It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unemployment for Those Who Earn $150,000 or More is Only 3%, While Unemployment for the Poor is 31%

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


And also we most take into consideration how long will take for somebody to get to that income bracket in their live time with only hard labor and experience.

My husband doesn't even make 150 thousand, it took him 40 years to get to that point he is in his 50s right now.

And trust me we put two kids in college making half of what he made now and money used to look like more.

Now taxes alone takes a big chunk of his income, actually this tax year we came to the conclusion that his entire military retirement plus more went to pay Federal and state taxes as our children are now adults and I don't even work.

No rich by any means. . .



[edit on 26-4-2010 by marg6043]




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yep. They are the reason why had working people like the middle class (the guys earning less and 3 million a year) are going to be destroyed. They see you as a threat. How dare you have a little money and leisure!

The small businesses are being crushed not by the demands of the poor, but at the behest of the wealthy. You have too much money and they want it. Them and their good time buddies running the scams out of Washington, DC.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Reminds me of Linda Hamilton in T2.

NO FATE!

hahahaha



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

My husband doesn't even make 150 thousand, it took him 40 years to get to that point he is in his 50s right now.

And trust me we put two kids in college making half of what he made now and money used to look like more.

Now taxes alone takes a big chunk of his income, actually this tax year we came to the conclusion that his entire military retirement plus more went to pay Federal and state taxes as our children are now adults and I don't even work.

No rich by any means. . .

[edit on 26-4-2010 by marg6043]


Yep I'm 49 with two kids that will go to college down the road. I have no debt except for a house and one car, and people today see that as rich. I didn't have any savings until about the age of 40 and it was very slow still. Even now putting 2k a month into investments I can never reach that 5k per month retirement goal.

My military retirement basically pays my taxes too...hehe



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Exactly, specially if like me you wife doesn't work, still we get gouged by taxes here in GA, it is a welfare state so we get hit hard.

Wait when the kids goes to college, for us was like paying into another household along with ours.

It is very expensive and we managed with half of what my husband makes now, now his job is going to be insourced we may face a cut in salary within 3 months.

Also many of the incentives has been taken away from the tax forms since my children graduated three years ago.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Exactly, specially if like me you wife doesn't work, still we get gouged by taxes here in GA, it is a welfare state so we get hit hard.

Wait when the kids goes to college, for us was like paying into another household along with ours.

It is very expensive and we managed with half of what my husband makes now, now his job is going to be insourced we may face a cut in salary within 3 months.

Also many of the incentives has been taken away from the tax forms since my children graduated three years ago.



To be honest I spend about 80k per year just for taxes and savings for both myself and college for my kids, and I still feel I'm not saving enough to not need to work when I'm 65. My wife doesn't work right now and I'm glad since my kids and household benefits greatly that she doesn't. She is also nine years younger than me and so she could work when I retire if need be, but it is something I do not want her to do.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


So the working class pays a 30% tax rate:

www.taxfoundation.org...



The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by drew hempel
 



So who the hell is killing these people and where are the bodies hidden?
[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]


video.google.com...#

www.dawatfreemedia.org...

www.photobetty.com...



According to UN statistics, more than 40 percent of Afghan children already die due to infantile diseases and malnutrition before they reach puberty. And many who survive natural causes die from bombings. What have the bare foot, hungry, wretched Afghan children, women, and elderly—most of them members of Afghanistan’s majority Pashtun ethnic group—done to the Americans. Did the Americans lose the home address of Osama and his close associates?





A UN report released in 2000 indicates that the national Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) in Afghanistan was 1,900 per 100,000 live births, whereas it was 17 in the United States. Sierra Leone’s maternal death ratio was 2,000.


www.who.int...



Our findings show that in rural Afghanistan infant and under-five mortality rates are lower than the estimates in State of the world’s children and that the infant mortality rate is similar to the projected rate for 2005 under the median scenario applied to derive the United Nations Children's Fund's best estimates (130 per 1000 live births for 2005)6 and the United States Bureau of the Census estimates, based on census data from 1979 (137 per 1000 live births).5 These national estimates are not directly comparable to the rural estimates from the AHS; however, because approximately 80% of the population of Afghanistan lives in rural areas, national estimates are similar to rural estimates. Because the AHS provides estimated infant and under-five mortality rates from a new primary data source, it fills a gap in the understanding of current levels of mortality in Afghani children.





If the imbalance between boys and girls is assumed to be entirely attributable to unreported births in girls and 50% of the unreported liveborn girls are dead (i.e. an average of the two estimates from the validation studies), the estimated infant mortality rate then becomes 140 and the under-five mortality rate becomes 209 per 1000 live births.


www.countercurrents.org...



In particular, over the last decade I have reported the steadily increasing post-invasion avoidable mortality and under-5 infant mortality in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan that now total 7 million and 3.3 million, respectively. Alternative media (notably Countercurrents, Bellaciao and the Vancouver-based but very international Media With Conscience News, MWC News) have been ethical, responsive and eager to report this shocking intelligence to their liberal readerships. However Mainstream Media, while endlessly apprised, resolutely refuse to report this important information

This extraordinary lying by omission by Mainstream Media makes them accessories to egregious war crimes in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories – the Geneva Conventions make it quite clear that the occupiers are obliged to do everything in their power to preserve the health and lives of their conquered subjects (see Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War). [6].


www.countercurrents.org...



Under-5 infant mortality figures are presented in updated UNICEF reports for essentially every country in the world - it is only a mouse click away and for Occupied Afghanistan tells us the following: in 2007 the under-5 infant deaths totalled 338,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 2,000 in the occupying country Australia (noting that in 2007 the populations of these countries were 27 million and 21 million, respectively).


www.countercurrents.org...

A final damning statistic: the “annual death rate” is 7% for Occupied Afghanistan under-5 year old infants - as compared to 3% for inmates of the Nazi Buchenwald Concentration Camp and 10% for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War 2 (for which crimes Axis generals were tried and hanged) (see: gpolya.newsvine.com...
holocaust-denial-in-buchenwald-cairo-speeches-?groupId=1350 ).

www.prosebeforehos.com...



Every 9.62 days, there is an equivalent amount of casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan as September 11th.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by drew hempel
 


I'm still not sure what direction you are going with this that deals with the OP's post by only cut and paste from a bias site.


non-violent plus violent post-invasion excess deaths 3.3 million + 3.3 million = 6.6 million excess deaths


So who the hell is killing these people and where are the bodies hidden? I don’t think people really understand just what 1 million people really represents, and to what extent it would take to kill them much less 6.6 million or even 100,000….

We throw around a number like million as some eye catching trigger used for propaganda and that is about all it is. So in seven years the US led to the deaths of 6.6 million out of a population of 25 million….ok

Lets look at some numbers….. 1994

Population: 16,903,400 (July 1994 est.)
Population growth rate: 2.45% (1994 est.)
Birth rate: 43.46 births/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Death rate: 18.94 deaths/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 155.8 deaths/1,000 live births (1994 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 44.89 years
male: 45.53 years
female: 44.21 years (1994 est.)

I can’t say things were very good in 1994 for this country is not even 3rd world….

Now lets look at 2009....

Population:
28,395,716 (July 2009 est.)
Population growth rate:
2.576% (2009 est.)
Birth rate:
38.37 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Death rate:
17.83 deaths/1,000 population (July 2009 est.)
Net migration rate:
5.22 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Infant mortality rate:
total: 153.14 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 44.4 years
male: 44.19 years
female: 44.61 years (2009 est.)

Wow, not much different is it (well except population is almost double from 1994).....that is because the place has been the same for the last 1000 years hehe.

Hmm how about 2002 for birth/death life expectancy

Birth rate: 41.03 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Death rate: 17.43 deaths/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 144.76 deaths/1,000 live births (2002 est.)
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 46.6 years
female: 45.85 years (2002 est.)
male: 47.32 years

Once again about the same....

1989 doesn't look very good either...and once again the place is extremely primitive, and not much has changed since then or long before.

Population: 14,825,013 (July 1989), growth rate 2.3% (1989)
Birth rate: 44 births/1,000 population (1989)
Death rate: 21 deaths/1,000 population (1989)
Net migration rate: 0 migrants/1,000 population (1989)
Infant mortality rate: 173 deaths/1,000 live births (1989)
Life expectancy at birth: 43 years male, 42 years female (1989)


[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]


So I guess the CIA World Factbook is not that accurate compared to the UN statistics.

Afghanistan People 1995
www.theodora.com...
SOURCE: 1995 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

countrystudies.us...



Afghanistan's population in 1995 was estimated at 18.4 million by the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit agency based in Washington, D.C. This estimate, like others before it, is based on unreliable data, as the Bureau itself cautions.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
motherjones.com...




On the other hand, given the woeful inadequacy of that "safety net," we might have chosen to direct the $30 billion in surge expenditures toward raising the average individual monthly Food Stamp allotment by $70 for the next year; that's roughly an additional trip to the grocery store, every month, for 36 million people. Alternatively, we could have dedicated that $30 billion to job creation. According to a recent report issued by the Political Economy Research Institute, that sum could generate a whopping 537,810 construction jobs, 541,080 positions in healthcare, fund 742,740 teachers or employ 831,390 mass transit workers.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by drew hempel

So who the hell is killing these people and where are the bodies hidden?
[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]


video.google.com...#

www.dawatfreemedia.org...

www.photobetty.com...


You show propaganda films of a few dead. I want to see the miles of grave yards, huge stacks of bodies....6.6 mil dead is not the deaths from a few arrant missiles.






According to UN statistics, more than 40 percent of Afghan children already die due to infantile diseases and malnutrition before they reach puberty. And many who survive natural causes die from bombings. What have the bare foot, hungry, wretched Afghan children, women, and elderly—most of them members of Afghanistan’s majority Pashtun ethnic group—done to the Americans. Did the Americans lose the home address of Osama and his close associates?


Not any different than the last 1000 years. I showed you 20 years with the same death rates, which are high, but not high because of Americans there. I'm not saying 10,000 have not died by our hands or the Taliban, it is a war, but when people start throwing 100,000/million numbers around we should see total devastation on a massive scale, and that is just not the case.


Comparing US rates to them means nothing other than that country is extremely primitive...I know this first hand. I watch them go down to the US built canals and get water out of it. Bath in it, brush their teeth in it, wash their cloths in it etc. I watch small 2 and 3 year olds play out on the roads with traffic every day. People get sick and are not taken to the doctors even when they are available.

What part of primitive do people not understand….



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
If you are accustomed to making over $150,000 a year, what are the chances you even file for unemployment in the first place?



Exactly. That's when you have enough credentials and experience to find another job quickly, especially to a competitor. The more you're worth, the less chance you have of being laid off.

This study is a waste of time and could have been written by anyone using common sense.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForAiur

Maybe we should blame this on the parents? Or in this case the adopted parents? No offense, but I like that idea better than saying "some people are just destined to be low class," especially when you're supposed to be the one raising her.


I believe genetics plays a MASSIVE role. Not always, but most of the time. You can only be so much according to your family line. There are mutations and variant sleepers that skew the curve...but IMHO, genetics can account for most people's social classes.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by drew hempel


Population: 16,903,400 (July 1994 est.)
Population growth rate: 2.45% (1994 est.)

So I guess the CIA World Factbook is not that accurate compared to the UN statistics.


Afghanistan's population in 1995 was estimated at 18.4 million by the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit agency based in Washington, D.C. This estimate, like others before it, is based on unreliable data, as the Bureau itself cautions.


Let’s see... 16.9 million in 1994 plus 1 million growth per year... I would say 18.0 to 18.4 mil are pretty damn close with two different agencies calculating it all. Not to mention we are talking an extremely remote place to live...

This all is really way off topic and you are now being rather silly with this last opinion, so back on topic for me from now on….



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


www.youtube.com...



Group 15 volunteers were members of Afghan male smallpox vaccinator teams in 1969 and 1970. The women's stories with their photographs bring that time of relative peace and prosperity to life.


More of Afghanistan in the 1960s:

www.pbase.com...&page=all

www.areu.org.af...



the experiment of the “Decade of Democracy” (1963-72) went rapidly awry as the increasingly frustrated intelligentsia started clamouring for more influence, and soon turned against the ruling elite. The radicalisation of the educated class in the 1960-70s was arguably one of the causes of the crisis of the Afghan state from 1973 onwards.


www.youtube.com...


[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


motherjones.com...



But perhaps this isn't a time to quibble. After all, a job is a job, especially in the United States, which has lost seven million jobs since December 2007, while reporting record-high numbers of people seeking assistance to feed themselves and/or their families. According to the US Department of Agriculture, 36 million Americans, including one out of every four children, are currently on food stamps. On the other hand, given the woeful inadequacy of that "safety net," we might have chosen to direct the $30 billion in surge expenditures toward raising the average individual monthly Food Stamp allotment by $70 for the next year; that's roughly an additional trip to the grocery store, every month, for 36 million people. Alternatively, we could have dedicated that $30 billion to job creation. According to a recent report issued by the Political Economy Research Institute, that sum could generate a whopping 537,810 construction jobs, 541,080 positions in healthcare, fund 742,740 teachers or employ 831,390 mass transit workers.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Or we could have not had to pay taxes. If that happens, the war wouldn't be going on (at lest not as long or as wasteful) as the Govt. would have no money other than to protect the US, not for aggression. And those who are poor may have been able to save their money better by not having to give 35% away to the government in the first place!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Hogwash. First off, if you're bringing home $10k every month, I think it's pretty safe to say you're rich. Sure, there are plenty more with much more, but in the world of logic and reason, that's irrelevant.

Second, after acknowledging the persons with years of difficult brain training behind them and that they have unique and truly remarkable skills and knowledge. As a result, they are deservingly compensated dearly for their contributions in the workplace. That said, of the people earning 100k +, in my experience, perhaps 1 in 10 are as I just described. The remaining 9 could be replaced by almost anyone with no great loss to the employer. It's very rare that I meet a person with earnings in the 100k and higher range that actually deserve it. ...working hard, eh? Put 'em in the unload trailers at UPS during christmas and see if all their hard work is really equivalent.

Lastly, there's plenty barring the way to fantastic earnings for the vast majority of people on the planet and even if you just limit it to the US. There's plenty stopping them.

Man, what potential guilt are you justifying away? Been working hard as an investment banker? Should be a $15 per hour job. Now, garbage men... THAT'S A F'ED JOB. THEY should be making $100k. Anyway, see you in hell. I'll be in the penthouse waiting for you...



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by verbal kint
 


Sorry, 10k a month isn't rich. Especially because you have no idea of other debts in play.

If you think 10k a month is rich you aren't thinking big enough.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


en.wikipedia.org...



The name of the uprising comes from the Whiskey Act of 1791, an excise tax on whiskey that was a central grievance of the westerners. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to centralize and fund the national debt.





Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed Pennsylvanians attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. The Washington administration responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time raising a force of militia to suppress the violence. The insurrection collapsed before the arrival of the army; about 20 people were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join