In a message dated 1/19/01 6:34:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Go to sleep (WAS: Wake up)
Date: 1/19/01 6:34:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Rittenhouse)
Let's see if I understand you. Are you saying that many americans pay
no taxes and get a $3000 tax refund?
__________________________________________________________
Yep. Our Internal Revenue Service calls it "earned income tax credit" or
something like that.
Scenario: An American wage-earner works a regular job at low or minimum
wages. Because his job does not afford him a "living (livable) wage," he and
his family get deductions to make up for the difference. His family of six
meets the "poverty" income guidelines, and by that, earns the "earned income
credit."
If his real tax liabilities arising from his wages were say $3,000, and his
legal deductions (him, wife and four children) would reduce his actual
liability to $0, and because he qualifies for the "earned income deduction,"
the government in essence "owes" him a refund, the formulas you'd have to
read or ask my accountant the details about.
So yes, many Americans with poor paying job(s) can actually be "paid" because
he did not earn a "livable wage." Person who do *not* work all year (seasonal
or migrant workers), or get laid-off or fired, or become disabled, or even
quit for cause, all qualify under our rules. Many of them also qualify for
additional medical services, food stamps and other federal and state
government assistance.
The homeless and the "chronically" unemployed are among those who do not
qualify for the refunds. (Help me here)
*There is a push in the Unites States for employers to provide a "livable
wage," as opposed to the government mandated "minimum wage," which is by no
means comparable to a "livable wage."
We're getting there. By the year 2010, all American wages will be the
"livable wage", reducing the poverty population to the elderly and those
unwilling or truly unable to work.
_________________________________________________________
"Peifer, William [OCDUS]" wrote:
>
> Mafud writes:
>
> >Most truly poor American families will get tax refunds totaling about
> $1,500
> >to $3,500 in the next two months, all in one lump sum: more than 3 times
> the
> >average annual wage of many Eastern European countries, 10 to 15 times the
> >average annual wage in most "Third World" nations.
> >And like I noted, our poor *could* buy a $3,000 SLR kit with their tax
> refund
> >(if they wanted), but they'll probably end up buying a $1,200 big screen
> TV,
> >buy tires for the old jalopy, shoes for the kids and maybe even a used,
> 1992,
> >20 foot Bassin' boat instead...
> >For them you see, it's a matter of priorities and SLRs (any) simply don't
> >show on their radar screens.
> >*Our poor pay more, percentage wise, for food and shelter. The rest of
> their
> >lives are purely American and only Americans know how sweet *that* is.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think our good friend Mafud makes some excellent points, here and in
> earlier posts. I'm no expert at this, but I think that in the US at least,
> the assumption that "buying power" correlates with income level is often a
> very poor assumption. First, many of the working poor and not-so-poor work
> in trades where work is temporary and seasonal, and payment is in cash
> (i.e., not taxed, and not reported to the government). Second, a lot of
the
> working poor here in the US get the kind of annual windfall that Mafud
> references -- some choose to spend it on discretionary items. Third -- and
> I haven't seen this addressed yet in this continuing thread -- much of
> consumer purchasing power in the US seems to be driven (over-driven?) by
the
> easy availability of consumer credit. Buy now, pay later. And if you
can't
> pay, there's never been a better or easier time for declaring bankruptcy.
> IMHO, this is a major problem. Not sure if easy credit is just an American
> phenomenon, or if it's persistent in parts of Europe, Asia/Pacific Rim,
etc.
> Seems as though you don't need much income to qualify for enough credit to
> put you seriously and permanently in debt.
>
> But the original question was, how important is the American market to a
> company like Pentax? The problem for companies like Pentax is that
> Americans aren't willing to go into debt for a something like a new MZ-S
> system. It's just not the everybody's-got-it-so-I-must-have-it sort of
> merchandise. But cell phones? New cars and trucks? Obscenely expensive
> clothing and shoes? Video games and big-screen TV's? Gotta have it! Why?
> Because everyone else does! Far too many of us Americans, IMHO, simply
must
> have the latest consumer items, and some of us ARE willing to go bankrupt
to
> acquire these. Pentax needs to convince Americans that taking pictures
with
> SLR's is cool, that everybody else is doing it, and that your kid's
> self-esteem will suffer if you're not doing it too. Product placements in
> movies, TV, etc.?? Endorsements from professional wrestlers?? Sad state
of
> affairs, I think.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT Did anyone else have trouble with PayPal the past couple of days?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
