Participant Form - Employment & Training Administration: Fill & Download for Free

I think that this isn't a problem in and of itself: instead, it's a symptom of multiple underlying problems. It just happens to be easy to explain and easy to turn into an "us vs them" stance, which is great for getting people riled up and therefore great for politics.I can think of two main underlying problems: there is a significant concentration of power and people at the lower end have a low standard of living.Concentration of powerThe first problem is pretty straightforward: control of a significant portion of the wealth comes with a commensurate amount of power. This power takes several forms:Employment: much wealth is locked up in business, and businesses are traditionally extremely authoritarian. Bosses can get away with things the government would never dare because, after all, they pay you and the worst thing they can do to you is firing.Other resources: businesses and companies are more than just their employees. Somebody having a controlling stake in a media company, for example, has significant sway over what messages are broadcast to the populace at large.Prices: one of the best ways to control people is not to tell them what to do but to make your preferred option cheaper or otherwise more attractive economically. Large companies have abused this to push their own products and take control of public standards: Microsoft in the IE 6 age really comes to mind.Economics: larger companies have significant sway in local politics (and, by extension, with the congressional representatives) just because they are integral to local economies. A handful of companies can employ most of the residents of a municipality and even underpin a whole state's economy. This is going to get most politicians in the state to at least listen to those companies!Government Influence: having money gives you the resources to have more say in government. Even if government officials aren't actively corrupt—and, in the US, they generally aren't—having the money to do research and hire people to argue your position is pretty effective anyhow. People complain about campaign contributions, but really it's enough just to have the funding and manpower to strengthen your position even without having to pay off government officials.Ultimately, it's not about possessions or even wealth, it's about a power differential. The problem is that too few people hold too much power in the country.This is why I think focusing solely on the wealth issue is short-sighted: many people have too much power even if they don't have a corresponding amount of wealth. In fact, these are often the very people crusading against the rich in the first place! To an extent, this is a matter of focusing public ire on one particular overly powerful group and away from another.Abuses of government power—by the intelligence "community", the military, various other agencies or even elected officials—is at least as egregious as the abuses of the wealthy. It's actually the same problem! Ideally, we would focus on ways to diffuse the power situation of both people with too much economic power (ie the wealthy) and people with too much other power.PovertyAnother problem is that America's poor are simply very poor. They don't just lack resources: they barely hold on to surviving at all. Just making enough for food and housing is a challenge. This is not a good position to be in!This is a difficult issue to deal with: I believe it is primarily systematic. That is, nobody is really to blame; the problem is inherent in the way the system is set up. Moreover, while it's certainly satisfying to vilify somebody particular for this, it won't resolve anything. Instead, a good resolution would require recalibrating or rebuilding the whole system.Now, I'm not against capitalism or markets. Markets are basically the best way to reach a distributed consensus of what the actual preferences of all participants are. When managed properly, they have the wonderful property of being decentralized: nobody is telling anybody else what to do; instead, this emerges from people's individual decisions. Fundamentally, this is a good thing; a decentralized system like this is generally less biased and more trustworthy than any given group of people. Of course, it has its own shortcomings and failings, which is why we also need things like anti-trust laws and some consumer protection.However, the market system does seem to result in a large number of people at the bottom being rather poorly served. Problematic. Currently, the solution is a complex, piecemeal system of "safety nets" and social welfare programs. However, these are patchy, arbitrary, somewhat unpredictable and inadequate. Moreover, they give too much power to unelected bureaucrats administering the system and try too hard to push a certain kind of morality on recipients (ie a puritan work ethic).I think a much better and simpler alternative to the various welfare systems would be a negative income tax (NIT). The idea is actually quite simple: instead of having complex welfare systems all with their own eligibility criteria and administration we can reuse our existing tax infrastructure help the destitute. If you think of our progressive income tax as a curve, all this does is shift it over so that the bottom brackets actually receive money instead of paying it. With no strings attached.One advantage of the NIT is that it's simple and reuses existing infrastructure (the IRS). This can cut overheads for managing welfare programs, making the redistributed money more efficient. It also reduces the amount of power people on the program lose: they don't have any restrictions just because they get money from the government.Moreover, the NIT does a good job of preserving incentives. Many current welfare programs have a perverse incentive: if you get a moderately productive job, you actually lose benefits, so why would you get a job? The NIT, on the other hand, preserves exactly the same incentives as currently exist in higher tax brackets: while the marginal tax rate increases (or, the marginal benefits decrease), it's still always in your interest to make more money. And the thresholds for each level would be similar to what they already are, just with the actual numbers shifted over. If the system can maintain a reasonable incentive at higher levels despite the increased rate (and, I think, it does a good job of this), it can still keep the incentive going for people who actually receive the benefit.In short: I think the actual problem is not that some people are extremely wealthy but that some people have too much power and that too many people are too poor. The first issue needs to be addressed not just for the wealthy but for everyone with too much power, like many government officials. The second problem can be helped by replacing the current welfare system with a simple, direct method for wealth redistribution like a negative income tax. This also helps the first goal because it does not impose restrictions on people receiving government aid.

If an individual needs a loan but they don't qualify because their income isn't enough, they can fake a pay stub to increase their chances of qualifying. However, this is a criminal act. You could face serious fines and even jail time, depending on how much money you borrowed and whether or not you paid any of it back.If you get caught, you could be subject to fines that make the whole affair not worth it. If the company gets caught, you could get tracked down as someone who participated in the scam. An under-the-table stub generator is also an illegal move.Here are four better ways to verify income:Request a W-2 form. Employers prepare this form, which shows an employee's gross earnings, deductions, and taxes. ...Look at your applicant's bank account. Check to see whether the deposits match what they say their income is.Call their employer. ...Request form 4506 from the IRS.

I say this as a business owner and as an employer: Labor already shares in losses in the form of layoffs, reductions in available hours, and salary reductions. All of these are on the table when companies are under financial pressure.