Ronbyers

Ok. So you give big tax breaks and other incentives to businesses to move into your town. Everything is great for a while. Then the business will ACT LIKE A BUSINESS and move its company and jobs to another location where labor or materials or energy is cheaper or just move it because the CEO doesn't want to live there (Pop Quiz: How many executives of NCR live in the city where it is headquartered? One. What would you do if you were CEO of NCR? Stay or move to NYC where all of your exec's live?) When a business acts like a business and makes a decision based on what is best for their Bonus Receiving Executives and SHAREHOLDERS--because it sure isn't about the employee anymore--why are we surprised and why do we complain?

Here is an idea--why not use that money to TRAIN THE WORKFORCE for the JOBS CURRENTLY IN DEMAND--AND CONTINUE TO TRAIN/RETRAIN as industry changes? Doesn't that make more sense? If a company needs to hire welders--wouldn't it make sense to spend the money to make available TRAINED WELDERS? Not tax breaks? How many companies spend very much on training? Then they whine about not having a skilled workforce. They will STILL need welders and will STILL look to the local government to provide.

Posted at July 12, 2008 1:53 AM in response to How Much are You Willing to Work for Corporate Welfare?

I know who is making money on the the housing mess--LAWYERS!!!

I've yet to see a case where the attorney fees generated through a foreclosure action were LESS than the arrearage--if fact--they were generally equal. For example--owe $5320 in back mortgage payments to the bank? Attorney fees owed--$5633. Owe $2976 in back mortgage payments? Attorney fees owed are $2996. Hmmm. Every time. I have 15 separate numbers for one bank's loss mitigation department. Every time I call, attorney fees are racked up. A foreclosure negotiation could all be done in one phone call--but I've never been able to close a deal with less than 5 calls--and additional attorney fees the borrower is responsible for.

Posted at June 29, 2008 9:18 PM in response to Who Benefits from the Bailout: Banks or Homeowners?

Most places allow individuals or companies to purchase tax liens from the taxing authority. Does anyone have the difference in what he paid and what he owed? If allowed in California--you could pay off the remaining taxes and then you would own a lien on the property. That might be fun.

Posted at June 29, 2008 8:53 PM in response to McCains Delinquent On Tax Bill

You miss the point.

Poverty is NOT a social problem with economic consequences. It is an ECONOMIC problem with social ramifications. Not until poverty is addressed by policy makers from this point of view and not until poverty is addressed by politicians, think tanks, et al, as a problem of ECONOMIC CLASS will we be able to make a difference.

People are poor because they lack the opportunity to acquire and accumulate appreciating assets. It is when opportunity is denied through racism, classism, overweightism, bad teethism, bad social/economic policy, bad politics or whatever else ism or incompetence we use to deny opportunity, THAT is what makes us poor.

As an aside...Welfare reform, which was started by republicans daring democrats in the Wisconsin legislature to "End Welfare As We Know It", was in reality a way to assist businesses hire unskilled workers at low wages.

Think back to what was going on in the economy at the time--lots of low wage jobs and no one qualified to fill them. TANF was designed to have the GOVERNMENT provide/PAY FOR the training and job readiness skills to welfare recipients so employers wouldn't have to spend money getting welfare recipients "work ready" (understand work culture--get to work on time, call in sick--don't just not show up, respecting supervisors, how to dress appropriately, working with customers, etc) in order to put them to work. Government, through TANF, spent a LOT of money providing direct job training to TANF recipients to entice employers to hire them. The attitude at the time was "give them whatever they want".

This is one of the basic tenets of business--use "other people's money" whenever possible. When the republicans, specifically Newt Gingrich and those of his ilk, pushed the idea that government should "act more like a business", unfortunately, using the government's money to train potential employees was quickly incorporated. What happened? Employers cut money for training. What are we experiencing now? Lots of recently unemployed people with no job skills for current and future occupations.

Additionally, we are spending much more money on "work supports" than under AFDC. With TANF, the idea was to help the employee remain in the job by paying for things that would support/promote work. If your income is low enough, the government will pay for your food, your housing, your childcare, your health care, some job training, the Earned Income Tax Credit all to support you while you work at a minimum wage/low wage job. If the worker wants to move up--they face entitlement "cliffs"--increase your wages by $.10 an hour and you can kiss your childcare, food, housing, healthcare good-bye. Does $.10 an hour, or about $16 a month, cover all of those costs? Nope. Now studies are finding that many people who TANF put to work has also trapped them in "Entitlement Hell"--make a modest gain--and your "work supports" are stripped away.

The other side of the coin is that businesses are not under pressure to increase wages for these jobs. These jobs have seen tremendous declines in real wages recently in part because employees are punished if they pressure the market to pay better.

TANF will never work because it punishes workers for improving their earnings and rewards employers for paying low wages. People are not poor because they are urban black or rural white or stupid or lazy and absolutely not because of a lack of effort (I dare anyone to go to a Job Center/welfare office and try to get assistance you are eligible for and be treated with dignity, respect and provided accurate information on the first try.). It takes a LOT of energy and costs a LOT of money to be poor.

Posted at June 9, 2008 10:21 PM in response to Dear Paul Krugman - The Welfare Debate Didn't Change Anything

I got the sense, after seeing the 60 Minutes piece, that they really didn't want to give him asylum--as I'm sure BushCo has to be complicit in all of this muck--and once he had asylum it would be harder for him to keep quiet about that. Imagine yourself an Iraqi in the US with the goods on the current Administration and an application in at the State Department--would you go mouthing off about what you know?

Posted at May 14, 2008 3:24 PM in response to Today's Must Read

I agree. Brandy Britton worked for me while she was in college (as a waitress...)--I would NEVER have thought she would commit suicide.

Posted at May 1, 2008 5:47 PM in response to Report: D.C. Madam Commits Suicide

"People almost never make use of the freedoms they have, for example, freedom of thought: by way of compensation they demand freedom of speech."

Soren Kierkegaard
Journals

Posted at April 22, 2008 7:20 PM in response to Acceptable Commenting

If it is a branded (Visa or Mastercard, typically) front-loaded (generally by parents) card V &MC get to take a cut off of every transaction--through the interchange rates they charge and sometimes card holders are charged a fee for these transactions as well.

A large number of states have gone to branded paycards to pay welfare benefits and most significantly (because it is a TON of money) child support. States pass BILLIONS of dollars through to custodial parents on these front-loaded pay cards and then the paycard company/V&MC take a fee off of the top every time the card is used. The fees are taken out of the card holders account--so it really comes down to V&MC taking money out of the hands of CHILDREN who are being supported in part through child support. These cards are quite the money spinner--obviously.

States make these deals with the paycard industry because it is a much better deal for taxpayers--in that child support is expensive to administer and it significantly reduces over payments, fraudulent payments and the cost of printing and mailing checks. The tragedy is that states make these contracts with these companies not understanding how much money is going to be made off of them--and actually PAY for the service--when the paycard companies and V&MC make a ton of money handling government entitlement benefits (food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, Unemployment, Worker's Compensation, State Disability Programs, etc. and especially child support.) And sadly, these paycard companies are self-regulating--with the exception of Regulation E--which mostly just spells out that consumers must be given information about their cards and how to file a dispute. No real regulation except through their industry association.

There is a law proposed by Senator Conyers--The Credit Card Fair Fee Act that enjoys bipartisan support--but as one would expect--it isn't likely to get passed under the current administration.

Posted at April 21, 2008 1:00 PM in response to Credit Card University

Is this not the first time this has happened? I seem to recall prior problems--clearly the Fed's have not resolved this problem. Maybe they should let the Social Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service or the Food Shares program administer the oversight for these expenditures--those programs do pretty well when it comes to finding entitlement recipients who have been overpaid.

Posted at April 9, 2008 2:08 PM in response to The Daily Muck

You missed the point. Utterly.

Posted at March 21, 2008 7:01 PM in response to Payday Lending in Ohio