political foo: money matters
Jul. 16th, 2011 08:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alpharaposaI look at my paycheck and my bills, and I look at the debate in Washington.
Let's start with the bills.
When I look through the bills, the "regulatory fees" are getting bigger. Not quickly - 2 dollars here, 75 cents there. But every couple of months, the number gets a little larger. More regulation = more fees.
Taxes eat a steady percentage of my paycheck. Even when I get a good raise, the amount of increased monthly take home pay barely feels worth it. Democrats want to raise taxes. Doesn't matter on who - either I'll have the percentage of taxes from my paycheck increased, or the company I work for will feel the crunch and offer less of a raise next year. Year before last, the "standard raise" for employees doing a decent job was 3%. This year, it was 2%. (Excellent jobs get slightly more, really amazing jobs got 4% last year.) The money going to the government is taken from somebody, and the cost gets passed right on down to the working schlub.
Gas is going up and staying there. Why? Because the President won't let companies drill. He says he's for it, but the actual executive approvals needed to open up areas again have languished. Less supply, particularly local supply, means both higher gas prices and fewer jobs. (Drilling requires lots of employees to work!) Add to that the ethanol mandates and, well, gas prices suck.
Groceries are more expensive, because the dollar buys less. The Treasury printed a lot of extra bills in order to ensure liquidity. It was probably necessary to keep the economy afloat. It also means that our national debt is worth a little less than it was before (neat trick, huh). China's actually complained that we're sabotaging our credit by making the dollar worth less, so our debts are worth less. But this means that a larger proportion of my paycheck goes to food than it used to. Even if I were still eating crappy food, I'd be spending more. Higher prices just make it more painful to try to eat healthier.
The House passed a deficit reducing budget. That's deficit reducing, not debt reducing. We're still borrowing more and more as far as the eye can see, even if we adopt the "radical" Ryan plan. The President wants to get a deal so he can focus on "new programs". More spending.
More spending, more regulation, more taxes = less and less room for error or crisis when I stare at my family's budget. I'm being squeezed from the top by the pressure of the tax increases, and squeezed from the bottom by rising costs and inflation.
We've got to get away from the coast, but will there be a job for my husband when he finishes school? That's the biggest problem. At this rate? I don't know.
What do I want? Less spending, less regulation, and a simpler tax code. I'll take the same amount of taxes if I don't have to pay somebody to file for me just so that they'll handle things if I get audited instead of me. There's a horde of government monkeys on my back, and I want them off.
Let's start with the bills.
When I look through the bills, the "regulatory fees" are getting bigger. Not quickly - 2 dollars here, 75 cents there. But every couple of months, the number gets a little larger. More regulation = more fees.
Taxes eat a steady percentage of my paycheck. Even when I get a good raise, the amount of increased monthly take home pay barely feels worth it. Democrats want to raise taxes. Doesn't matter on who - either I'll have the percentage of taxes from my paycheck increased, or the company I work for will feel the crunch and offer less of a raise next year. Year before last, the "standard raise" for employees doing a decent job was 3%. This year, it was 2%. (Excellent jobs get slightly more, really amazing jobs got 4% last year.) The money going to the government is taken from somebody, and the cost gets passed right on down to the working schlub.
Gas is going up and staying there. Why? Because the President won't let companies drill. He says he's for it, but the actual executive approvals needed to open up areas again have languished. Less supply, particularly local supply, means both higher gas prices and fewer jobs. (Drilling requires lots of employees to work!) Add to that the ethanol mandates and, well, gas prices suck.
Groceries are more expensive, because the dollar buys less. The Treasury printed a lot of extra bills in order to ensure liquidity. It was probably necessary to keep the economy afloat. It also means that our national debt is worth a little less than it was before (neat trick, huh). China's actually complained that we're sabotaging our credit by making the dollar worth less, so our debts are worth less. But this means that a larger proportion of my paycheck goes to food than it used to. Even if I were still eating crappy food, I'd be spending more. Higher prices just make it more painful to try to eat healthier.
The House passed a deficit reducing budget. That's deficit reducing, not debt reducing. We're still borrowing more and more as far as the eye can see, even if we adopt the "radical" Ryan plan. The President wants to get a deal so he can focus on "new programs". More spending.
More spending, more regulation, more taxes = less and less room for error or crisis when I stare at my family's budget. I'm being squeezed from the top by the pressure of the tax increases, and squeezed from the bottom by rising costs and inflation.
We've got to get away from the coast, but will there be a job for my husband when he finishes school? That's the biggest problem. At this rate? I don't know.
What do I want? Less spending, less regulation, and a simpler tax code. I'll take the same amount of taxes if I don't have to pay somebody to file for me just so that they'll handle things if I get audited instead of me. There's a horde of government monkeys on my back, and I want them off.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 02:16 pm (UTC)We live in NYS, so it's a (problem)squared issue - the state does the same thing, regulate and tax on top of regulation and taxes. But we can't afford to move out of state.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 02:31 pm (UTC)We have a house here and could probably sell it at a decent price (for now) if we're willing to leave it on the market for a while. The big problem is that once the hubby finishes school, he has to get a job in order to keep us afloat. My job would cover house or bills, not both.
Will the job be there? Can we get the house fixed up and sold? Those are the questions we'll face next year.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 02:41 pm (UTC)We're buying a house down here (Finger Lakes) because we're going to be down here at least until T. finishes college. My job covers house+bills, because we are buying a small fixerupper. But not a lot for savings .
no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 05:51 pm (UTC)Also, grocery prices are going up here, as well. We are eating a less healthy life-style because of it. Junk food and frankenfood is less expensive than healthy. It is a good thing I know how to prepare (freezing and canning) food on the cheap. It is time I get out our low-cost cook-book, again.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-16 07:12 pm (UTC)I've been reading up on root cellars and springhouses and co-op farms. Preserving veggies from a co-op to last halfway through the winter or more sounds like a really good idea, these days. Thinking about what I'd like to do if we end up living in a less citified area.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-17 01:54 am (UTC)Some of my patients have told me how to store veggies during winter by digging a hole, putting in a layer of straw, put in the veggies, cover them with straw and bury it until January. Then they would dig up the veggies which he said were just like the day when they were buried.
And of course, we have the freezer.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 12:56 pm (UTC)DC is short-term end goal, so, yeah. I pretty much need a doubled salary to cover the cost of living increase.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-17 11:44 am (UTC)Proposals to simplify social spending run into a variation of the same theme; one side doesn't trust people to actually spend money "correctly", and the other isn't interested in efficiency, just abolishment.
Then, in the REAL Washington, each side is convinced that the other side will destroy the country, or are traitors, or have election districts where they have to protect their more radical flank. As a result, the grand old art of compromise is flushed, well and truly; instead, each side is trying to undo the other.
Seriously, take a look at the UK or Canada. Neither country's opposition, when they gained power, immediately tried to rescind their predecessor's programs wholesale, like we do here in the US.
The system is broke. Maybe changing how election districts are drawn will help, so as to take the politics out of it; I certainly hope so. Otherwise, I can't say I'm comfortable about the nation's future.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 07:00 pm (UTC)