are on a list for sheltered housing with a housing association (like Dana says, private associations fulfil this need now). As Dad gets older, they'd like to move somewhere where he doesn't have to worry about stairs, DIY or gardening.

It is a different culture here. We pay higher taxes, so hard working people will take help that's offered without the same stigma as in America. Yes, council housing did get a bad name in the end, but certainly things like child support and state pensions are seen as rights, not welfare.

Quite a lot of my family on mum's side lived (and some still do) on those estates. When I hung out with my older cousins it was the on streets of Madam's Wood estate. Lot of my schoolmates were from estates in Bolton. It was just a fact of life.

My own situation was slightly different. My parents owned their own home from before I was born. When I was three we moved into a beautiful old stone cottage. The area wasn't brilliant, which is why we could afford it, but it was a lovely house and quite big. Quite a few of my friends' parents owned their own homes too (we were a very socially mixed school). Nonethless, every single one of us, including me was advised by teachers, parents, friends and anyone else with an interest to get our names on the housing list as soon as we were of age. Given that it could take years to get to the top of the list and be offered a property it was seen as sensible to get on there as quickly as possible. Better to have the offer of a house that you don't need than no offer of a house that you need :P

I've never owned a house and I am not on the housing list. I rent from private landlords. Like Sundae said, the regulations on the private rental sector are much stronger than they used to be. Though there's still a long way to go and slum landlords are not yet a thing of the past. I see no reason for me to own a house. I don't know where I am going to be at in five years time. I have recognised over the years my limitations and proclivities; I am not motivated by earnings and ownership. If I find myself in a stable setting at some point that allows for property ownership I may consider it.

As a single woman with absolutely no DIY knowhow nor indeed a desire to acquire such, being able to phone the landlord when the boiler breaks down, or the lock on the front door starts sticking, is a definate plus.

If you're all happy with the system you've got in place, well I think think it's fantastic.... although I wonder if so many hard working people would need help from social programs, paid for by taxes, if their taxes weren't so high. The hoops you have to jump thru to get the help have to cost a percentage of those taxes eh, making it more expensive than if you'd kept your money and bought what you needed yourself?

Also, it seems like the word welfare is a hot button of sorts... why is welfare bad if social programs are good?

I hear what you're saying but.... why is it easier to call the landlord than calling the boiler repair man yourself? Or is it the money.... you think you're saving on repairs by renting? Does real estate not appreciate over there? Of course everything is afu right now and I have no idea what our current house is worth compared to what we paid for it (especially since its listed as 2 seperate properties on those house-value websites)..... but our first house, purchased when I was 23, increased in value about $10K per year that we owned it. That's a lot of boiler repairs..... and potentially a lot of money put away for retirement.

Not going completely belly up, just moving everything to it's existing plant in Ontario. At a guess I'd say that they'll probably open up a plant in Mexico and start making NAFTA cookies. Notice that the company is filing in Delaware, even though they do not have a plant or HQ there. This is because Delaware is to corporations what Liberia is to rusting oil tankers, a 'flag of convenience'. By the time they're finished, the workers will end up owing the company back pay.:mad2:

Fixed that for ya.:p

"but certainly things like child support and state pensions are seen as rights, not welfare."

Awesome SG. Very well put....I have some ideas for a non-profit but the first primary mission would be to neutralize the stigmas associated with program, and not rub it down and soak it in pity;marginalization. Let people have some dignity, and utilize a non-profit. As a right not welfare. This means that the acquisition of state and city grants would not be solely on their terms to disparage the interested.

It sounds like those cookie people are getting a crumby deal.

Child support should come from the penis that supplied the sperm, not form the state that had nothing to do with the sexual act.

and if the sperm donor can't pay?

Not my problem. No way. No fucking how. I would fully support free birth control and orphanages. You can't pay for your spawn, give it up and we will care for it and give it to someone who can.

Ah, you're just bitter because your tax deductions are moving out one by one... ;)

It's like insurance. We pay in via taxes, you pay in as individuals. No-one has the right to look down on you for making a claim on your car insurance, house insurance even health insurance. The difference is that the money is there for people who otherwise can't afford it at specific times - Grandad certainly wouldn't have imagined living until 86 alone with someone coming in to wash and dress him, with expensive medicines and regular falls necessitating hospital visits. But when he was a young and lusty scene shifter working at Covent Garden Opera House, his taxes were paying for other children's dental care and teenagers like my Dad in isolation on a TB ward.

I know it is seen very differently in America and I am certainly not trying to change your mind. I was just trying to show how we see it, so the posts make sense.

I understand a lot more about America reading the posts here and it is helpful rather than divisive. But like the idea of what constitutes a decent cup of tea, you tend to be comfortable with what you grew up with :)

I am not sure many of the tax deductions will go away as much as the NoBama's will find a way to take more of what I earn away. I have no problem with it, as long as everyone from those making $1 to $1 million dollars pays the same percentage. But since those at the top tiers already pay the majority of taxes and those at the bottom pay none, how are those at the bottom going to get a tax break?

Huh?

But according to you, as sperm supplier you never should have had tax deductions for your kids anyway, right?

But if you give them to me. And since I have had children, and have been taking them for 21 years, and then you take them away to pay for some other spawn who does not pay taxes, and most likely never did, that is a problem.

Huh? Both of you lost me on this one.

Well, Merc was bitching about taxpayer-funded programs, of the kind he believes Obama will increase by taking more of Merc's money. I indirectly pointed out that Merc himself has been taking advantage of a taxpayer-funded social perk all these years, in the form of tax deductions for his children. Just because they didn't call it "welfare" doesn't mean he isn't getting a break from the government to help raise his kids.

His response seems to be that it's okay to give back money to people who already pay taxes, it's giving free money to people who pay no taxes that he has a problem with--but I'm not entirely sure, his last post above isn't terribly clear.

And worthy to note, in most cases the money you are getting "back" is not money you paid out during the year. You are getting back more than paid out i.e. a total tax liability in the negative range.

If Clodfobble can't understanding a post, ain't nobody gonna understand that post.

She gets it.

Getting money you haven't paid out...same damn thing.

You paid 1000 over the year. You do your taxes. You get 5000 back.

Welfare ho in sheepish clothing!

Well actually it doesn't work that way. I pay $60000 in taxes and get a break by not being futher taxed on the rest of the money I make by subtracting the $5000 from the top. Hardly the same thing.

How about this. I make $18000 a year, I pay no taxes. Now give me my free health care and I want a burger with fries too.:headshake

If you're paying 60,000 in taxes, you must be a CEO of a bank or something.

Total. Tax. Liability.

I pay far more than I ever get back. I have never gotten back more than I have paid in. Furthermore, the deductions I get for having children do not even remotely cover the actual costs associated with raising, caring for & educating them.

What am I missing here?

Merc could you live on $350 a week? Consider trying to make rent, groceries, gas, utilities, insurance and whatnot on that amount. Now, take off the taxes are that ARE taken out of that check and try. I work with people who have to make hard choices about what gets paid or not. Life is really really hard at that level. A LOT of people are trying to struggle through at that level.

Without going into my personal circumstances too much...
I know I couldn't - I tried. Caring for a family of 5 on that is impossible. So I got a 2nd job and a third job and put myself through college so that I could independently provide better for my family. I did what was necessary to generate more money.
I received food stamps and using them made me sick every time - The stigma THAT I FELT taking a handout was a great motivating factor for me.

Another success story for government programs. My Mom did the same Classic. You may have felt bad for taking the handouts, but thank goodness they were there to help you over the hump of hard times.

You must not be doing your taxes right, then. A single parent with what, 2 or 3 deductions, will get more money back than paid in due to EIC and additional child tax credit.

To play debil's advocate (and I get so tired of saying this) I KNOW it costs money to raise children. I didn't get you, or your ex, pregnant. I didn't participate in the coitus, had nothing to do with YOUR sperm or HER egg, and wasn't even invited into the delivery room.

I assure you my TOTAL. TAX. LIABILITY. is not in the negative range. I've seen about 20 tax forms so far today. There was one single person, one married couple...the rest all made a profit on their taxes.

I think we should change the system to an "adopt a family" system. I'll just write my tax payment check out to a family of my choosing every year. I'd feel better.

Didn't have it for most of the time that was happening. Now my income is >.< that much over the limit.

Absolutely correct - That is Merc's point almost verbatim.

OK lets do it this way then - Will "those people" then get MORE of my hard earned money under Obama's plan? Fuck that - I worked for it I earned it - I WANT IT.

Pico - Yes I took the food stamps as they were the only thing I qualified for. I could have gotten a heck of a lot more if I CHOSE not to work. I actually grossed less by working more and moving toward being self reliant and independent. Many - too many choose not to do so.

Think about what kind of people walk through your door. You're not seeing a fair sampling of the overall tax returns out there. I think because you are seeing this every single day, multiple times a day, you are thinking it's a big problem. But your job is to see exactly this group of people. The people who don't make a lot, but who know to fill out forms to get what is being offered.

That's true, glatt, good point. But what she's saying does prove there is that class, or sub-class, of people out there. It's just a question of how big that class is.

Sure. But they aren't doing anything that they aren't supposed to be doing. If they weren't eligible for those benefits, the government wouldn't provide them. And I'd argue that they are the good ones, because they are actually seeing Shawnee so they can get an education and hopefully get out of the situation they are in.

Classic,

From all I've seen and heard McCain is promising 5 grand more to families.

Who do you think pays for that? Where is that funding going to come from? Oh, you're all welcome.

glatt--good point, but I don't just see poor people. I see many middle class, upper middle class as well. Those who know they won't be eligible for free money still need to go through the steps to get student loans. I don't see any millionaires, but I see an awful lot of upwards of 60 grand. I see upper middle class as well as poor.

ME! Therein lies the problem - no matter who gets elected, I am the one paying for their promises. As a hardworking and productive member of society, I get to pay for the promises these guys make.

Sorry if I don't believe you...

Yes, they are taking advantage of a program set up to help people in their situation, nothing wrong with that.
You're right about Shawnee seeing a disproportionate number of these cases, but it still leaves the question of how large a group this group really is... are they really a statistically significant group, or minor blip in tax filer population?

Yeah, if you're so hard working and productive, what the hell are you doing posting on the intarweb?:lol2:

I got short-timers, man. Actually, I have for quite some time.

Besides, what are YOU doing on the interwebz...you're supposed to be over here biting my ass! :p

No. no biting, nibbling. ;)

At that rate, it'll take years to finish.

What don't you believe, that the productive taxpayers are the ones who pay for those programs? Where does the money come from then?

If you got the booty, honey, I got the time. :blush:

Im confused....my husband makes just over 60,000 grand and we never see negative taxes. Are we doing something wrong????

Ditto. I make in the mid-high 100k range, and because most of it is self-employed income, my annual tax nut is around 40k.

Yes, I know that I play music and I'm not out laying concrete or picking produce, but if anyone thinks you get to that level of income in the music industry without working your ASS off, I'd invite you to ride along with me for a week or two.

Every gig, every session, every arrangement or orchestration I write, every week on the road touring, every class I teach, it's all time spent away from my family and kids. When I drop into bed exhausted at 3am, and hustle out the door at 8am, that's a real cost to me and my family.

I'm not complaining, I'm glad to do it and I'm blessed to be able to do it. But I get viciously angry when people assume that once people have reached some arbitrary income point, they are no longer "earning it", and therefore its perfectly fine to take away their income to redistribute it elsewhere.

I pay a metric assload of taxes, and I pay it out of money that I earn, and because there's no withholding on my paychecks, I'm the one who actually writes the check to the IRS and feels the kick in the balls every time.

Not a CEO. But I do work 5 jobs, one as an employee and the other four as a independent contractor, working for myself.

What he said. Verbatim.

Yes, but that's becoming unamerican.:rolleyes:

No. The system is broken. If you make squat, you actually make money on the tax system. The harder you work, the more you pay, and the bigger the bite the system (gov) takes. That is the problem with a tiered system. If we all pay the same percent, flat tax, and do away with the deductions then the playing field would be leveled. If you make 20k a year you pay x% if you make 400k, you pay the same x%. That would be fair.

Yes, you aren't cheating the system.
Exactly - oh and you pay the full boat too, correct? No employer contribution right?
That would eliminate so much bullshit too. It would avoid all the confusion the ambiguity ...all of it. I see no reason not to have a flat tax. I would alter the basement though. Tax liability starting at something way more than $20,000 but thats just me.

Yes it should. Agreed. But daddy is in jail on drug charges so maybe it's impossible, because daddy is a dumb ass. Kids should not suffer because of the actions of their parents. So uh would you like for them to starve and get no healthcare or education, is this what you are suggesting? Not that this isn't happening or anything. Hey let's turn into Africa and have non profits come in to spread christianity and food with no sustainable plan for the future. That sounds fantastic.

What is your plan again?

I really admire you classic, that can't have been easy. I think it is enormously to your credit that your rose to the challenge and didn't drown. But, consider this: with society stepping in to help carry some of that burden, maybe you wouldn't have had to work three jobs and would have had more time to spend with the family you were working so hard to raise. Why not? If the children you were raising grow up to be strong and well educated, proud and loving, responsible and courageous, do you not think that society will reap the benefit of that?

Let society, the wider community, take some of the burden when raising a family becomes an almost insurmountable task. The good that your children might do in the world, could extend far beyond their front lawn. Why should parents, working hard to bring about the nation's most precious and valuable asset, be left stranded high and dry, humiliated in front of their kids with voucher-based charity, or separating themselves from ther children for much of their waking lives?

The fierce independence of the American way is wonderful. That people take such strong responsiblity for themselves and their families is a worthy and admirable thing. But there is a price.

Dana, More than once my children have not quit on doing something or have taken on more than they should have and yet they still achieved success. They never quit. When I have asked them why...they remind me of what I did when they were younger. They learned BY EXAMPLE. There is no substitute for that.

The price - yes a costly one for me... the reward - priceless.