Quote:
Originally Posted by J. T. Toad
encourage saving? well that isn't the government way!  |
Unfortunately it's not the American way. The majority of our country is in credit debt (including our own government).
We wouldn't need a social security network if people would save 10% of the money they make instead of spending 10% more than they make and putting it on credit cards.
Only in America are "poverty" and obesity in the same thought (how can you be starving if you're fat?
).
The problem is that our consumeristic society demands that we spend more and more. People won't buy a plane jane washing machine. They have to have the machine with 14 settings and bells and whistles. Same with cars, appliances, clothes.
If we had a consumption based system, the more money that you save, the less money you pay to uncle Sam. The more money you invest, the more money you save. Companies would benefit because it would encourage investment.
It would also help alleviate the growing employment crisis in America. Temp staffing is quickly becoming one of the largest industries in our country. It's already a $150BN/year industry. Employers can't afford to hire full time employees anymore, because our socialist programs cost way too damn much. Between social security, workman's comp, etc, it costs so much to hire full time employees, comapnies are opting to "temp" more and more.
The unfortunate side effects are that we're growing a generation of amateurs. How do you become a lifelong professional if you're a temp? The answer is....you don't.
But again, the scary thing is....whatever we would "switch" to...would require some sort of transitional period and that's where we'd get screwed. The new system would have to go into place to phase out the old system and our illustrious politicians would simply keep voting to renew the old system. We'd get double F'ed.
Threaded Mode
