Obama to unveil $3 trillion in debt cuts
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney September 19, 2011: 10:20 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama will unveil a plan on Monday to cut the national debt by roughly $3 trillion over the next decade.
Obama's plan reflects his vision for how best to put the country on a more fiscally sustainable course, so it is different in nature than the kind of legislative compromise he was trying to broker this summer during the debt-ceiling debate, a senior administration official said.
4
Print
A driving principle behind the proposal is that high-income individuals and corporations should pay more in taxes than they do currently so that they will bear some of the burden of debt reduction going forward.
Indeed, in remarks on Monday morning, the president will make clear he'll veto any debt-reduction legislation that takes "one dime away from Medicare benefits without asking the wealthy to pay their fair share," the official said.
Obama will even introduce the "Buffett Rule" for millionaires -- named after investor Warren Buffett, who has frequently argued that the very rich are not taxed enough.
The president's debt reduction proposal is likely to placate -- at least a little -- those in his Democratic base who have been adamant that they want the rich to pay more and they don't want Medicare or Social Security benefits hit. (Read: National debt: What you need to know)
The White House said last week the president's plan will not include any Social Security reform proposals. And another senior administration official noted Sunday that the plan will not call for raising the Medicare eligibility age, which fiscal experts have recommended.
But the Obama plan is unlikely to draw much support from Republicans, who have been adamant about not wanting to raise anyone's taxes. (Read: Where left and right actually agree)
The plan Obama will release includes some $3 trillion in savings on top of the nearly $1 trillion already signed into law under the debt ceiling deal enacted in August.
Of that, however, close to $500 billion would have to be used to pay for the American Jobs Act, which Obama proposed last week. (Read: Cutting now could hurt economy, CBO says)
All told, the administration says the president's plan would reduce debt to 73% of the size of the economy by 2021, well below the nearly 91% it's on track to hit without any budgetary changes. The White House estimates the annual deficit that year would fall to 2.3% of GDP, down from the 5.5% currently projected.
Here's how Obama's proposed savings break down.
Mandatory spending cuts: $580 billion.
Of the total cuts in mandatory spending, $248 billion will come out of Medicare. And about 90% of those savings will come from reducing overpayments in the system, a senior administration official said. He added that any changes to Medicare benefits won't kick in before 2017.
Another $72 billion will come from Medicaid and other health programs.
The plan also includes $250 billion in savings from other mandatory programs. They include $33 billion in savings from farm subsidies; $42.5 billion from federal worker benefit programs, including those for civilian workers and military personnel; and $92.2 billion the administration estimates it can save from "restructuring government operations and reducing government liabilities."
Tax revenue: $1.5 trillion.
Of the total revenue raised by tax changes, $800 billion would be realized by letting some of the Bush-era tax cuts expire for high-income households -- something Obama has called for repeatedly.
Another $400 billion would result from capping the value of itemized deductions and other exemptions for high-income households.
Why can't we tax everyone? If you make money you should be taxed because you're getting support from the country regardless. Everybody needs to pull their own weight, poor and rich.
Everyone IS being taxed. It's just that because of our government basically being run by rich white Christian males, its tax code is very much biased towards rich white Christian males.
Everyone being taxed at the same rates would actually be quite unequal, because ten percent of ten thousand s far more important to the poor man's life than ten percent of a a million to a rich man.
Indeed, in remarks on Monday morning, the president will make clear he'll veto any debt-reduction legislation that takes "one dime away from Medicare benefits without asking the wealthy to pay their fair share," the official said.
As always, the campaign rhetoric makes an appearance. Yes, the "wealthy" should pay their "fair share," but what does he mean by "wealthy" and what does he mean by "fair share"? It's an open-ended call to increase taxes.
About $1 trillion in savings is also expected from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't think that scaling down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be viewed as a "debt reduction" measure. Plans are already underway to draw down troops, so this is simply taking credit for an action that already in the works. It doesn't reflect a real change in spending habits, which are the problem.
The president's debt reduction proposal is likely to placate -- at least a little -- those in his Democratic base who have been adamant that they want the rich to pay more and they don't want Medicare or Social Security benefits hit.
Left unsaid is the $500 billion raid of Medicare earlier in his term.
All told, the administration says the president's plan would reduce debt to 73% of the size of the economy by 2021, well below the nearly 91% it's on track to hit without any budgetary changes. The White House estimates the annual deficit that year would fall to 2.3% of GDP, down from the 5.5% currently projected.
...and it still doesn't solve the problem.
My biggest problem with this proposal is that it perpetuates the problem and kicks the can down the road to be dealt with later (yes, Republicans do it too). This proposal doesn't suggest any real cuts to spending, it's all in reduction in the growth of future spending. And future congresses and presidents aren't bound by these changes, so if they want to increase spending, they're free to do so.
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.
Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.
Everyone regardless of income should pay same tax rate. Flat tax. Don't penalize people who make more money simply because they make more money. On the same note, don't give the wealthy loop holes to avoid taxes.
Melissia wrote:Everyone IS being taxed. It's just that because of our government basically being run by rich white Christian males, its tax code is very much biased towards rich white Christian males.
I don't think being christian has anything to do with it, unless of course you make donations to a church which can be counted as charity and give a tax deduction. People who donate to charities are given tax breaks so while Warren Buffet can complain about how many tax breaks he gets its probably because he's claiming those deductions.
Mutliple home owners get tax deductions because they're supposed to take care of the huge expenses in the houses they live in as well as any that they rent. A person who is poor and rents a house calls the owner if the water heater goes out or if the fences come down and the owner is responsible to pay for those repairs while the renter is not.
If a person is "rich" then they often make contributions to the "poor" by taking expenses that the poor do not have. By renting out a house the rich give the poor a reasonably priced place to live where the poor doesn't have to worry about paying for large and expensive home repairs. That's where a lot of deductions come from, because the rich are often paying for something that the poor typically are not.
If you want someone who truly believes in reducing the debt then get rid of tax deductions, just know that if you get rid of tax deductions a lot of people are going to suffer. The rich will suffer because they're paying for the large repair bills and they get no compensation for it which means the rent may increase and the poor family may not be able to afford that rent and in effect lose that house.
Then again you have people who "don't" pay taxes because they get enough tax deductions to get everything back, this includes 50% of the US population according to most sources. I say we make tax applicable to all people and find ways to get rid of deductions.
If a rich man has two kids then that was his choice to have two kids, why should he get a tax break? If a poor man has two kids then it was his choice to have two kids and he doesn't deserve a tax break either. If a rich man decides to rent out his old house then why does he deserve a break, if a poor man is a renter why does he deserve a break?
All in all there are very few people who actually deserve their tax breaks, wounded veterans and people who are disabled deserve benefits because they most likely did not choose to become disabled.
Melchiour wrote:Everyone regardless of income should pay same tax rate. Flat tax. Don't penalize people who make more money simply because they make more money. On the same note, don't give the wealthy loop holes to avoid taxes.
Now would you tax people on gross income or net income?
Melchiour wrote:Everyone regardless of income should pay same tax rate. Flat tax. Don't penalize people who make more money simply because they make more money. On the same note, don't give the wealthy loop holes to avoid taxes.
Proportionally to need, taxing 30% of 30,000 is far, far bigger of a hit to the budget than taxing 30% of 3,000,000.
Melchiour wrote:Everyone regardless of income should pay same tax rate. Flat tax. Don't penalize people who make more money simply because they make more money. On the same note, don't give the wealthy loop holes to avoid taxes.
Now would you tax people on gross income or net income?
How would you tax capital gains?
You tax them on purchases they make, get rid of any sort of rate taxes or make the rate consistent for everyone regardless of income level. If a rich man pays 10% in tax then the poor man pays 10% in tax as well. Get rid of deductions that are related to choices a person makes, donations, renting, children, etc. Get rid of income level deductions.
In fact, as I said before tax people through their consumer purchases. Get rid of income tax and replace it with a larger sales tax. This way everyone in the country will be paying taxes and getting no deductions for it, if you buy a pair of sneakers for $100 you'll pay $25 in sales tax regardless of your income level for example.
Melissia wrote:So basically anyone who can afford to save gets more benefit from saving than from spending thus encouraging people not to spend? Hm.
But, there is no income tax so that means people get everything that they earn from income. That means there is more money available to spend, but it also means that if you can't afford $100 shoes you won't be buying $100 shoes if you don't need them.
It also means that anyone who is rich will be paying more in taxes than the poor still. The rich man will buy the $100 shoes and pay $25 in taxes. The poor man will buy the $30 shoes and pay $7.50 in taxes. Its all fair Melissia, you may not like the idea of having everyone contribute to the society that supports everyone but I sure do.
halonachos wrote:But, there is no income tax so that means people get everything that they earn from income.
Right, they're merely penalized for spending in the first place. Seeing as those with less money tend to spend more of a percentage of it than those with more, this is basically the same as a regressive tax scheme.
If a rich person wanted a low tax rate under your scheme, they'd just save the money instead.
Well, I am all up for budget deficit reduction. I am also all up for revenue increases. Fixing tax loopholes should have been priority one ages ago. Why try to balance a budget with tax revenues when your unsure if how the current tax rules might apply to it's citizens?
The Buffett Rule...I am not quite sure to make of this. I understand that lowering taxes on job producers helps them reinvest to create jobs but that does not seem to be happening at the moment. Of course, a lot of this might be resolved with fixing the current loopholes in the tax code, regarding to the Buffett Rules.
No Social Security reforms might be a mistake but considering the current status of the nation, I think this could be moved aside for more pressing matters.
Not raising the age eligibility for Medicare, I think might be a mistake but this could be due to my age (26) thus not understanding the complete picture. $248 billion savings from reducing the overpayments. I was really unaware that Medicare paid substantially more than what is needed so I think this is a good move.
$33 billion in farm subsidaries. Good but not good enough in my opinion. Really they should just completely remove this and either figure out a new way to go about this or just stop subsidizing of farms all together.
$42.5 billion in federal worker benefit programs. Wonder what exactly this entails but seems a step in the right direction. $92.2 billion in "restructuring government operations and reducing liabilities" is also a step in the right direction but need more information on what exactly this is refering to.
The $500 billion for basically infrastructure focused jobs is not a bad idea but not a new idea. But it is money well spent if a lot of the bridges, roads, and other state/federal infrastructure actually sees that money for reconstruction efforts.
Overall, I think this is a good bill. It looks like a compromise, unlike how the Republicans seem to not be providing.
halonachos wrote:But, there is no income tax so that means people get everything that they earn from income.
Right, they're merely penalized for spending in the first place. Seeing as those with less money tend to spend more of a percentage of it than those with more, this is basically the same as a regressive tax scheme.
If a rich person wanted a low tax rate under your scheme, they'd just save the money instead.
And if a poor person wanted a low tax rate then they would do the same. Just because the poor buy more things doesn't mean they can't cut back and live within their means, my family does and always has. When we lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life we lived within our means, when my dad earned enough to be considered "rich" we moved to another house that was well within our means(the banks said they could give us a loan for a house up to $650,000, instead of going for that we went with a house that was $400,000).
People can save money regardless of their income level and if a person spends themselves into bankruptcy its their own damn fault.
If you stop subsidising farms, be prepared to pay a lot more for produce, or see really horrendous conditions in rural areas as small farmers can no longer get by.
On the tax thing, there's a counter argument. The $30 pair of shoes will not last as long as the $100 pair of shoes, forcing the poorer worker to fork out more over time than the rich worker. This argument can be extended into all sorts of fields.
As for "earning", well, I dunno that the super rich "earn" their money in the way I was raised to believe that word works, but they sure seem to be successful at manipulating us all into thinking they do.
Edit: People cannot save "regardless" of income level, what a blinkered thing to say. There are people out there starving or barely surviving with long term ailments and other problems that they can't get treated. That was a very poor generalisation.
halonachos wrote:But, there is no income tax so that means people get everything that they earn from income.
Right, they're merely penalized for spending in the first place. Seeing as those with less money tend to spend more of a percentage of it than those with more, this is basically the same as a regressive tax scheme.
If a rich person wanted a low tax rate under your scheme, they'd just save the money instead.
And if a poor person wanted a low tax rate then they would do the same. Just because the poor buy more things doesn't mean they can't cut back and live within their means, my family does and always has.
And suppose that said person can't cut down on anything non-essential. Then what? "Feth them, they brought poverty upon themselves"?
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.
Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.
the irony and hypocrisy of this remark is killing me.
Da Boss wrote:If you stop subsidising farms, be prepared to pay a lot more for produce, or see really horrendous conditions in rural areas as small farmers can no longer get by...
I see this get said a lot about farm subsideries but doesn't most of the money go to the largest farms instead of the smallest farms? Also, doesn't farm subsideries depress global food prices thus keeps small farmers from making enough money to make ends meet globally?
The thing that frusterates me is these things won't hit for so long by the time they do all of us won't remember when they were voted in. I would like to see the people on capitol hill take a pay cut since they have been doing a really bad job. You can't lead people but put yourself and only what you want first without screwing something up. Mostly though I see a lot of politicians looking like this.
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.
Melchiour wrote:Everyone regardless of income should pay same tax rate. Flat tax. Don't penalize people who make more money simply because they make more money. On the same note, don't give the wealthy loop holes to avoid taxes.
Now would you tax people on gross income or net income?
How would you tax capital gains?
You tax them on purchases they make, get rid of any sort of rate taxes or make the rate consistent for everyone regardless of income level. If a rich man pays 10% in tax then the poor man pays 10% in tax as well. Get rid of deductions that are related to choices a person makes, donations, renting, children, etc. Get rid of income level deductions.
In fact, as I said before tax people through their consumer purchases. Get rid of income tax and replace it with a larger sales tax. This way everyone in the country will be paying taxes and getting no deductions for it, if you buy a pair of sneakers for $100 you'll pay $25 in sales tax regardless of your income level for example.
So you're not actually talking about an income, but instead a sales tax variant?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Easy example. Wait ten days. Look what happens to Greece.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Easy example. Wait ten days. Look what happens to Greece.
No. I asked for a mechanical explanation, not a flippant post about a wildly different economic situation. Try again.
How does merely having a debt damage the economy? Greece got their debt above the point where they can pay the interest reasonably, that's an indisputably bad thing to do. I'm asking why we should bother REDUCING a debt whose interest payments are reasonable rather than simply slowing the growth of the debt such that the debt as a % of GDP stays stable.
It seems remarkably silly to cut off your own ability to spend to the edge of your purchasing power on things which increase GDP by a rate higher than the debt you are creating. This is tried and true economic policy.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Easy example. Wait ten days. Look what happens to Greece.
No. I asked for a mechanical explanation, not a flippant post about a wildly different economic situation. Try again.
How does merely having a debt damage the economy? Greece got their debt above the point where they can pay the interest reasonably, that's an indisputably bad thing to do. I'm asking why we should bother REDUCING a debt whose interest payments are reasonable rather than simply slowing the growth of the debt such that the debt as a % of GDP stays stable.
The current budget discussions are not designed to reduce the debt, merely reduce the growth of the debt.
Its not flippant. You asked for an example of what happens. Greece, Argentina, are excellent examples of that.
To be clear-tailspin of the economy, with recovery that happens after (maybe) a decade. Extreme fiscal austerity to get the economy going again.
Else rampant inflation.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Easy example. Wait ten days. Look what happens to Greece.
No. I asked for a mechanical explanation, not a flippant post about a wildly different economic situation. Try again.
How does merely having a debt damage the economy? Greece got their debt above the point where they can pay the interest reasonably, that's an indisputably bad thing to do. I'm asking why we should bother REDUCING a debt whose interest payments are reasonable rather than simply slowing the growth of the debt such that the debt as a % of GDP stays stable.
The current budget discussions are not designed to reduce the debt, merely reduce the growth of the debt.
Its not flippant. You asked for an example of what happens. Greece, Argentina, are excellent examples of that.
To be clear-tailspin of the economy, with recovery that happens after (maybe) a decade. Extreme fiscal austerity to get the economy going again.
Else rampant inflation.
Again, I asked for a mechanical explanation. I did not use the word example anywhere.
Your post seems full of assumptions. "extreme fiscal austerity to get the economy going again". How? Explain how austerity gets the economy going again. Austerity=Growth needs to be established, you can't treat that like it's an accepted premise.
I hope I'm not coming off as arguing too aggressively, I'm not sure what the standard around here for that is.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Well, a debt is money owed. If money owed > money made, then debt increases if you continue to borrow. If debt > some number, loaners will not give money. Therefore, expenses must be decreased to make money owed = money made to pay the payments.
What happens is that the US government will not be able to give/spend money on vital functions that government provides. It works just exactly the same for individuals who are borrowing money.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Easy example. Wait ten days. Look what happens to Greece.
No. I asked for a mechanical explanation, not a flippant post about a wildly different economic situation. Try again.
How does merely having a debt damage the economy? Greece got their debt above the point where they can pay the interest reasonably, that's an indisputably bad thing to do. I'm asking why we should bother REDUCING a debt whose interest payments are reasonable rather than simply slowing the growth of the debt such that the debt as a % of GDP stays stable.
The current budget discussions are not designed to reduce the debt, merely reduce the growth of the debt.
Its not flippant. You asked for an example of what happens. Greece, Argentina, are excellent examples of that.
To be clear-tailspin of the economy, with recovery that happens after (maybe) a decade. Extreme fiscal austerity to get the economy going again.
Else rampant inflation.
Again, I asked for a mechanical explanation. I did not use the word example anywhere.
Your post seems full of assumptions. "extreme fiscal austerity to get the economy going again". How? Explain how austerity gets the economy going again. Austerity=Growth needs to be established, you can't treat that like it's an accepted premise.
I hope I'm not coming off as arguing too aggressively, I'm not sure what the standard around here for that is.
Basicly the global economy loses faith in your currency and it becomes de-valued. They can do this since money isn't worth any more than people precieve it to be and if other countries see our money as worthless then it becomes such. Then we become Greece some time down the road.
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.
Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.
If that post is not asking for trouble, I don't know what is.
Da Boss wrote: Edit: People cannot save "regardless" of income level, what a blinkered thing to say. There are people out there starving or barely surviving with long term ailments and other problems that they can't get treated. That was a very poor generalisation.
First of all, I have already stated that there are several types of people who deserve deductions, the disabled and wounded veterans. A person suffering from a long-term ailment that causes them to not work counts as disabled and would get benefits.
Your generalisation is also poor, not every single poor person is starving, works for a scrooge, and has a child missing a leg along with several other children. People can find ways to save money, and if a person becomes poor it is not my fault nor is it the fault of anyone else. Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes. Think about it, if someone cannot afford to feed themselves or their family then chances are they don't make enough income to warrant taxation and they already pay a sales tax and a food tax on top of whatever they already buy. All I'm saying is get rid of the already existing sales taxes and income taxes(there are state and federal levels for both) and replace them a sales tax variant for both levels. Again, that means more income and if you don't buy anything then you don't pay taxes. The stuff that they should be buying to stay within means is most likely incredibly cheap and will probably add on a dollar or so in this new taxes.
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares. So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
@Frazzled, yes I am talking about a sales tax variant. Everybody buys things, citizens, illegals, people who have income that is outside of legal means(drug dealers), anything with humanoid features and a pulse.
halonachos wrote:Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes.
Actually they'd go from not paying tax on income to paying tax on consumption.
So they'd be being taxed MORE, while the rich woudl be being taxed LESS (they, especially corporations, can just save most of the millions they make every year).
halonachos wrote:Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes.
Actually they'd go from not paying tax on income to paying tax on consumption.
So they'd be being taxed MORE, while the rich woudl be being taxed LESS (they, especially corporations, can just save most of the millions they make every year).
Funny, that.
They're already paying sales tax Melissia. How can corporations save money, they buy the materials they need including staplers, paper, pens, etc, etc. All of that would be getting taxed and if the corporation involves the production of items then they have to pay for materials. I say that if you want to give tax deductions to the poor then you need to give them to the rich because that's fair, if you want to say that life isn't fair then the poor should live in squalor accordingly.
I fail to see how the rich would save money when they will also be buying food on top of other, more expensive, items.
I will quote Theodore Roosevelt several times:
TR wrote:The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.
TR wrote:A man who is good enough to shed his blood for the country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.
TR wrote:Big jobs usually go to the men who prove their ability to outgrow small ones.
Simple philosophy to follow. He also has some inspirational quotes, and if you ever make fun of Teddy Roosevelt, Melissia, i will have you know that the man was first and foremost in the belief in women's rights, the man actually said publicly that he wouldn't make a woman take his last name in marriage.
Melissia wrote:Everyone IS being taxed. It's just that because of our government basically being run by rich white Christian males, its tax code is very much biased towards rich white Christian males.
Everyone being taxed at the same rates would actually be quite unequal, because ten percent of ten thousand s far more important to the poor man's life than ten percent of a a million to a rich man.
Your (Freudian) slip is showing.
Everyone is NOT being taxed. Everyone is being assessed. Currently 93% of tax filers in the bottom 20 percent of income earning pay nothing... in fact they actually DRAW OUT in the form of tax credits.
All this talk of "fairness" is making me sick. You want to know what's fair? Divide the annual budget among the number of Americans. That's fair, just like in kindergarten when everyone got one cookie out of the pile.
Everyone should pay SOMETHING. No one should pay NOTHING. There should never be FREELOADERS that suck off their fellow taxpayers. There's a word for that in the animal kingdom, when something subsists off the life blood of another animal. It's called a parasite.
Zyllos wrote:The Buffett Rule...I am not quite sure to make of this. I understand that lowering taxes on job producers helps them reinvest to create jobs but that does not seem to be happening at the moment. Of course, a lot of this might be resolved with fixing the current loopholes in the tax code, regarding to the Buffett Rules.
I actually wouldn't mind the "Buffett" tax if it could be coupled with an agreement of some kind. For example, you get to pass the "millionaire's tax" for as much of a tax increase as you want. Seriously, sky's the limit. Then we wait a year. If the economy recovers and all of those millionaires start producing jobs (to...avoid getting taxed? I'm not sure exactly how that works, but whatever) then we agree that the tax was a good idea and let you guys run the economy.
However, if (when) this tax fails to do what is promised - increase government revenue from millionaires and create jobs - then you step aside and let the grown-ups take over.
The last liberal economic program - affectionately known as Porkulus - failed miserably, yet the President still insists that the program was correct in concept (see e.g. American Jobs Act). Others claim that it simply wasn't big enough and that a bigger spending plan is necessary. Obviously the Democrats won't take responsibility for a failed program (who would?), but lets at least try to have some sense ourselves.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Well, debt costs money. The government has to pay interest on the debt that it is borrowing (hopefully, because if they're borrowing to pay interest we're getting into serious trouble). That means that either the government is providing fewer services (that it could be spending the interest on) or that you are taxed more.
Interestingly, I found this chart when I was doing some googlin'. Ah for the halcyon days when 2012 debt was projected to be 64% of GDP. Unsurprisingly, the story has since changed. (not directly contradictory, but evidence of a change in perception of debt)
Frazzled wrote:Lets not bring TR into this as someone will inevitably speak ill of THE GREAT ONE. I will of course then have to go Bull Moose on his ass.
Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
Who could speak ill of a man with his face on the side of a mountain with 3 other guys that the country actually liked? You know, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Cheney?
They're actually already saving. Trillions, as in multiple, have been saved up in various forms by US-based multinational corporations.
You're right. If we followed proper economic theory, that cash would be dividended to its stockholders. International Capital Gains treatment, legal limitations, and realization we're in GR II are limiting that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Foot wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Lets not bring TR into this as someone will inevitably speak ill of THE GREAT ONE. I will of course then have to go Bull Moose on his ass.
Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
Who could speak ill of a man with his face on the side of a mountain with 3 other guys that the country actually liked? You know, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Cheney?
Dick Cheney...the Penguin... why is it they are never in the same room at the same time?
They're actually already saving. Trillions, as in multiple, have been saved up in various forms by US-based multinational corporations.
Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes and the quote, that you took grossly out of context I might add, is referring to the new tax system where they get taxed for purchasing office supplies, raw materials, etc I would say that your point is somewhat valid.
Funny things about the VAT, Nancy Pelosi said it was possible and I hate Nancy Pelosi so we should call it the American Way of Economic Support for Other Materialistic Excursions or AWESOME for short.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes
And they have less reason to save it now than they would if we exchanged income tax for the consumption tax you love so much (After all, money then wouldn't be taxed until it's spent, so they put it in a bank and earn interest on it instead).
So you'd see MORE saved up under a consumption tax policy.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes
And they have less reason to save it now than they would if we exchanged income tax for the consumption tax you love so much (After all, money then wouldn't be taxed until it's spent, so they put it in a bank and earn interest on it instead).
So you'd see MORE saved up under a consumption tax policy.
And less spending.
What is wrong with putting money in a bank? They earned that money and can do with it what they please, besides they would still have to buy things in order to have their corporation function. Toilet paper is used on a dialy basis and bought on a daily basis, are you assuming that under a consumption tax policy that instead of buying toilet paper the corporations would just put the money into a bank account? Don't be silly Melissia, they're going to spend the same amount of money in the consumption tax policy as they do in the current policy. If they put some into a bank account and earn interest then its more money that they can spend and put into the federal government.
Nothing, except that such a policy would only further work to separate the rich from the poor, as people with lots of money can use it to make more money while people without are struggling to get from day to day because the increased consumption tax makes prices go higher.
Which only goes to make the economy even worse, as the masses end up with less to spend, making the corporations less likely to want to expand. Basically it's just about one of the worst tax reforms you can make right now.
Melissia wrote:Nothing, except that such a policy would only further work to separate the rich from the poor, as people with lots of money can use it to make more money while people without are struggling to get from day to day because the increased consumption tax makes prices go higher.
Which only goes to make the economy even worse, as the masses end up with less to spend, making the corporations less likely to want to expand.
Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank. It is possible for the poor to increase their financial holdings believe it or not, some people have done it before. No matter what there will be a difference between the two groups financially and if you don't want to have that difference its called communism and it doesn't work in real life. There will always be poor and there will always be rich and there has always been different societal standings. The difference is that now people who are poor can become rich.
People with a lot of money can buy more expensive things and you're acting as if they also won't be paying higher prices for their items like the poor are. Here's the difference Melissia, the huge fething difference between the poor and the rich, where and what they buy. Rich people buy less? Is it maybe because they already have most of the basics, maybe its because they tend to be older and need less, is it because they may have children who are no longer dependant on them? Look at all of the reasons that the rich are buying less, fiscal responsibility and so on and on. But here's the kicker if you're poor then you shouldn't be buying $100 shoes, yes that kind of person does indeed exist, if you're poor then maybe a 60" flatscreen is just a bit out of budget for you and so on and on. If you're rich chances are you don't go down to the local Wal-mart or Big Lots or any second-hand store and shop, chances are you buy new, big, and expensive. That's the biggest difference there, a rich person who can afford a $100,000 surround sound system can buy it and will be paying $25,000 in sales tax while a poor person won't even buy that system and contribute nothing in taxes. Rich people often spend more on food because they have a 'refined' taste and that food is more expensive than the food poor people would buy.
I don't care if you're a highschool dropout with three kids and a minimum wage job, you screwed up and its not my fault so I'm not going to pay for you. I don't care if you went to college and got a liberal arts degree and can't find a job because you don't want to work minimum wage, that's your own damn fault. People, poor and rich, need to take responsibility for their own failures. If you don't have a job join the military, does it suck, yes, but its a job and a source of income. If you get a dishonorable discharge then tough gak, you screwed up. If you don't learn from your failures then tougher gak.
@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
It would get quite a bit, a lot of countries use the system. Although if America were to adopt it then we would be looking at 8% with no exemptions to the taxes and 18% if we exempt health-care, living, and similar expenses.
darkPrince010 wrote:as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system
How is the current system "loophole-free"? Tax evasion is an incredibly easy crime to commit (since you're objection is on black-market sales, which would presumably be illegal under an income-tax based system).
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
So, 3 years ago, my wife walked out on me and my 3 kids. 3,4, and 5 years old. I worked a job at a retail store (non management.) My life was crap, but I worked my ass off and took care of my family AND saved money. Sure, it wasn't an ideal life but I made it work. I didn't go out at all, I didn't go see movies. I brown bagged lunch everyday. My kids were well cared for but we didn't have any extra's. I prided myself on taking care of my family, and yes, I was able to save money up as well.
You just have to learn that eating out and Xbox games are extra's and not your right. I am in a much better place now thankfully and can afford things I want, but I had to EARN it.
I never got child support and never asked the government to bail me out.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Congratulations, your dad got lucky.
Well technically, I'd proffer that 100% of our dad's got lucky.
Okay, I kinda forgive you for before. That actually made me laugh
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
People shouldn't have kids if they cant afford them. Thats what has made us skint! Toothless stupid people breed like rats to get wellfare cheques. Its a guaranteed job and the pay cheques for life.
Im sick of my taxes paying for ugly fethed up womens ugly fethed up kids.
I think we should scrap child support altogether. Its not like kids are rare.
edit: for future reference, I believe this may look like I'm coming off as an arse. Good for you for getting your family through a rough patch on your own. I just didn't want to quote the whole post.
halonachos wrote:My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Congratulations, your dad got lucky.
Lucky? I suppose that joining the military and staying with it for 23 years and then retiring and getting a job as a diesel mechanic for a company and then joining another sailing company where he continued to work on large diesel engines until he studied hard and learned enough about various systems that he earned a two promotions is lucky. It was anything but luck Melissia, its called working hard and earning what you make. BTW he's still working at the age of 50 doing the same exact thing, going out to sea and working in 100+ degree temperatures. But yes, my father was lucky that we could live with an income of under 30k a year and he was lucky that he was willing to work hard. He worked hard to get the salary he gets now, plain and simple.
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
You know bankruptcy doesn't wipe student debt anymore. It's insane to me that a certain type of debt is allowed to be magically immune to everything that normally matters.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
If I win the lotto I'm going to put it all in a bank and save it up just to piss Melissia off.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
Oh yeah, we should can bankruptcy as well. Make people that cant pay their debts work them off in a government owned mine or something.
If I was in charge wed be rich I tells ya! Scrap child support and make the bankrupt work 12 hour shifts in a government mine for 5 years. Thats gotta be savings/revenue in the billions right?
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
You know bankruptcy doesn't wipe student debt anymore. It's insane to me that a certain type of debt is allowed to be magically immune to everything that normally matters.
Frankly I've never seen anyone give a about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
You know bankruptcy doesn't wipe student debt anymore. It's insane to me that a certain type of debt is allowed to be magically immune to everything that normally matters.
Frankly I've never seen anyone give a about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
Oh yeah, we should can bankruptcy as well. Make people that cant pay their debts work them off in a government owned mine or something.
If I was in charge wed be rich I tells ya! Scrap child support and make the bankrupt work 12 hour shifts in a government mine for 5 years. Thats gotta be savings/revenue in the billions right?
Heck, go all the way and scrap the kids! I mean, somone will want all of that delicious and tender child meat. It isn't like we can't just have more anyway.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
If I win the lotto I'm going to put it all in a bank and save it up just to piss Melissia off.
If I win the lotto Im going to have all poor people with more than two kids forcibly sterilised by my private army of goons.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
Oh yeah, we should can bankruptcy as well. Make people that cant pay their debts work them off in a government owned mine or something.
If I was in charge wed be rich I tells ya! Scrap child support and make the bankrupt work 12 hour shifts in a government mine for 5 years. Thats gotta be savings/revenue in the billions right?
Heck, go all the way and scrap the kids! I mean, somone will want all of that delicious and tender child meat. It isn't like we can't just have more anyway.
Or we could make the children work, sins of the father and all.
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
This is true, thats why it needs to be done thoughtfully. I always pondered that, if I won the Lotto, one of things I might do is provide free bankruptcy services for the poor.
Oh yeah, we should can bankruptcy as well. Make people that cant pay their debts work them off in a government owned mine or something.
If I was in charge wed be rich I tells ya! Scrap child support and make the bankrupt work 12 hour shifts in a government mine for 5 years. Thats gotta be savings/revenue in the billions right?
I don't know about Britain (well with your workhouses I do know actually), but in the US, especially in Western states, bankruptcy statutes are quite liberal. They were intentionally desinged under a second chance concept. In certain states, like Auatralia we had to take what we could get to fill up the population vacuum and steal the land from its rightful owners. So all kinds of peasants and scum of the earth came here. How else do you explain Frazzled and Texas? (ok some of that is actually true, but I left out the Comanches riding on dinosaurs part).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
You know bankruptcy doesn't wipe student debt anymore. It's insane to me that a certain type of debt is allowed to be magically immune to everything that normally matters.
Frankly I've never seen anyone give a about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
I sense a few boos from the peanut gallery. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about Britain (well with your workhouses I do know actually), but in the US, especially in Western states, bankruptcy statutes are quite liberal. They were intentionally desinged under a second chance concept. In certain states, like Auatralia we had to take what we could get to fill up the population vacuum and steal the land from its rightful owners. So all kinds of peasants and scum of the earth came here. How else do you explain Frazzled and Texas? (ok some of that is actually true, but I left out the Comanches riding on dinosaurs part).
Frazzled, the cheapest looking glass into the past. Sure its a bit cloudy and cracked in some places, but history looks almost like it actually was. Hey its free, what are you going to complain about?
Student loans are actually explicitly exempt from all of the normal debt collection laws. They're allowed to go after you a lot harder and you have no real rights.
If you go to a loan shark for a pile of money to spend on strippers, they can only harass you so much and bankruptcy is still an option, yet if you borrow for school, they own you.
halonachos wrote:They're cracking down hard on student loans now, that could be the big thing. Usually people just kind of forget about them until its too late though.
Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans. If BofA comes after you, you can give 'em Matty's favorite sign. If its the US government, you have to like get lawyers and lobbyists and campaign bundlers and such.
Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about Britain (well with your workhouses I do know actually), but in the US, especially in Western states, bankruptcy statutes are quite liberal. They were intentionally desinged under a second chance concept. In certain states, like Auatralia we had to take what we could get to fill up the population vacuum and steal the land from its rightful owners. So all kinds of peasants and scum of the earth came here. How else do you explain Frazzled and Texas? (ok some of that is actually true, but I left out the Comanches riding on dinosaurs part).
Frazzled, the cheapest looking glass into the past. Sure its a bit cloudy and cracked in some places, but history looks almost like it actually was. Hey its free, what are you going to complain about?
Indeed. Looking glass yes, but you'll have to speak up as I'm a little deaf sonny.
halonachos wrote:They're cracking down hard on student loans now, that could be the big thing. Usually people just kind of forget about them until its too late though.
Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans. If BofA comes after you, you can give 'em Matty's favorite sign.
halonachos wrote:They're cracking down hard on student loans now, that could be the big thing. Usually people just kind of forget about them until its too late though.
Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans. If BofA comes after you, you can give 'em Matty's favorite sign. If its the US government, you have to like get lawyers and lobbyists and campaign bundlers and such.
Actually, the abusive changes to student loans were made as part of their privitization. The argument was that private companies wouldn't come in to service the loans unless we protected them. The protection in this case was allowing them to ignore the fair debt collection practices acts.
Frazzled wrote:
I sense a few boos from the peanut gallery. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
It's anecdotal evidence, meaningless.
You mean this thread or the internet?
Run up your credit cards to pay off the student then file?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
halonachos wrote:They're cracking down hard on student loans now, that could be the big thing. Usually people just kind of forget about them until its too late though.
Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans. If BofA comes after you, you can give 'em Matty's favorite sign.
Frazzled wrote:
I sense a few boos from the peanut gallery. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
It's anecdotal evidence, meaningless.
You mean this thread or the internet?
Run up your credit cards to pay off the student then file?
No, you brought up the people you knew with student loans. That's meaningless anecdotal evidence. It's not useful in an argument.
Wait we're having an argument? I don't have arguments unless I'm getting the standard US$450 an hour. Where should I send the bill?
Rented, I think Frazzled is a lawyer or something like that so he gets paid to argue. If he isn't a lawyer then he probably works at a Dairy Queen and gets paid to argue with the customers in a heated debate that causes them to want ice cream.
Frazzled wrote:
I sense a few boos from the peanut gallery. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
It's anecdotal evidence, meaningless.
You mean this thread or the internet?
Run up your credit cards to pay off the student then file?
No, you brought up the people you knew with student loans. That's meaningless anecdotal evidence. It's not useful in an argument.
Wait we're having an argument? I don't have arguments unless I'm getting the standard US$450 an hour. Where should I send the bill?
Rented, I think Frazzled is a lawyer or something like that so he gets paid to argue. If he isn't a lawyer then he probably works at a Dairy Queen and gets paid to argue with the customers in a heated debate that causes them to want ice cream.
Mmmm ice cream. There is a Third Option. I argue with them until their heads explode and then I rifle through their pockets for loose change. of course that may just be my side job I started to pay for all the food my kids eat.
On the positive I did have some cake at 8.30AM. Thats pretty bad, even for me.
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
Why should we use money, why can't we barter for an education. I'm sure that a state college education is worth about 200 chickens or maybe 300 bushels of barley.
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
Why should we use money, why can't we barter for an education. I'm sure that a state college education is worth about 200 chickens or maybe 300 bushels of barley.
Frazzled wrote:
I sense a few boos from the peanut gallery. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
It's anecdotal evidence, meaningless.
You mean this thread or the internet?
Run up your credit cards to pay off the student then file?
No, you brought up the people you knew with student loans. That's meaningless anecdotal evidence. It's not useful in an argument.
Wait we're having an argument? I don't have arguments unless I'm getting the standard US$450 an hour. Where should I send the bill?
Rented, I think Frazzled is a lawyer or something like that so he gets paid to argue. If he isn't a lawyer then he probably works at a Dairy Queen and gets paid to argue with the customers in a heated debate that causes them to want ice cream.
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
Why should we use money, why can't we barter for an education. I'm sure that a state college education is worth about 200 chickens or maybe 300 bushels of barley.
220. It went up this year.
Gosh darn it, guess I'm just going to have to make the extra 20 up with carrots.
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
We don't need an objective measure, we just need to treat the student loans just like any other loans. Bankruptcy should still work, the FDCPA should still apply, etc etc etc. Allowing people to declare bankruptcy is anything but a "free ride".
If anything, it provides a very necessary market force to keep lenders from being dicks. If you can't pay, they have an interest in allowing you to pay what you can because if they don't, you declare bankruptcy and they get pennies on the dollar. Without bankruptcy, a lender has NO INCENTIVE to be fair to the borrower whatsoever.
If someone just doesn't want to pay, bankruptcy will liquidate their assets to pay the lender. Basically bankruptcy only works if you actually cannot pay.
This is the system we have in place for all loans for a long time. The student loan industry basically lobbied to have the protection removed from ONLY student loans, as though they're different somehow. It's still a loan, it should still work the exact same way.
Rented Tritium wrote:Fortunately for the millions that can't, we don't set evidence based economic policy on what forums poster frazzled has personally seen.
Is there some objective measure we can use to separate out "those who can't" repay their students loans from "those who don't want to" repay?
If so, why did we give them student loans in the first place? If not, why should we give "those who don't want to" a free ride?
Why should we use money, why can't we barter for an education. I'm sure that a state college education is worth about 200 chickens or maybe 300 bushels of barley.
220. It went up this year.
Gosh darn it, guess I'm just going to have to make the extra 20 up with carrots.
We offered 20 lb of wiener dog fertilizer. We've not heard back yet. TBone's willing to part with his old teeth removed when he had his surgery, or to help with the university's squirrel problem (someone will have to point him to the right tree though).
Rented Tritium wrote:We don't need an objective measure, we just need to treat the student loans just like any other loans. Bankruptcy should still work, the FDCPA should still apply, etc etc etc. Allowing people to declare bankruptcy is anything but a "free ride".
The problem is that student loan debt really is crushing when you're early in your career and have very little assets or income. Basically a perfect time to declare bankruptcy.
The only thing that prevents this type of behavior (taking out huge loans and immediately declaring bankruptcy) is a lender's discretion, which the government tends to lack.
Rented Tritium wrote:We don't need an objective measure, we just need to treat the student loans just like any other loans. Bankruptcy should still work, the FDCPA should still apply, etc etc etc. Allowing people to declare bankruptcy is anything but a "free ride".
The problem is that student loan debt really is crushing when you're early in your career and have very little assets or income. Basically a perfect time to declare bankruptcy.
The only thing that prevents this type of behavior (taking out huge loans and immediately declaring bankruptcy) is a lender's discretion, which the government tends to lack.
You are aware that the government (until veeeery recently) does not actually issue student loans, right? They guarantee them, but they do not issue or service them. The direct program was TINY until 2010 and this problem is not new. If the issue were entirely about lender discretion, it would be a new problem that started in 2010.
The problems with student loans are worth their own thread honestly.
Frazzled wrote:Which explains why you suddenly can't get rid of them in bankruptcy. You can't cheat the Royal of taxes or, evidently, student loans.
Remember girls, in many jurisidictions child support payments are not dischargeable either.
Except that the change that allowed this was part of a law to PRIVATIZE the loans. The fact that the government is benefiting from it now does not change the fact that it was originally enacted to help big business. You can't reinvent the narrative to make this all about the big evil government when it was Chase's lobbyists that made it happen.
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
Rented Tritium wrote:You are aware that the government (until veeeery recently) does not actually issue student loans, right? They guarantee them, but they do not issue or service them.
Do you know what it means to guarantee a loan?
If so, why would you be surprised that the government would not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy?
Frazzled wrote:Which explains why you suddenly can't get rid of them in bankruptcy. You can't cheat the Royal of taxes or, evidently, student loans.
Remember girls, in many jurisidictions child support payments are not dischargeable either.
Except that the change that allowed this was part of a law to PRIVATIZE the loans. The fact that the government is benefiting from it now does not change the fact that it was originally enacted to help big business. You can't reinvent the narrative to make this all about the big evil government when it was Chase's lobbyists that made it happen.
Well, back when dinosaurs roamed the loans were private and backed by Uncle Sam, but still dischargeable. When did this occur?
Frazzled wrote:Frankly I've never seen anyone give a about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
You don't know many students then do ya?
Most of my teachers are worried about it quite a damned lot. Many have long since graduated.
Frazzled wrote:Frankly I've never seen anyone give a about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
You don't know many students then do ya?
Most of my teachers are worried about it quite a damned lot. Many have long since graduated.
Yes actually, but we all have kids and...er...grandkids so its not much of an issue at this point.
Yeah here's the part where we meet around the other side of the issue and agree. If it were up to me, we'd end the federal student loan programs. They're definitely a big part of the problem.
Like I said, though, it's worth its own thread. My position is that the education market is degenerate and has no functional market forces and needs to get disentangled from the banking industry.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah here's the part where we meet around the other side of the issue and agree. If it were up to me, we'd end the federal student loan programs. They're definitely a big part of the problem.
Like I said, though, it's worth its own thread.
Indeed.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. But I think you would see dramatic increases in interest rates and loan availability if that were so. Rather than having the desired effect of weeding out those who can't or shouldn't go to college, it would likely make a college more of an upper- and upper-middle class privilege.
halonachos wrote:
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares.
No, people don't cry when rich people go bankrupt because they have way bigger margins than (relatively) poor. As such, people assume that the rich person fethed up and didn't have some cash stowed away for an emergency. People do become upset when those who have a hard time are hit because getting more troubles when you're already troubled is perceived as unfair.
halonachos wrote:
So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
Tough gak. Freedom of speech and all that, no one's forcing you to listen to me. I myself would prefer that you didn't come across as so angry, but I can't force you, so I'll ask you politely: will you please calm down?
@biccat: I should have clearly defined that as "current or proposed "loophole-free" systems". My bad. EDIT: How would expunging student loans upon bancruptcy restrict it to an middle/upper class only privilege? Seems to me that this would allow lowerclass families to not have to worry about being haunted by debt years later in case of severe financial hardships.
@halonachos: I'm curious what other countries use this system, since I've never heard of it as a complete substitute to taxes before now.
Btw, for anyone interested, going by chicken being worth $0.89 per lb, and college costing on average $30420 for 4 years, it'd cost you about 8337 6-week-old Broiler chickens (4.1 lbs on average) to pay for your education, at about 21 chickens per hour of edumacation.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah here's the part where we meet around the other side of the issue and agree. If it were up to me, we'd end the federal student loan programs. They're definitely a big part of the problem.
Like I said, though, it's worth its own thread.
Indeed.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. But I think you would see dramatic increases in interest rates and loan availability if that were so. Rather than having the desired effect of weeding out those who can't or shouldn't go to college, it would likely make a college more of an upper- and upper-middle class privilege.
Well, my thinking is that the federal guarantee is driving the cost up in the first place, since a school can increase tuition year after year and the loans keep getting paid no matter what. Lack of rational equilibrium pricing on education is hurting everyone. One would imagine that once the price gets coupled with reality, the schools would start to separate into expensive but good and cheap and less good.
While this sounds sucky at first glance, I would MUCH RATHER a poor person be able to afford a cheap school outright than sell their soul to go to ANY school.
halonachos wrote:
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares.
No, people don't cry when rich people go bankrupt because they have way bigger margins than (relatively) poor. As such, people assume that the rich person fethed up and didn't have some cash stowed away for an emergency. People do become upset when those who have a hard time are hit because getting more troubles when you're already troubled is perceived as unfair.
halonachos wrote:
So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
Tough gak. Freedom of speech and all that, no one's forcing you to listen to me. I myself would prefer that you didn't come across as so angry, but I can't force you, so I'll ask you politely: will you please calm down?
Well, I'm not angry and the internet is a horrible way to show one's actual feelings and demeanor. People can screw up no matter what they start with and I don't care if you're poor or rich because if you mess up its always your own fault. If a poor person loses all of his money and goes bankrupt chances are he did something to put himself in that situation. People cry over the poor for some reason and feel like giving them tax deductions or giving them money is going to help, well it obviously hasn't seeing as though there are still poor people around. People need to stop coddling the poor and giving them handouts, give a man a fish feed him for a day and all.
As my dad says "Life's tough, its tougher if you're stupid.".
halonachos wrote:
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares.
No, people don't cry when rich people go bankrupt because they have way bigger margins than (relatively) poor. As such, people assume that the rich person fethed up and didn't have some cash stowed away for an emergency. People do become upset when those who have a hard time are hit because getting more troubles when you're already troubled is perceived as unfair.
halonachos wrote:
So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
Tough gak. Freedom of speech and all that, no one's forcing you to listen to me. I myself would prefer that you didn't come across as so angry, but I can't force you, so I'll ask you politely: will you please calm down?
Well, I'm not angry and the internet is a horrible way to show one's actual feelings and demeanor. People can screw up no matter what they start with and I don't care if you're poor or rich because if you mess up its always your own fault. If a poor person loses all of his money and goes bankrupt chances are he did something to put himself in that situation. People cry over the poor for some reason and feel like giving them tax deductions or giving them money is going to help, well it obviously hasn't seeing as though there are still poor people around. People need to stop coddling the poor and giving them handouts, give a man a fish feed him for a day and all.
As my dad says "Life's tough, its tougher if you're stupid.".
When you are poor, risks are higher and rewards are lower. A single mistake can completely ruin a poor person, while a rich person can shrug off a dozen mistakes. When you are 1 flat tire away from losing everything, your risk is MUCH higher than someone with 100k in the bank.
It's not coddling, it's econ 101. More money makes more money. Even more than that, in very large sample sizes, you start to find that larger individual investments begin to have higher RATES of return. Not just gross returns, but RATES that are higher just because the buy in was higher. Returns and risk are not linear. Seriously this is econ 101.
That's not even COUNTING the people who are past the work break point. There's a point where you have enough net worth that you no longer need to do any actual work to sustain an above average standard of living. You are saying we should treat THOSE people the same as the guy who can't afford to stay home sick?
Like, your example is michael jackson? He raped kids and still got to die with a massive mansion and very high quality of life. Even in BANKRUPTCY, he was high rollin compared to the poor. If the average joe raped kids, maybe we could have something to talk about.
darkPrince010 wrote:@biccat: I should have clearly defined that as "current or proposed "loophole-free" systems". My bad.
Ah, that makes more sense then.
darkPrince010 wrote:How would expunging student loans upon bancruptcy restrict it to an middle/upper class only privilege? Seems to me that this would allow lowerclass families to not have to worry about being haunted by debt years later in case of severe financial hardships.
First, we'll assume that this is in light of a private lender. The government acting as a lender will not have the same behavior.
When you loan out money, whether for a house, a car, or an education, you give the other person an interest rate that reflects the chance of repayment or recovery. If a bank loans out $1,000,000 and can expect to lose $100,000 to losses then they need to price those loans so that they make up for their losses. If student loans cannot be discharged then the rate of repayment is higher. Sure you're going to have some deadbeats, but you can sell off those loans to collection agencies or keep hounding them until they pay, maybe they'll get a good job later on and will be able to pay. But when you make student loans dischargable the potential for loss is increased. Instead of becoming non-paying deadbeats (either for 10 years or forever), some of them will discharge their loans. With a higher rate of losses, a lender needs to charge a higher rate in order to ensure that they make up for the losses. This is why home loans are relatively low (high credit requirements + the ability to foreclose on your house) while credit card loans are high (unsecured and a high rate of default).
Private, unsubsidized student loans will have a higher interest rate, making them less affordable to people who will only see a marginal increase in income. But tuition would decrease (because it's not as easy to get money), allowing for those who pay cash to still get a good education.
darkPrince010 wrote:
@halonachos: I'm curious what other countries use this system, since I've never heard of it as a complete substitute to taxes before now.
Not sure, I don't know the inner workings of the tax systems for every country in the world. The one thing I do know is that there are people pushing to replace income tax with a VAT or retail tax. A lot of people want the VAT tax, and cite the difference between AGI and spending over the years. The spending of individuals tend to remain somewhat constant in relation to the AGI which can fluctuate wildly at times.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @rented the whole MJ raping kids thing has no room in this at all.
The poor made poor decisions in most cases and the rich often made better decisions. We should reward hard work and tell those not working hard enough to work harder and if a guy worked hard enough that he earned enough that he doesn't have to work anymore then good for him, he won the game of life. If a person is disabled and unable to work then they will get benefits because of it, how many times do I have to fething say that for you to fething understand?
But no, you're not 'investing' in the poor when you hand them money. Now if you gave them a fething bank fund that they couldn't touch for x amount of years then that's investing. If you gave them an education then its investing, but handing out cash is not the definition of investing into anything.
darkPrince010 wrote:
@halonachos: I'm curious what other countries use this system, since I've never heard of it as a complete substitute to taxes before now.
Not sure, I don't know the inner workings of the tax systems for every country in the world. The one thing I do know is that there are people pushing to replace income tax with a VAT or retail tax. A lot of people want the VAT tax, and cite the difference between AGI and spending over the years. The spending of individuals tend to remain somewhat constant in relation to the AGI which can fluctuate wildly at times.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @rented the whole MJ raping kids thing has no room in this at all.
The poor made poor decisions in most cases and the rich often made better decisions. We should reward hard work and tell those not working hard enough to work harder and if a guy worked hard enough that he earned enough that he doesn't have to work anymore then good for him, he won the game of life. If a person is disabled and unable to work then they will get benefits because of it, how many times do I have to fething say that for you to fething understand?
But no, you're not 'investing' in the poor when you hand them money. Now if you gave them a fething bank fund that they couldn't touch for x amount of years then that's investing. If you gave them an education then its investing, but handing out cash is not the definition of investing into anything.
MJ raping kids has EVERYTHING to do with this. If a poor made every mistake michael jackson made, he would be worse off than MJ was. A poor person and a rich person side by side make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE, the poor person's life is ruined and the rich person moves on.
Risk and reward simply do not scale at the extremes. At the very bottom everything is high risk and the rewards are bad and at the top everything is low risk and the rewards are huge.
This whole "poor people make worse decisions" thing is unsubstantiated bs. If what you're saying were true, then being born into a rich family wouldn't affect lifetime income in a large sample size. What we see in reality is the opposite. The poor have less chances and higher risk when engaging in the exact same behavior as the rich.
MJ raped kids and got away with it, poor people can rape kids and get away with it as well. Look Casey Anthony, I wouldn't consider her rich but she managed to get off free of charge for murdering her daughter.
Oh wait, maybe MJ didn't rape those kids, maybe Casey Anthony didn't murder her daughter. You have no proof and its ridiculous to make assumptions based off of unproven beliefs.
Warran Buffet is a fraud at the least of the insults. The rich pay a capital gains tax and an income tax, their income tax rate is 35% while the capital gains tax is 15% on any profit they get from the stock market, note the money going into the market has already been taxed so the government is double dipping on this one.
He also says that his secretary pays as much as he does, which sounds nice and evil but is completely false unless she makes as much as him. But she doesn't so in fact she pays less. If they both got taxed the same percentage (35%) and she makes $250,000 a year that's only 87,500, but Buffet makes over about 50 million a year and 35% of that is 17.5 million dollars he's paying in income tax not to mention any extra taxes he pays for capital gains taxes. The amount that the secretary pays is 0.5% yes, half of 1%, of what Buffet pays.
So we have that. Then we have the difference in taxes and pay scale:
Okay we have several different brackets and each get different income tax levels.
Married
10% tax=Up to $17,200
15% tax=$17,201 – $69,800
25% tax=$69,801 – $140,850
28% tax=$140,851 – $237,700
36% tax=$237,701 – $383,350
39.6% tax=Over $383,350
So yeah, the more you make, the higher your rate! good stuff there.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
All the stuff about the US defaulting and being like Greece is absolute nonsense, the US is decades away from the point where people sensibly begin to predict that default will happen decades from then if there aren't changes in policy, but that doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences.
The first and most simple consequence is that you have to keep paying interest. Right now the US is paying about $200 billion a year in interest. That's a whole lot of money that could have been going towards something useful.
The other effect is called crowding out. Borrowings don't just emerge from the either, they're drawn from personal and corporate savings, both domestic and abroad. When the public sector is drawing those funds to provide for it's deficits, then that money isn't available for investment, and this hurts long term growth.
They are serious concerns,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Your generalisation is also poor, not every single poor person is starving, works for a scrooge, and has a child missing a leg along with several other children. People can find ways to save money, and if a person becomes poor it is not my fault nor is it the fault of anyone else.
No, seriously, the poor save considerably less than the rich. This has been observed and tracked for just short of a hundred years by now. Go look up marginal consumption.
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares. So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
There is a difference between spending all your money on a children's amusement park for private use and being unable to pay $400,000 in medical bills after you were ruled to have a 'pre-existing condition'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
It just goes to show the silliness inherent in these kinds of debates. The right loves to dream about replacing income tax with sales tax, to make all those horrible, horrible poor people their fair share. The left loves to dream about a VAT making sure that the rich will have to pay taxes because all their loopholes let them avoid income tax.
Both sides seem oblivious to the idea that setting tax policy based on spite and resentment is guaranteed to give stupid results.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You're right. If we followed proper economic theory, that cash would be dividended to its stockholders. International Capital Gains treatment, legal limitations, and realization we're in GR II are limiting that.
Studies of stock prices cum and ex dividend have shown that the market doesn't value $1 paid from the company as highly as it does a dollar retained in the company.
That is, the share price on the day of dividend payment might be $35, the day after the $1 dividend it is likely to drop not to $34 as most people assume, but to $34.05 or thereabouts, depending on the company.
The conclusion is that the market doesn't actually value dividend payments as highly as it does cash retained in the company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:If you go to a loan shark for a pile of money to spend on strippers, they can only harass you so much and bankruptcy is still an option, yet if you borrow for school, they own you.
That's kind of insane.
It seems to me kind of an inevitable consequence of any system that is willing to loan out huge amounts of money to students with no capital tied to the loan. I mean, otherwise most everyone would just wrack up a hundred thousand in student loans, finish their degree, declare bankruptcy and hand over the poker table and half packet of saltines they own, giggle and start afresh with a tertiary education and no debt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Do you know what it means to guarantee a loan?
If so, why would you be surprised that the government would not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy?
Pretty much. Thing is, if you declare bankruptcy normally then the things you bought that led to you bankruptcy like a car, house or failing business are taken off of you. You're left to start over with nothing. It's good that a person is able to start over from new, but there's no doubting that bankruptcy sucks.
But they can't take your college education off of you. It's stuck in your head. So normal bankruptcy disincentives just don't work, and so it needs different laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Warran Buffet is a fraud at the least of the insults. The rich pay a capital gains tax and an income tax, their income tax rate is 35% while the capital gains tax is 15% on any profit they get from the stock market, note the money going into the market has already been taxed so the government is double dipping on this one.
That's not what double dipping means.
The US actually has double dipping, there is a real complaint there relating directly to dividend payment and income tax, where a single cash inflow is taxed twice as it is defined under two seperate pieces of legislation. That's what double dipping means.
Being taxed on dividends drawn out of a company, and then taxed on the growth in the asset value when you sell the stock is seeing two different cash inflows taxed in different ways. It isn't double dippling.
This does not sound like much of a plan to me. Warren Buffet, while claiming the rich should be taxed more, takes every chance he gets to use the loopholes to pay less in taxes.
If he honestly thought he should pay more, he would write a bigger check to the IRS. They never turn down a bigger tax payment. People are free to pay more in tax anytime they want.
#1 close all loopholes, and get rid of ALL deductions.
#2 12% income tax or whatever it would be across the board, for everyone that makes income through work, investments, etc, including all compensation.
So simple, someone with a 4th grade education could figure it out, and the "form" would fit on a post card.
Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
sebster wrote:Thing is, if you declare bankruptcy normally then the things you bought that led to you bankruptcy like a car, house or failing business are taken off of you. You're left to start over with nothing. It's good that a person is able to start over from new, but there's no doubting that bankruptcy sucks.
Well, not always. You don't necessarily lose your house and car (under US law). A lot of bankruptcies aren't for stuff like a house and car (because those get repossessed/foreclosed on) but for unsecured debt.
sebster wrote:Being taxed on dividends drawn out of a company, and then taxed on the growth in the asset value when you sell the stock is seeing two different cash inflows taxed in different ways. It isn't double dippling.
I think he was talking about double taxation as it relates to corporate profits. They are taxed first as corporate profits (35%?) and then they're taxed again when distributed as dividends (15%).
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
You left out all the categories that hurt your case. Some poor people are poor because they weren't born into the correct circumstances, some people are rich because they were.
Not everyone in debt is in debt because they have illness, and not everyone rich is rich because they worked hard
You HAD to see this coming as an argument, dude. Rich and poor are not actually tied to how much hard work you do. Once you look at a sufficiently large sample size, the only real indicator if wealth is the wealth of your parents. Hard work my eye.
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
You left out all the categories that hurt your case. Some poor people are poor because they weren't born into the correct circumstances, some people are rich because they were.
Not everyone in debt is in debt because they have illness, and not everyone rich is rich because they worked hard
You HAD to see this coming as an argument, dude. Rich and poor are not actually tied to how much hard work you do. Once you look at a sufficiently large sample size, the only real indicator if wealth is the wealth of your parents. Hard work my eye.
Except that there are some people who are rich because of the work they did, Bill Cosby for example. Then of course there are those like Paris Hilton who are the exact opposite of it. We have people like Steve Jobbs and the founder of Ikea and other entrepreneurs who work on their idea and then make enough that they can retire and live a nice life. Then we also have poor people who become middle-class by working hard. You don't have to be poor and then become rich to be a success, you just have to become middle-class which is possible for most poor people. People can survive off of a less than 30k a year budget with multiple children, and people can raise their economic status. My family has only been "rich" for almost half a year and most of the time we were lower middle-class. But as Melissia said my dad got lucky that he was willing to work hard and study. Now he makes more than my college professors do.
Well, let's say your dad ended up unlucky, with a condition or some series of events entirely not his own (Horrific car accident against an uninsured other vehicle, sued successfully over something trivial, medical issues not covered by insurance, etc.) putting him in debt of $X, with minimum interest payments of $Y per month. If he makes less than Y+ basic necessities per month, he has no way apart from outside help to escape his debt.
Was this your dad's fault? Did he feth up somewhere?
No. Examples like this happen all the time. For every anecdote you have of people like your father and his hard work, people like me have an anecdote of my mother-in-law getting fired from her $60K/year job due to whistleblowing illegal practices against her hospital she worked at. gak happens, and trying to claim that it doesn't affect financial security is patently false.
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
And not being in debt does not mean you aren't poor, just like being a hard worker does not mean you are, or will be, rich or successful.
In any case, you're dodging the initial point, which is that the better off you are financially, the greater your general margin for error is regarding "life decisions" for lack of a better term.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:This does not sound like much of a plan to me. Warren Buffet, while claiming the rich should be taxed more, takes every chance he gets to use the loopholes to pay less in taxes.
There is a massive difference between paying more tax, and making the slightest bit of difference to the federal deficit. Even someone with very deep pockets like Warren Buffet, could pay an extra 10 million dollars out of pure charity, and he'd reduce the federal deficit by 0.001%.
However, if the tax paid by the top 10% of the US was to increase by 5%, an extra $176 billion would be raised, reducing the 2010 federal deficit by about 15%.
Any money he promised to hand over himself would be a pointless, grandstanding gesture that achieved nothing material. But a tax increase across the top 10% of society would make a massive dent in the deficit.
If he honestly thought he should pay more, he would write a bigger check to the IRS. They never turn down a bigger tax payment. People are free to pay more in tax anytime they want.
#1 close all loopholes, and get rid of ALL deductions.
#2 12% income tax or whatever it would be across the board, for everyone that makes income through work, investments, etc, including all compensation.
So simple, someone with a 4th grade education could figure it out, and the "form" would fit on a post card.
Tax systems aren't complicated because you pay different rates of tax at different levels of income. That kind of thing takes up half a page.
Tax systems are complicated because it is very hard to work out exactly what someone's income was for the year. As an example, if I sell a table for more than I bought it for, it's likely a windfall gain and a bit of luck. But what if I sell a dozen such tables each month, and spend my days travelling about identifying tables that I can fix up and then sell on to other people.
Nor is it any kind of solution to say 'get rid of all deductions' - a supermarket buys in staplers for $3 a piece and sells them for $5 - buying in those staplers is a deduction that represents a cost of doing business. Ignoring that for tax purposes would be ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
The point wasn't about poverty but about bankruptcy. I picked the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US and that is outstanding medical bills (excepting the last couple of years in which the GFC has taken over).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Well, not always. You don't necessarily lose your house and car (under US law). A lot of bankruptcies aren't for stuff like a house and car (because those get repossessed/foreclosed on) but for unsecured debt.
The point remains, a guy fresh out of college could simply declare bankruptcy to wipe his debt, but still keep the asset he gained from incurring that debt - his knowledge.
I think he was talking about double taxation as it relates to corporate profits. They are taxed first as corporate profits (35%?) and then they're taxed again when distributed as dividends (15%).
That is an example of double dipping, and it blows my mind the US tolerates it (either the dividend should carrying a franking credit equal to the tax already paid, or there should be no corporate tax paid on profits set to be paid as dividends).
But that isn't what halonachos mentioned, he complained about corporate taxes and capital gains, two entirely distinct cash flows.
Frazzled wrote:Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans.
This is one of my favorite conservative talking points: that under Obama, the government "took over" the student loan business. I like it because it immediately reveals the poster as someone willing to repeat things they've heard other people say without having any knowledge at all of what the situation actually was or doing even the least bit of cursory googling.
Here's how it actually is. Prior to this change, the government offered guaranteed student loans. (Whether they should or not is a whole other thread). The idea behind this is that if Jimmy wants to go to college but is poor, he can get one of these loans no matter how crappy his credit is. He goes to Citibank or whatever, and gets a 10K loan at like 5% interest. Citibank gives him the 10K and collects the interest (5%) for the life of the loan, as well as the principal once Jimmy gets out of school and repayment starts. If Jimmy decides paying this 10K back is for the birds and defaults, then Citibank hands whatever is left on the 10K note back to the treasury and gets 100% of their money back (also keeping however much of the interest/pofits they've managed to get until Jimmy actually defaulted - in the case of subsidized loans, the government pays the interest). That's the guarantee - Citibank can't lose money on this. They have some minimal overhead for bookkeeping and such but it's pretty much free money that has no risk attached. Upon defaulting, point the government then enforces the terms of the loan by the usual methods - seizing tax refunds, generally - until they've been made whole as well.
At some point, it was realized that this was, in essence, welfare. You know, the kind you hate poor people getting? The whole idea of interest on a loan is to make loans profitable for banks, and the amount of interest is pinned to how risky the loan is, how much the bank stood to lose if you decided not to pay it back. But the banks in these loans had no risk whatsoever - they get to keep the interest, and if you bail, they get made whole by the taxpayer. It's 100% risk free money.
The changes that were made were that if you want a guaranteed student loan now, it's administered directly by the US Treasury. The interest collected on the loans now goes to the treasury, and they continue to do the enforcement in case of default; in short they take all the risks and they reap all the benefits. The banking industry can still offer student loans as much as they'd like to, but now they have to actually assume the risk that comes with defaulting since they own them. In short, they have to actually compete for customers free market style, just as they profess they wish they could (but are actually loathe to).
So, that's what actually happened. I'm sure it will be given all due weight by those who consider cutting welfare benefits to balance the budget to be "shared sacrifice" while decrying increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans to balance the budget to be "class warfare".
So far as the rule to have made student loans nearly impossible to discharge via bankruptcy, that change was done during a large spate of people finishing school and then, right after graduation, declaring bankruptcy and then dumping all their obligations right at the start of their career. Don't hate the rules lawyer, hate the game, I guess.
halonachos wrote:Except that there are some people who are rich because of the work they did, Bill Cosby for example. Then of course there are those like Paris Hilton who are the exact opposite of it. We have people like Steve Jobbs and the founder of Ikea and other entrepreneurs who work on their idea and then make enough that they can retire and live a nice life. Then we also have poor people who become middle-class by working hard. You don't have to be poor and then become rich to be a success, you just have to become middle-class which is possible for most poor people. People can survive off of a less than 30k a year budget with multiple children, and people can raise their economic status. My family has only been "rich" for almost half a year and most of the time we were lower middle-class. But as Melissia said my dad got lucky that he was willing to work hard and study. Now he makes more than my college professors do.
And what proportion of hard working people do you think become well to do?
Because it's very interesting to me that the US has the worst social mobility among all developed nations. A hard working person in the US finds it harder to climb up to the middle class because there are more obstacles there than elsewhere in the world.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not understanding this double dipping concept.
If a company makes a profit, that belongs to the company, and is taxed (corporation tax).
If the company pays out a dividend, it has to pay another tax? Is that how it works?
That's how it works, yeah.
It gets crazier when you consider two guys each earning $100,000. One guy owns his own company, and generated $100,000 profit through that. The other guy is just a professional earning a salary.
So the incorporated business pays company tax of 35%, then distributes the remaining $65,000, and pays 15% on that, leaving him with $55,250. Meanwhile the owner of the unincorporated company just declares the profit as personal income, and pays about $22,000, leaving him with $78,000.
Two guys making the same amount of money. Because of the inequalities in the US tax system one guy pays about twice the tax of the other guy. It's mad. And this is after Bush came in and fixed it. Seriously, before he reformed it the company owner got even more screwed.
Why would companies ever pay a dividend?
There isn't much of a reason, even ignoring tax, as I was saying earlier people prefer having the funds in the company than paid to them as dividends (that's why they put them in the company in the first place). Seriously, a company cum dividend of $1 will only lower by about 95c ex dividend. Which gets really weird, and makes me wonder why the most valuable companies in effect are the ones that only have capital growth, and no actual cash flow to the holder. I mean, it's not a ponzi scheme but it starts looking like one.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:This does not sound like much of a plan to me. Warren Buffet, while claiming the rich should be taxed more, takes every chance he gets to use the loopholes to pay less in taxes.
If he honestly thought he should pay more, he would write a bigger check to the IRS. They never turn down a bigger tax payment. People are free to pay more in tax anytime they want.
#1 close all loopholes, and get rid of ALL deductions.
#2 12% income tax or whatever it would be across the board, for everyone that makes income through work, investments, etc, including all compensation.
So simple, someone with a 4th grade education could figure it out, and the "form" would fit on a post card.
Its just this kind of thinking that eliminates the need for lobbyists. And where are our poor politicians going to get caompaign and contriibutions and stock tips from? PLease won't someone think of the children...er politicians?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its part of the problem with the Obama shift to government loans.
This is one of my favorite conservative talking points: that under Obama, the government "took over" the student loan business. I like it because it immediately reveals the poster as someone willing to repeat things they've heard other people say without having any knowledge at all of what the situation actually was or doing even the least bit of cursory googling.
Here's how it actually is. Prior to this change, the government offered guaranteed student loans. (Whether they should or not is a whole other thread). The idea behind this is that if Jimmy wants to go to college but is poor, he can get one of these loans no matter how crappy his credit is. He goes to Citibank or whatever, and gets a 10K loan at like 5% interest. Citibank gives him the 10K and collects the interest (5%) for the life of the loan, as well as the principal once Jimmy gets out of school and repayment starts. If Jimmy decides paying this 10K back is for the birds and defaults, then Citibank hands whatever is left on the 10K note back to the treasury and gets 100% of their money back (also keeping however much of the interest/pofits they've managed to get until Jimmy actually defaulted - in the case of subsidized loans, the government pays the interest). That's the guarantee - Citibank can't lose money on this. They have some minimal overhead for bookkeeping and such but it's pretty much free money that has no risk attached. Upon defaulting, point the government then enforces the terms of the loan by the usual methods - seizing tax refunds, generally - until they've been made whole as well.
At some point, it was realized that this was, in essence, welfare. You know, the kind you hate poor people getting? The whole idea of interest on a loan is to make loans profitable for banks, and the amount of interest is pinned to how risky the loan is, how much the bank stood to lose if you decided not to pay it back. But the banks in these loans had no risk whatsoever - they get to keep the interest, and if you bail, they get made whole by the taxpayer. It's 100% risk free money.
The changes that were made were that if you want a guaranteed student loan now, it's administered directly by the US Treasury. The interest collected on the loans now goes to the treasury, and they continue to do the enforcement in case of default; in short they take all the risks and they reap all the benefits. The banking industry can still offer student loans as much as they'd like to, but now they have to actually assume the risk that comes with defaulting since they own them. In short, they have to actually compete for customers free market style, just as they profess they wish they could (but are actually loathe to).
So, that's what actually happened. I'm sure it will be given all due weight by those who consider cutting welfare benefits to balance the budget to be "shared sacrifice" while decrying increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans to balance the budget to be "class warfare".
So far as the rule to have made student loans nearly impossible to discharge via bankruptcy, that change was done during a large spate of people finishing school and then, right after graduation, declaring bankruptcy and then dumping all their obligations right at the start of their career. Don't hate the rules lawyer, hate the game, I guess.
edit 3x, man I can't spell
Wait, thats a conservative talking point? Can someone send me these talking points. I hate it when others steal my ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:A person in the situation described probably would not incorporate their company, though, as there is no benefit in it.
Its not quite that simple however.
Personal corps (the real evil) pay personal tax rates, yet the millionaire in question typically runs through their personal expenses. In this manner their absolute tax rate and total $ paid in taxes is usually lower than most of the employees. Back in ancient times I ran through many business and personal statements and was appalled at how little you could pay if you did it right.
Frazzled wrote:Personal corps (the real evil) pay personal tax rates, yet the millionaire in question typically runs through their personal expenses. In this manner their absolute tax rate and total $ paid in taxes is usually lower than most of the employees. Back in ancient times I ran through many business and personal statements and was appalled at how little you could pay if you did it right.
How little, and using what techniques? I'm only familiar with the famous ones used by megacorps.
Frazzled wrote:Personal corps (the real evil) pay personal tax rates, yet the millionaire in question typically runs through their personal expenses. In this manner their absolute tax rate and total $ paid in taxes is usually lower than most of the employees. Back in ancient times I ran through many business and personal statements and was appalled at how little you could pay if you did it right.
How little, and using what techniques? I'm only familiar with the famous ones used by megacorps.
At the time I was pulling the massive salary of $35K. I was reviewing personal financial statements and corp statements. You needed personal guarantees as the small business loans typicallyt required credit enhancement. Corp statements and tax statements had them making less money than me (and paying less taxes). Personal statements had them making ten times as much as me. Thinking back it still maddening, and my respect for "small business owners" is pretty nonexistent.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:This does not sound like much of a plan to me. Warren Buffet, while claiming the rich should be taxed more, takes every chance he gets to use the loopholes to pay less in taxes.
There is a massive difference between paying more tax, and making the slightest bit of difference to the federal deficit. Even someone with very deep pockets like Warren Buffet, could pay an extra 10 million dollars out of pure charity, and he'd reduce the federal deficit by 0.001%.
However, if the tax paid by the top 10% of the US was to increase by 5%, an extra $176 billion would be raised, reducing the 2010 federal deficit by about 15%. Any money he promised to hand over himself would be a pointless, grandstanding gesture that achieved nothing material. But a tax increase across the top 10% of society would make a massive dent in the deficit.
Huge assumption there. You assume the Fed Gov't decreases spending at the same time it increases revenue. That has not been the case and I doubt the current administration would use an extra $176B to reduce deficit or even better pay down the debt.
sebster wrote:That is an example of double dipping, and it blows my mind the US tolerates it (either the dividend should carrying a franking credit equal to the tax already paid, or there should be no corporate tax paid on profits set to be paid as dividends).
But that isn't what halonachos mentioned, he complained about corporate taxes and capital gains, two entirely distinct cash flows.
Most people don't distinguish between dividends and capital gains taxes because they're the same rate. I'm assuming he meant dividends, not capital gains. However you're right, if he did mean capital gains (not dividends) then he's wrong on double taxation.
Note that the Bush tax cuts added the category of dividends, before that they were treated as ordinary income.
Kilkrazy wrote:A person in the situation described probably would not incorporate their company, though, as there is no benefit in it.
Well, there's a huge benefit to incorporation: limited liability. If you're unincorporated (DBA or General Partnership) then any acts that you take on behalf of the company you're personally liable for. So if you sign a loan as President of Bill's Plumbing Repair, you (Bill) are still personally liable on the debt. Similar pass-through liability exists for torts and negligence committed in the course of the plumbing repair business.
If you're incorporated then the corporation is a separate legal entity with it's own liability and the people directing the corporation (whether directors, shareholders, or officers) are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise.
However, the US has realized the double-taxation problem in corporations and created a number of corporate-alternatives, including LLCs (Limited Liability Companies, which are one of the most common corporate structures). LLCs offer the same limited liability protection but also include what is known as "pass-through taxation." Basically, any income of the company is imputed to the owner of the corporation (or multiple owners according to their shares) who then pays personal tax on the profits, deducting the company expenses.
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
You left out all the categories that hurt your case. Some poor people are poor because they weren't born into the correct circumstances, some people are rich because they were.
Not everyone in debt is in debt because they have illness, and not everyone rich is rich because they worked hard
You HAD to see this coming as an argument, dude. Rich and poor are not actually tied to how much hard work you do. Once you look at a sufficiently large sample size, the only real indicator if wealth is the wealth of your parents. Hard work my eye.
Except that there are some people who are rich because of the work they did, Bill Cosby for example. Then of course there are those like Paris Hilton who are the exact opposite of it. We have people like Steve Jobbs and the founder of Ikea and other entrepreneurs who work on their idea and then make enough that they can retire and live a nice life. Then we also have poor people who become middle-class by working hard. You don't have to be poor and then become rich to be a success, you just have to become middle-class which is possible for most poor people. People can survive off of a less than 30k a year budget with multiple children, and people can raise their economic status. My family has only been "rich" for almost half a year and most of the time we were lower middle-class. But as Melissia said my dad got lucky that he was willing to work hard and study. Now he makes more than my college professors do.
I am not sure how you think listing a bunch of specific instances helps your argument. I never made any claims that no poor people are lazy and no rich people are awesome hard workers. My argument is all about the large numbers.
See, there are more than 10 people in the country. You can't set economic policy on what a handful of people you could think of are doing. You set it on enormous sets of data and studies with huge sample sizes and when you look at the numbers, people with rich parents do better on average to the extent that it is the strongest indicator of future wealth.
sebster wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
All the stuff about the US defaulting and being like Greece is absolute nonsense, the US is decades away from the point where people sensibly begin to predict that default will happen decades from then if there aren't changes in policy, but that doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences.
The first and most simple consequence is that you have to keep paying interest. Right now the US is paying about $200 billion a year in interest. That's a whole lot of money that could have been going towards something useful.
The other effect is called crowding out. Borrowings don't just emerge from the either, they're drawn from personal and corporate savings, both domestic and abroad. When the public sector is drawing those funds to provide for it's deficits, then that money isn't available for investment, and this hurts long term growth.
They are serious concerns,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Your generalisation is also poor, not every single poor person is starving, works for a scrooge, and has a child missing a leg along with several other children. People can find ways to save money, and if a person becomes poor it is not my fault nor is it the fault of anyone else.
No, seriously, the poor save considerably less than the rich. This has been observed and tracked for just short of a hundred years by now. Go look up marginal consumption.
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares. So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
There is a difference between spending all your money on a children's amusement park for private use and being unable to pay $400,000 in medical bills after you were ruled to have a 'pre-existing condition'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
It just goes to show the silliness inherent in these kinds of debates. The right loves to dream about replacing income tax with sales tax, to make all those horrible, horrible poor people their fair share. The left loves to dream about a VAT making sure that the rich will have to pay taxes because all their loopholes let them avoid income tax.
Both sides seem oblivious to the idea that setting tax policy based on spite and resentment is guaranteed to give stupid results.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You're right. If we followed proper economic theory, that cash would be dividended to its stockholders. International Capital Gains treatment, legal limitations, and realization we're in GR II are limiting that.
Studies of stock prices cum and ex dividend have shown that the market doesn't value $1 paid from the company as highly as it does a dollar retained in the company.
That is, the share price on the day of dividend payment might be $35, the day after the $1 dividend it is likely to drop not to $34 as most people assume, but to $34.05 or thereabouts, depending on the company.
The conclusion is that the market doesn't actually value dividend payments as highly as it does cash retained in the company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:If you go to a loan shark for a pile of money to spend on strippers, they can only harass you so much and bankruptcy is still an option, yet if you borrow for school, they own you.
That's kind of insane.
It seems to me kind of an inevitable consequence of any system that is willing to loan out huge amounts of money to students with no capital tied to the loan. I mean, otherwise most everyone would just wrack up a hundred thousand in student loans, finish their degree, declare bankruptcy and hand over the poker table and half packet of saltines they own, giggle and start afresh with a tertiary education and no debt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Do you know what it means to guarantee a loan?
If so, why would you be surprised that the government would not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy?
Pretty much. Thing is, if you declare bankruptcy normally then the things you bought that led to you bankruptcy like a car, house or failing business are taken off of you. You're left to start over with nothing. It's good that a person is able to start over from new, but there's no doubting that bankruptcy sucks.
But they can't take your college education off of you. It's stuck in your head. So normal bankruptcy disincentives just don't work, and so it needs different laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Warran Buffet is a fraud at the least of the insults. The rich pay a capital gains tax and an income tax, their income tax rate is 35% while the capital gains tax is 15% on any profit they get from the stock market, note the money going into the market has already been taxed so the government is double dipping on this one.
That's not what double dipping means.
The US actually has double dipping, there is a real complaint there relating directly to dividend payment and income tax, where a single cash inflow is taxed twice as it is defined under two seperate pieces of legislation. That's what double dipping means.
Being taxed on dividends drawn out of a company, and then taxed on the growth in the asset value when you sell the stock is seeing two different cash inflows taxed in different ways. It isn't double dippling.
This is an excellent post. I would like to point out though that if you take out money for a wedding or something, you can still discharge with bankruptcy, so the very nature of an education does not preclude that. Would you need to put up some collateral for your student loan? Maybe yeah. That would kind of suck at first, but like I said before, the price of the cheaper schools would drop and the loans would get smaller over the longterm.
sebster wrote:That is an example of double dipping, and it blows my mind the US tolerates it (either the dividend should carrying a franking credit equal to the tax already paid, or there should be no corporate tax paid on profits set to be paid as dividends).
But that isn't what halonachos mentioned, he complained about corporate taxes and capital gains, two entirely distinct cash flows.
Most people don't distinguish between dividends and capital gains taxes because they're the same rate. I'm assuming he meant dividends, not capital gains. However you're right, if he did mean capital gains (not dividends) then he's wrong on double taxation.
Note that the Bush tax cuts added the category of dividends, before that they were treated as ordinary income.
Kilkrazy wrote:A person in the situation described probably would not incorporate their company, though, as there is no benefit in it.
Well, there's a huge benefit to incorporation: limited liability. If you're unincorporated (DBA or General Partnership) then any acts that you take on behalf of the company you're personally liable for. So if you sign a loan as President of Bill's Plumbing Repair, you (Bill) are still personally liable on the debt. Similar pass-through liability exists for torts and negligence committed in the course of the plumbing repair business.
If you're incorporated then the corporation is a separate legal entity with it's own liability and the people directing the corporation (whether directors, shareholders, or officers) are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise.
However, the US has realized the double-taxation problem in corporations and created a number of corporate-alternatives, including LLCs (Limited Liability Companies, which are one of the most common corporate structures). LLCs offer the same limited liability protection but also include what is known as "pass-through taxation." Basically, any income of the company is imputed to the owner of the corporation (or multiple owners according to their shares) who then pays personal tax on the profits, deducting the company expenses.
Thanks for the info.
I studied UK company law during my management degree and was not aware how much things differ in the USA. Not hugely, it seems, though the accounting law may be different.
Presumably if someone chooses to incorporate their business the advantage of limited liability is worth the increase in taxes otherwise they would not do it.
halonachos wrote:Why does everyone assume that the poor are poor due to some sort of medical bills? There are people who are poor because they don't have a good paying job, there are poor people out there who are poor because they fethed up. There are rich people out there who are rich due to hard work and some of those rich people become poor because they feth up.
Not everyone is in debt because they are dieing or have some long term illness.
The point wasn't about poverty but about bankruptcy. I picked the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US and that is outstanding medical bills (excepting the last couple of years in which the GFC has taken over).
I wasn't talking about bankruptcy though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:Well, let's say your dad ended up unlucky, with a condition or some series of events entirely not his own (Horrific car accident against an uninsured other vehicle, sued successfully over something trivial, medical issues not covered by insurance, etc.) putting him in debt of $X, with minimum interest payments of $Y per month. If he makes less than Y+ basic necessities per month, he has no way apart from outside help to escape his debt.
Was this your dad's fault? Did he feth up somewhere?
No. Examples like this happen all the time. For every anecdote you have of people like your father and his hard work, people like me have an anecdote of my mother-in-law getting fired from her $60K/year job due to whistleblowing illegal practices against her hospital she worked at. gak happens, and trying to claim that it doesn't affect financial security is patently false.
Okay dude, you obviously have not read my previous posts at all. So let me make it easier for you to read.
People who are disabled and unable to work would get benefits. I said this in my first post, my reasoning was that the majority of people don't plan to disable themselves by choice. I hope you finally get it now that I made the text large and bold
From my first post:
halonachos wrote:All in all there are very few people who actually deserve their tax breaks, wounded veterans and people who are disabled deserve benefits because they most likely did not choose to become disabled.
halonachos wrote:
Okay dude, you obviously have not read my previous posts at all. So let me make it easier for you to read.
People who are disabled and unable to work would get benefits. I said this in my first post, my reasoning was that the majority of people don't plan to disable themselves by choice. I hope you finally get it now that I made the text large and bold
From my first post:
halonachos wrote:All in all there are very few people who actually deserve their tax breaks, wounded veterans and people who are disabled deserve benefits because they most likely did not choose to become disabled.
Dude, before slamming other people for not reading your posts, read the one you're responding to. Only one of the three examples he gave you had the person being fethed over being disabled by some illness.
Well, let's say your dad ended up unlucky, with a condition or some series of events entirely not his own (Horrific car accident against an uninsured other vehicle, sued successfully over something trivial, medical issues not covered by insurance, etc.)
While medical costs are the main reason for bancruptcy or financial destitution, they're by no means the only uncontrollable reason for bancruptcy/financial destitution.
What about foreclosures on a house due to your formerly-respectable bank making poor loan purchases and folding?
What about unpredictable natural disasters that destroy your home and property?
What about being fired and blacklisted for acting ethically within your profession?
Again, I reiterate to aid in reading comprehension: While medical costs are the main reason for bancruptcy or financial destitution, they're by no means the only uncontrollable reason for bancruptcy/financial destitution. You seem to assume we're arguing that medical events and disablity are the only reason for being poor. They're not, and to assume otherwise is to ignore countless research and articles proving that, overall (Meaning that your anecdotes aren't in sufficient number to outweigh statistical signficance), financial mobility has feth-all to do with your "hard work" and everything to do with who your parents were.
EDIT: @walrus: Lol. Ninja'd! But to be fair, the car accident could be vehicular damage and/or medical harm
darkPrince010 wrote:What about foreclosures on a house due to your formerly-respectable bank making poor loan purchases and folding?
I'm pretty confident in saying that this has happened in very few, if any, cases.
darkPrince010 wrote:What about unpredictable natural disasters that destroy your home and property?
Insurance. That's what it's for.
darkPrince010 wrote:What about being fired and blacklisted for acting ethically within your profession?
If your profession has an ethical responsibility then you sue your employer and look for an honest one who won't put you in a position where you will violate company policy by acting ethically. However, I'm reasonably sure that this is a red herring.
Houses: There was a lot of problems with foreclosure during the banks fiasco when the recession started to hit.
Disasters: Whet if you can't afford insurance, if it's a choice between food and shelter or just an insured shelter?
Blacklisting: Nope. I have an anecdote of my mother-in-law having that exact scenario The lawsuit barely covered court costs despite her winning it, and she hasn't been able to get anyone within her profession to even consider her as an employee (She has been applying at other jobs, to head off the inevitable "She's a lazy unemployed donkey-cave" line of bs)
Medical costs are the main reason for financial hardship, but they are not the only reason for financial hardship. I'm simply offering some examples of scenarios in which non-medical gak happens, and someone becomes poor as a result of it.
darkPrince010 wrote:Houses: There was a lot of problems with foreclosure during the banks fiasco when the recession started to hit.
Even if a bank is going under, most mortgages are still valuable assets, so someone else could buy it. Further, even when a bank does go under, that doesn't impair the buyer's title, nor does it affect the contract terms, including mortgage amount and interest rate.
I really can't see how a mortgage-holding bank "going under" would in any way negatively affect a person's mortgage. Maybe if the owner of the debt gets confusing and you don't remit payment, but that's a failure on the buyer's end, and there exists a remedy for it.
darkPrince010 wrote:Disasters: Whet if you can't afford insurance, if it's a choice between food and shelter or just an insured shelter?
Then you're already poor, so claiming it as a cause of poverty is tenuous.
darkPrince010 wrote:Blacklisting: Nope. I have an anecdote of my mother-in-law having that exact scenario The lawsuit barely covered court costs despite her winning it, and she hasn't been able to get anyone within her profession to even consider her as an employee
Depends on the profession and circumstances. Even assuming the truth of your allegation (fired for being ethical, blackballed for being ethical), an anecdote doesn't suggest that this is a particularly important or common occurrence. Nor does it prove that poverty necessarily follows (there are other professions out there).
darkPrince010 wrote:Medical costs are the main reason for financial hardship, but they are not the only reason for financial hardship. I'm simply offering some examples of scenarios in which non-medical gak happens, and someone becomes poor as a result of it.
I'm not disagreeing with this point. However, absent some life-altering injury or disability, povery tends to be a state of mind.
Perhaps. I don't disagree that some people are poor because they don't apply themselves, but I also believe that many other people apply themselves all their lives and still remain within the poverty bracket.
sebster wrote:
However, if the tax paid by the top 10% of the US was to increase by 5%, an extra $176 billion would be raised, reducing the 2010 federal deficit by about 15%. Any money he promised to hand over himself would be a pointless, grandstanding gesture that achieved nothing material. But a tax increase across the top 10% of society would make a massive dent in the deficit.
Huge assumption there. You assume the Fed Gov't decreases spending at the same time it increases revenue. That has not been the case and I doubt the current administration would use an extra $176B to reduce deficit or even better pay down the debt.
darkPrince010 wrote:And you obviously didn't read mine:
Well, let's say your dad ended up unlucky, with a condition or some series of events entirely not his own (Horrific car accident against an uninsured other vehicle, sued successfully over something trivial, medical issues not covered by insurance, etc.)
I read your post, but I guess you forgot adding this little tid-bit at the end.
darkPrince010 wrote:he has no way apart from outside help to escape his debt.
I was replying to that part, seriously its bad when you forget what you wrote yourself. This very ending is what I was responding to, he would be getting outside help because he is then disabled and unable to work which means he would be getting help to pay off his debt.
As far as a person's house being destroyed, that's often covered under insurance policies. Things like car insurance, health insurance, and home insurance exist. If you say that the poor have no access to those policies then you're forgetting the main point. Your point was that people become poor because of the loss of a house or become ill. Chances they had a job if they're not poor and chances are that job provided health insurance and chances are they could afford home and auto insurance as well as life insurance.
Now we have major disasters created by things like hurricanes or forest fires, funds for that exist and people get that already. The federal government pays for natural disaster recovery if people say that they have lost something thanks to a disaster.
Now as far as whistle-blowing goes, the people who blow the whistles and lose their job can be compensated and if the first action was illegal enough(let's say something like Bernie Madoff) the offender has their assets frozen and can be taken to compensate people who have suffered from their wrongdoing through the legal process.
A person looses their house due to a bank failing, its called the FDIC and I'm sure that there are other federal measures that protect those who do lose their house.
The federal government does a lot to take care of people who get screwed over by somebody else.
sebster wrote:
However, if the tax paid by the top 10% of the US was to increase by 5%, an extra $176 billion would be raised, reducing the 2010 federal deficit by about 15%. Any money he promised to hand over himself would be a pointless, grandstanding gesture that achieved nothing material. But a tax increase across the top 10% of society would make a massive dent in the deficit.
Huge assumption there. You assume the Fed Gov't decreases spending at the same time it increases revenue. That has not been the case and I doubt the current administration would use an extra $176B to reduce deficit or even better pay down the debt.
That's not an assumption, its contextualization.
Thanks for the attempt to correct me, but I chose the word I wanted.
Assumption: something taken for granted; a supposition. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
I'll stick with it. I'm not a pedant and the definition meets my intent just fine.
darkPrince010 wrote:Perhaps. I don't disagree that some people are poor because they don't apply themselves, but I also believe that many other people apply themselves all their lives and still remain within the poverty bracket.
Indeed. Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
darkPrince010 wrote:Perhaps. I don't disagree that some people are poor because they don't apply themselves, but I also believe that many other people apply themselves all their lives and still remain within the poverty bracket.
Indeed. Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
Wait, i thought you got called a Commie when you tried to fix it?
Edit:
My bad. You're a Socialist when you try to fix it!
CptJake wrote:
Thanks for the attempt to correct me, but I chose the word I wanted.
Assumption: something taken for granted; a supposition. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
I'll stick with it. I'm not a pedant and the definition meets my intent just fine.
Wait, you found a dictionary that lists conjecture, hypothesis, guess, postulate, and theory as synonyms of assumption? That is an awful dictionary.
I mean, even per the definition of assumption that you offered that doesn't follow. Hypotheses are not taken for granted, nor are guesses, postulates, or theories. I guess you could argue that conjectures are, but the connotation of the word is indefinite, or speculative, rather than foundational.
Either way, my point was that your intended meaning was misguided, and extended beyond the scope of the original comment, which was based only on the amount of revenue generated by alternative tax policy versus voluntary contribution. In that context claiming that one cannot illustrate the worth of a given dollar amount relative to something else, like national debt, because its unlikely to be used for that purpose is ridiculous.
Kilkrazy wrote:A person in the situation described probably would not incorporate their company, though, as there is no benefit in it.
The point is that people shouldn't be considering incorporation just for the tax benefits, because such a decision should have zero tax effect.
Consider if the company was a start up, and the guy was willing to risk a million bucks starting it up, but not risk losing the family home if the investment falls through. He'd want a limited liability company, but risk facing a tax rate about double what he'd pay if he expected to take home about a hundred thousand a year. That's basically the tax system influencing a business decision it has no reason influencing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:At the time I was pulling the massive salary of $35K. I was reviewing personal financial statements and corp statements. You needed personal guarantees as the small business loans typicallyt required credit enhancement. Corp statements and tax statements had them making less money than me (and paying less taxes). Personal statements had them making ten times as much as me. Thinking back it still maddening, and my respect for "small business owners" is pretty nonexistent.
Heh. I had almost exactly the same start, taking my first job while I was finishing my degree, and earning almost the same amount.
I did the exact same thing, passing massive lists of bs expense claims, seeing two premium sedans being fully deducted against a single plumbing business, when you knew the only vehicle being used for the business was a beat up old van... And then you got onto the folk who weren't happy screwing the system over simply like that, they started setting up their own super funds, which owned their own property trusts, which basically paid their mortgage for them, tax free.
It's basically a problem of having a tax regime of self-assessment, and a lot of subjectivity in what business related expenditure is. Having tax authorities approve each deduction is impossible, basically, so I guess the solution is a greater audit regime and serious 'you will go to jail for bs' penalties, but the political will just isn't there to penalise people properly. I mean, you should have seen the bs Paul Hogan (the guy in Crocodile Dundee) got away with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Huge assumption there. You assume the Fed Gov't decreases spending at the same time it increases revenue. That has not been the case and I doubt the current administration would use an extra $176B to reduce deficit or even better pay down the debt.
All you've done there is invent a mass of politcally convenient assumptions to justify your pre-determined decision not to pay taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Most people don't distinguish between dividends and capital gains taxes because they're the same rate. I'm assuming he meant dividends, not capital gains. However you're right, if he did mean capital gains (not dividends) then he's wrong on double taxation.
Note that the Bush tax cuts added the category of dividends, before that they were treated as ordinary income.
Yeah, I mentioned before how much more broken the situation was before Bush reformed it. This may be the only time you'll see me saying the problem was that Bush didn't go far enough
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I'm pretty confident in saying that this has happened in very few, if any, cases.
More than just being unlikely, I think it's actually impossible to lose your house because your lender went bust. In that instance, you're still committed to make loan payments same as you were before, it's just that the party receiving your payments will have been on-sold by the receivers of the bankrupt lending agent.
Meanwhile, bankruptcy is caused (from memory from an article I read a long time ago) mostly by medical expenses*, business failure, job loss, and divorce, in that order.
*US only, and not number one during the recent economic decline, where asset devaluation and job lay-offs overtook it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I wasn't talking about bankruptcy though.
No, you were talking about why everyone else assumes people are poor because of medical bills. I was explaining that medical costs were being used as an explanation for bankruptcy, not for poverty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
Definitely. There's the poverty trap, where the costs of being poor are such that it's near impossible to save* even if you've got a steady job. Then there's also a whole lot of hardworking people who have been conditioned into believing they're destined to be labourer's assistants all their lives, so they never look to take the next step despite being capable. Then consider the folk who work hard, but simply aren't smart enough to take the next step from being a labourer's assistant - sure enough it's best they stay at that level, but there's no reason we should have them earning $8 an hour.
*Consider a guy who can only afford a $500 car, and how much it costs to run that car until it finally dies, at which point the guy only has $500 to buy his next car. Consider all the predatory lenders who basically exist because of short term cashflow problems among the poor. Consider how much more it costs to rent compared to owning your own house.
halonachos wrote:I was replying to that part, seriously its bad when you forget what you wrote yourself. This very ending is what I was responding to, he would be getting outside help because he is then disabled and unable to work which means he would be getting help to pay off his debt.
What? I think you may have skipped a word in your haste there. I was saying he could escape his debt only with the outside help, not presupposing he was already receiving help. In that scenario, where he's not disabled (So not receiving whatever disability funds), he can't escape the debt spiral with "hard work alone."
halonachos wrote:Chances they had a job if they're not poor and chances are that job provided health insurance and chances are they could afford home and auto insurance as well as life insurance.
I want those chances...
If you have a job like that, you are doing far better than many Americans, including those who are hard workers. Plus, it's not that rare of a scenario that sometimes people who have limited funds (ie, poor people) are forced to pick between important things like food, shelter, their car, medical care, and insurance. You can't simply assume that because they have a $15,000/year paycheck (A 40 Hour workweek, every week, at the minimum wage of $7.25/hour) that they can pay their own mortgage/various insurances.
Plus, automatically assuming that they will get health insurance by being employed is pretty presumptuous imo. While health insurance is nice, it's not (atm) required for employers to provide, and given your above acceptance of medical bills being a major issue, I'm sure you can see how this could become an issue should Mr. Jimmy break something important and have cheap health insurance that won't cover it (Again, nothing says employers have to get you good health care).
So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:
halonachos wrote:I was replying to that part, seriously its bad when you forget what you wrote yourself. This very ending is what I was responding to, he would be getting outside help because he is then disabled and unable to work which means he would be getting help to pay off his debt.
What? I think you may have skipped a word in your haste there. I was saying he could escape his debt only with the outside help, not presupposing he was already receiving help. In that scenario, where he's not disabled (So not receiving whatever disability funds), he can't escape the debt spiral with "hard work alone."
halonachos wrote:Chances they had a job if they're not poor and chances are that job provided health insurance and chances are they could afford home and auto insurance as well as life insurance.
I want those chances...
If you have a job like that, you are doing far better than many Americans, including those who are hard workers. Plus, it's not that rare of a scenario that sometimes people who have limited funds (ie, poor people) are forced to pick between important things like food, shelter, their car, medical care, and insurance. You can't simply assume that because they have a $15,000/year paycheck (A 40 Hour workweek, every week, at the minimum wage of $7.25/hour) that they can pay their own mortgage/various insurances.
Plus, automatically assuming that they will get health insurance by being employed is pretty presumptuous imo. While health insurance is nice, it's not (atm) required for employers to provide, and given your above acceptance of medical bills being a major issue, I'm sure you can see how this could become an issue should Mr. Jimmy break something important and have cheap health insurance that won't cover it (Again, nothing says employers have to get you good health care).
Ahem, first of all a few things.
You said "only" if and I said that they "would" get outside help if they were disabled, if I was saying that from the beginning then why would you bother bringing that up? They would be getting help if they're disabled so if they're unlucky enough to become disabled then they get covered.
A person who is working and has an accident while at work can get a thing called Workman's Compensation which will help pay for the damages. If a poor person has a car then they should have car insurance or else they're breaking a law in most cases. If a person cannot afford a car then they probably should not buy a car, some places have excellent public transport or can find jobs that are local. Emergency care is free in all states, even to those without insurance.
halonachos wrote:So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Oh come on. I mean seriously, just think about what you're claiming there. First up, think about if you earned $33,950, you've got a wife who's looking after your two young kids, and you see a chance to take another job that'll give you another $5,000. Would you honestly say 'oh I won't bother with that, because then I'd lose 25% to tax instead of the 15% I'm losing now'?
Second up, just look at the tax codes in the rest of the developed world. They're much, much more progressive than rates in the US, yet they have much greater social mobility.
Please think about what you're posting before you press send.
The problem is you're assuming they qualify for disability pay of some sort. I was giving a scenario where someone was in financial trouble, needed outside financial aid, and was not eligible for any sort of disability pay.
As for emergency care, I think you are confusing "free" and "service before payment." True, you can get ER care without paying a cent, but you'll get the bill for your treatment later regardless of whether you have medical insurance that covers it or not.
halonachos wrote:Emergency care is free in all states, even to those without insurance.
That's incorrect. Hospitals must screen for an emergency condition, and provide care without inquiring about the ability of the patient to pay. That doesn't mean they cannot then bill the patient for services rendered, as is generally the case.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
Assuming you're painting all Republicans with a broad brush on the basis that at least one Republican would do so...then presumably some Democrats would as well.
In fact, I'd wager that some Buddhists would as well, so can we turn this into a religion thread?
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
Maybe he meant these guys:
Though I doubt he actually knows any of them.
Those dern Swedes and their meatballs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
Assuming you're painting all Republicans with a broad brush on the basis that at least one Republican would do so...then presumably some Democrats would as well.
In fact, I'd wager that some Buddhists would as well, so can we turn this into a religion thread?
You keep your stinking hands off my Speghetti God you damned dirty ape!
I think we can all agree Republicans have an idea about what communism is. Maybe its right and maybe its wrong, but we can also agree that spaghetti is not good for a kitten's digestive system
LordofHats wrote:I think we can all agree Republicans have an idea about what communism is. Maybe its right and maybe its wrong, but we can also agree that spaghetti is not good for a kitten's digestive system
Unless it has a proper marinara sauce.
Down TBone, I didn't mean dipping the cat in marinara sauce!
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
...because being from another country than the US means that you've never spoken to a republican?
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
...because being from another country than the US means that you've never spoken to a republican?
It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
halonachos wrote:So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Oh come on. I mean seriously, just think about what you're claiming there. First up, think about if you earned $33,950, you've got a wife who's looking after your two young kids, and you see a chance to take another job that'll give you another $5,000. Would you honestly say 'oh I won't bother with that, because then I'd lose 25% to tax instead of the 15% I'm losing now'?
Second up, just look at the tax codes in the rest of the developed world. They're much, much more progressive than rates in the US, yet they have much greater social mobility.
Please think about what you're posting before you press send.
I don't press send, I press "submit". Other nations also have salary caps for executives and proportional earnings based off of what others in the company make. A dishwasher makes x percent of what the executive makes for example.
I was also talking about business owner, there are those that screw the system but there are also people who don't try because if they don't screw the system they end up screwed themselves and fail.
If a person becomes disabled at the workplace then there are several ways to get money, suing, workman's comp(which is a pain in the ass but possible, and if its drastic enough, disability pay). A person who breaks their leg at work while doing something they were supposed to be doing in a manner that they were supposed to be doing it will get workman's comp at least. If you're supposed to get a box off of a high shelf and you climb on it like a monkey, fall, and break your leg then you screwed up by not doing what you were supposed to do.
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants) and as such the hospital uses money that it later tells the government it spent and is compensated for it usually. Also, we learned in our EMT class that the main reason why people don't wish to call an ambulance is because they were either doing something illegal or incorrectly think that it will cost them to get emergency care.
If all of these things [tax increases] were passed, guess who would still pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary? Hint: his initials are WB, and he lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
As the author notes, if you want to increase the rate millionaires pay, hit them with the AMT.
Interestingly, Buffett doesn't pay a rate close to the AMT. The only way he can do so is through careful selection of investments and donations (he probably has a full-time accountant/attorney who manages his fortune). If he's so concerned about paying a low tax rate, why does he structure his personal income in a way that he avoids so much tax?
biccat wrote:Referring back to the "Buffett Rule": Oops.
If all of these things [tax increases] were passed, guess who would still pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary? Hint: his initials are WB, and he lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
As the author notes, if you want to increase the rate millionaires pay, hit them with the AMT.
Interestingly, Buffett doesn't pay a rate close to the AMT. The only way he can do so is through careful selection of investments and donations (he probably has a full-time accountant/attorney who manages his fortune). If he's so concerned about paying a low tax rate, why does he structure his personal income in a way that he avoids so much tax?
According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.
Melissia wrote:According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.
True, Frazzled is a sentient wiener dog, but he's a kind and slightly angry wiener dog.
halonachos wrote:I don't press send, I press "submit".
Other nations also have salary caps for executives and proportional earnings based off of what others in the company make. A dishwasher makes x percent of what the executive makes for example.
I don't think any country has any regulation tying executive remuneration to base level employee salary. It's a nice idea, but it'd be impossible to maintain and lead to all kinds of unintended market impacts. Studies do look at the difference between the two, and find some countries are better than others, and that almost everyone is getting
None of which has anything to do with social mobility, and how your relatively little progressive taxation might impact it.
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants)
A hospital is just as free to bill an illegal immigrant as they are any other patient. The fact that an illegal immigrant has no money means the hospital rarely gets anything from them, like most other poor people.
Which is just one of the things that has me so puzzled about the reaction to expanding healthcare to cover more people - they receive emergency care now (the most expensive way of getting treatment) and while they're billed for it, most people don't have tens or hundreds of thousands in equity readily available, so they'll likely go through very expensive bankruptcy proceedings, which will give the hospital very little of it's money back. Meaning the cost still falls on the regular taxpayer, and probably a lot more than if poor people could just see a doctor for their illness before it was life threatening.
So if you're already paying, why not just pay for treatment when it's cheaper, and when it doesn't end up putting the sick person in severe financial hardship?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:So you're saying that Republicans don't know what Communism is?
I would go so far as to say most people don't know what communism is. It's weird, but communism just seems like one of those things that everyone wants to have an opinion on, but that hardly anybody feels like they should actually learn anything about it first.
Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.
Now why don't I want to pay for more care, well I kind of do, its called Medicare and Medicaid and more people need to start using it.
Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.
Denmark has a pay-limit scheme, but I don't think that's it. It was a chart in an old book I had that described pay incomes in relation to each other where the lowest paid employee was paid a percentage of what the highest paid employee was. Also, America once had a salary cap for CEO's and that was during the second world war IIRC. I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.
halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.
Now why don't I want to pay for more care, well I kind of do, its called Medicare and Medicaid and more people need to start using it.
Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.
As a parent, and a clumsy person, I can damn well tell you E.R. visits are WAY expensive, period. don't kid yourself.
You can't be turned away from an ER unless you've seen a doctor and they turn you away or else you can sue the hell out of them.
You break your leg, go to the ER, its an Emergency after all and it can't be prevented by the hospital. What's that, you have insurance, then you can pay the hospital back. What's that, you don't have insurance, well your leg is fixed but you probably won't get any care after that.
I was also saying that Emergency Care isn't always the most expensive way to treat something. I guess I should've made it clearer by saying that sometimes its the only way to get care. Child birth is an emergency, broken bones are an emergency, getting shot is an emergency. And guess what, you won't be turned down for not having a way to pay because hospitals are legally obligated to provide care that if not given would cause further harm.
If you have insurance you schedule appointments for treatment and care, if you have an emergency its an unexpected appointment and you will have to pay for it. But saying that going to an ER to get a bone placed is more expensive than going in to get your check up, well duh. It costs time and money for both, but is a tongue depressor and thermometer cover more expensive than the materials they use to cast a broken bone? Emergency medicine is usually more expensive than an appointment to the local general practitioner.
@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make. Doctors will usually assign tests that are needed and sometimes undercode just to get the insurance company to pay for it without much of a hassle. You see, insurance companies don't like to pay for what they don't have to and will fight doctors over tests. When I was in the ER I only got what I needed test wise, when my brother broke his pinky he got an x-ray and got it cast. When he broke his toe, same deal. When I dislocated my knee they gave me an X-ray and gave me several options and guess what, instead of recommending a more expensive knee-replacement they said I was young enough that is they just cleaned up the broken cartilage it should be fine.
The assumption that doctors will always perform more tests than necessary is absurd and blown out of proportion.
biccat wrote:
I'm saying that Republicans do know what Communism is.
When a state own the means of production it doesn't have to force people to pay for the misfortune of others, it simply does it of its own accord. Unless you're postulating indirect payment, in which case the mere fact that people suffer misfortune forces all of us to pay for it in some regard (if we take, at least, the cost of disposing of corpses); regardless of the economic system being considered.
But thanks for illustrating my point.
Melissia wrote:I'm not even sure half of them know what capitalism is (hint: we don't practice anything but a heavily watered down version).
Well, we're definitely a capitalist nation with some socialism thrown in for flavor.
Besides, the general talking point isn't "Yay capitalism!" its "Yay free market!" which is good deal more nebulous.
halonachos wrote:
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants) and as such the hospital uses money that it later tells the government it spent and is compensated for it usually.
This is also wrong. First, with the exception of undocumented patients (mostly illegals), all people who receive emergency care are billed; whether or not they have insurance is not a factor. Second, hospitals are not compensated for emergency care they give to those patients who are unable to pay, in fact its considered a major problem of the medical system by many analysts.
sebster wrote:
A hospital is just as free to bill an illegal immigrant as they are any other patient. The fact that an illegal immigrant has no money means the hospital rarely gets anything from them, like most other poor people.
The issue is usually finding them after treatment. Emergency patients aren't generally billed at time of service.
sebster wrote:
I would go so far as to say most people don't know what communism is. It's weird, but communism just seems like one of those things that everyone wants to have an opinion on, but that hardly anybody feels like they should actually learn anything about it first.
I agree with that. I was mostly just making a joke.
halonachos wrote: I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.
That's just populist boilerplate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
The assumption that doctors will always perform more tests than necessary is absurd and blown out of proportion.
The argument isn't that they always will do so, the argument is that they have an incentive to do so.
dogma wrote:
This is also wrong. First, with the exception of undocumented patients (mostly illegals), all people who receive emergency care are billed; whether or not they have insurance is not a factor. Second, hospitals are not compensated for emergency care they give to those patients who are unable to pay, in fact its considered a major problem of the medical system by many analysts.
Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.
dogma wrote:
The argument isn't that they always will do so, the argument is that they have an incentive to do so.
No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.
halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.
Sure, there are circumstances where only having emergency treatment is best. Across a whole country though, having more things treated early and preventing them from getting worse works out on the whole a lot cheaper than waiting until a condition is life threatening and needs emergency care.
This means, very simply, that denying preventative care but granting absolute access emergency care costs the US far more than it saves. Which in turn means that expanding access to preventative care will produce a net saving.
Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.
Denmark has a pay-limit scheme, but I don't think that's it.
Fair enough, I didn't know that. Thanks.
Still, having schemes in two such countries still doesn't account for the US having the lowest social mobility of any developed country, though, does it?
It was a chart in an old book I had that described pay incomes in relation to each other where the lowest paid employee was paid a percentage of what the highest paid employee was. Also, America once had a salary cap for CEO's and that was during the second world war IIRC. I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.
The US actually has a cap on executive pay, believe it or not. Of course, it's trivially easier to get around, as it's only for salary and doesn't include bonuses. Which means if you want to pay someone $10 million, you just give him $1 million in salary and include a $9 million bonus in his contract if the share price remains above $0.01.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:You see, insurance companies don't like to pay for what they don't have to and will fight doctors over tests.
You realise those fights cost money? Lots of money, especially when the thing gets dragged to court.
Over here we have private insurers, but they're not for profit companies. This means there's no incentive for the company to save money by denying care. As a result, exactly what you can and can't access becomes a much more straight forward manner, and what we pay in hospital administration is nothing like what you see in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.
Yes, but not because of anything in legislation that says they can't be billed. Instead, it's for the very practical reason that the hospital can't get money off someone who doesn't have any (and as dogma pointed out someone they likely can't find afterwards).
halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.
Sure, there are circumstances where only having emergency treatment is best. Across a whole country though, having more things treated early and preventing them from getting worse works out on the whole a lot cheaper than waiting until a condition is life threatening and needs emergency care.
This means, very simply, that denying preventative care but granting absolute access emergency care costs the US far more than it saves. Which in turn means that expanding access to preventative care will produce a net saving.
It is cheaper, but like I said we do have agencies and government programs that do try to take care of the working poor and etc. Medicaid and Medicare are aimed at helping the poor based on finances or disability or age. People don't utilize those programs we already have, so why bother making another government program that would do the same these two programs are. If we scrap medicare and medicaid and replace it with just one program that covers them all then sure I'll go for it, but no we want three different programs to do the same damn thing.
Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy. As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.
Yes, but not because of anything in legislation that says they can't be billed. Instead, it's for the very practical reason that the hospital can't get money off someone who doesn't have any (and as dogma pointed out someone they likely can't find afterwards).
To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.
halonachos wrote:No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.
It's a very straight forward piece of game theory. When a person gains a benefit from a thing but doesn't bare the cost, he will tend to over-use that thing.
Every time a doctor treats a patient, he faces a slight risk of complaint about his treatment of the patient. This could range from something as minor as negative feedback to malpractice. The more extensive his treatment of the patient, the more that risk reduces.
The problem is the doctor doesn't suffer any of the costs of the treatment he diagnoses. This leads to a tendency for that doctor to tend towards more caution, so that he might authorise an expensive test even though the chance of it revealing anything was very small.
This is a problem every health system faces. What is needed to minimise this issue is a very healthy relationship between medical providers and the insurance sector. Unfortunately, in the US, due in large part to the highly exploitative behaviour of the insurance companies, this relationship is extremely disfunctional. The end result is a mess of decision making, in which over-prescription of medication drives the US system to be vastly more expensive than any other system, and denial of treatment drives it to be among the worst performing.
What's needed is a new economic system to make that relationship far more functional.
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.
Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.
Holy Crap, I have never seen anything in the OT as funny as this. I know I am getting into it late, but ROFLMAO.
halonachos wrote:It is cheaper, but like I said we do have agencies and government programs that do try to take care of the working poor and etc. Medicaid and Medicare are aimed at helping the poor based on finances or disability or age. People don't utilize those programs we already have, so why bother making another government program that would do the same these two programs are. If we scrap medicare and medicaid and replace it with just one program that covers them all then sure I'll go for it, but no we want three different programs to do the same damn thing.
Yeah, a single base line level of care provided for everyone is the way to go. One program that everyone has access to. From there you can give incentives for people to go and get their own private insurance.
Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy.
Over here in Australia when we brought in Medicare that covered everyone, government brought in a medicare levy of 1.5% of your annual income, which is waived if you earn less than $18,000. Then there's a surcharge of another 1% of your income if you earn more than $77,000 but haven't gotten your own private insurance.
It isn't perfect (it nowhere near covers the cost of healthcare) but it's a good start. I think the most important part is that there is a baseline that says your condition won't be left untreated,
As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.
It's a big question, and giving a satisfying answer would probably put someone pretty close to a Nobel prize. I think it's probably down to a few factors, massive differences in public schooling quality which are pretty directly tied to the level of wealth in a region, a very high cost for tertiary education making it much harder to gain a tertiary education without parental support, and very low rates of pay at the bottom end of the scale, making it much harder for people to improve their skills or capital base while working minimum wage positions.
Substantiating any of that, let alone of it would be near impossible, though.
halonachos wrote:To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.
Was it? I thought it was about the claim that illegal aliens didn't have to pay for their care.
Hmm, same old problem with bulletin board conversations - lots of discussions going on at once.
halonachos wrote:
Boom! C-Span backs me the hell up on this one.
Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.
No, that's also incorrect. DSH status is determined according to a metric based on either, or a combination of, those patients who are treated while on Medicare or Medicaid; and patients classified as disabled who are on neither. It has nothing to do with ability to pay, despite what the political rhetoric entails.
Additionally, DSH payments are not tied to any particular service rendered, they are calculated categorically.
halonachos wrote:
No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.
No, she was being hyperbolic, as she is wont to do. She's also not entirely wrong, as "stabilized" is a wonderful term to argue over in the course of a malpractice suit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy.
Why did we invent this "morality" nonsense? It seems like such a mistake now.
halonachos wrote:
As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.
Culturally, we love our college degrees, but they are quite expensive; and generally seen as the primary path up the economic ladder.
Hell, my former boss made me post a job listing for a receptionist with a minimal requirement of a BA.
halonachos wrote:
To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.
halonachos wrote:@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make.
No, it's fairly safe.
You see, Halonachos, doctors have to worry about missing anything. Because if they do they'll get sued. Or have their insurance rates raise. Or, more likely, both. So they cover all their bases. Which means a veritable barrage of tests, or at least a few extra they wouldn't run if they didn't have to worry about these things.
Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests (blood tests, urinalysis, etc) to make sure you don't have any internal damages-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so, and even then it's usually merely a delayed test).
This isn't hyperbole, or guessing, or assumptions. This is fact. Almost all emergency care locations will do these kinds of tests. In fact, you could probably ask most emergency care doctors about this and they'd agree with me. They want to cover their asses. I can't blame them for it-- that's how the system works right now.
Melissia wrote:Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests to make sure you don't have any internals-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so).
That is completely false. I've broken a couple of bones and taken a football and accident prone son in for 3-4 broken bones and not once was some head scan done.
Certainly when I went to my doctor after spraining my ankle (over a decade ago now) they only ran the tests my family asked for, IE, an x-ray of my ankle to make sure it was or wasn't broken. But that wasn't emergency care.
If it WAS emergency care and they didn't even try to find skull or neck injuries on a child, they'd be liable as all hell in court if one cropped up. Sometimes even if the injury wasn't there when the child came in. Cover Your Ass is an extremely important concept in the medical industry.
Then those hospitals were risking being sued. If your kid had a neck injury you didn't know about and they didn't check it, and then became effected by it, they were liable, and you could sue their pants off. Or even if the neck injury happened somewhere down the line, they could possibly even be sued then even if the injury didn't happen before the kid was put in their hospital (after all if they had checked they might have noticed a hairline or some other symptom that would have warned you-- and therefor they were partially responsible).
Certainly not practices that any of the Dallas/Fort Worth hospitals would want to have, what with the litigious nation we're in... hell even nurses here are taught CYA.
biccat wrote:I'm saying that Republicans do know what Communism is.
When a state own the means of production it doesn't have to force people to pay for the misfortune of others, it simply does it of its own accord. Unless you're postulating indirect payment, in which case the mere fact that people suffer misfortune forces all of us to pay for it in some regard (if we take, at least, the cost of disposing of corpses); regardless of the economic system being considered.
But thanks for illustrating my point.
And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?
The only place a government, whether socialist, communist, totalitarian, democratic, or other, is from the economic output of the people it governs. The only way to get that economic output in a communist state (where the government owns the means of production) is through directing people to labor for the benefit of others. When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.
Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Melissia wrote:Then those hospitals were risking being sued. If your kid had a neck injury you didn't know about and they didn't check it, and then became effected by it, they were liable, and you could sue their pants off. Or even if the neck injury happened somewhere down the line, they could possibly even be sued then even if the injury didn't happen before the kid was put in their hospital (after all if they had checked they might have noticed a hairline or some other symptom that would have warned you-- and therefor they were partially responsible).
Certainly not practices that any of the Dallas/Fort Worth hospitals would want to have, what with the litigious nation we're in... hell even nurses here are taught CYA.
Whatever.
Bottom line, some hospitals do a slew of tests they don't need to. Not all hospitals do a head scan because you come in with a broken bone. Universal statements like the one you made are rarely true.
halonachos wrote:@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make.
No, it's fairly safe.
You see, Halonachos, doctors have to worry about missing anything. Because if they do they'll get sued. Or have their insurance rates raise. Or, more likely, both. So they cover all their bases. Which means a veritable barrage of tests, or at least a few extra they wouldn't run if they didn't have to worry about these things.
Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests (blood tests, urinalysis, etc) to make sure you don't have any internal damages-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so, and even then it's usually merely a delayed test).
This isn't hyperbole, or guessing, or assumptions. This is fact. Almost all emergency care locations will do these kinds of tests. In fact, you could probably ask most emergency care doctors about this and they'd agree with me. They want to cover their asses. I can't blame them for it-- that's how the system works right now.
I worked with several emergency care doctors and they only test for what is necessary. If you're skateboardinng, fall, and break your leg then they're going to scan your skull to see if you have any bleeding on the inside of your skull. Its the same with people who were found laying down in the street, the doctors don't know why they were just laying there and more importantly they don't know how they got there so they scan the brain again to check for hemorrhaging. Now as far as urinalysis goes, that's for patients who have a broken bone but have no idea why they have a broken bone and no one around was able to give the doctor a history of events leading up to the broken bone. If you into the doctor's office with a broken toe and tell them that it got hit with a baseball and that caused it to break then they give it a quick x-ray and get you on your way out.
Like I said, I have worked in an ER and I am also friends with various ER techs, nurses, and EMT's and they never test unless its something they need to test for. Hell if a diabetic comes into the emergency room and he was found alone in his house on the floor he will be given two tests, one MRI for his head and a blood test to see his blood sugar. They won't do urinalysis on him unless they think it to be necessary, but if the root cause of him falling to the ground and being unconscious is hypoglycemia then they give him some sugar and that's that.
You see Melissia, doctors also have to worry about not getting paid for their services. A medical journal published findings saying that the majority of doctors undercode(meaning they charge for a cheaper procedure even though they did the more expensive one) because its a hassle to get money from insurance companies for more expensive procedures even if they were necessary. Doctors aren't some kind of money vampire that drains a person's insurance because they need it Melissia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Right, because generalizations are never right.
Which is why you should never make the statement that running across a highway is a bad idea, amirite?
Sometimes the highway is empty and its easy to get across.
biccat wrote:Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Does that mean that the US is communistic? Because certainly there's what basically amounts to economic slavery in the US.
Of course, you may want to simply reword yourself and be more specific
I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.
biccat wrote:
And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?
Itself of course. Communism is state ownership of the means of production, at its most basic level.
biccat wrote:
The only place a government, whether socialist, communist, totalitarian, democratic, or other, is from the economic output of the people it governs. The only way to get that economic output in a communist state (where the government owns the means of production) is through directing people to labor for the benefit of others.
It doesn't have to be for the benefit of others.
In any case, all economic actors derive their output from the people they "govern". The only variable in terms of directorial power is ownership.
biccat wrote:
When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.
You're assuming they were his in the first place.
biccat wrote:
Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Strawman. You claimed that Communism was any instance in which people were forced to provide a benefit to the unfortunate, I said that was incorrect. Now you're trying to dodge the point by claiming that doing so is a condition of Communism (but apparently not Communism itself). My point, that Republicans generally don't know what Communism is, stands quite nicely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.
biccat wrote:When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.
You're assuming they were his in the first place.
They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism. Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Strawman. You claimed that Communism was any instance in which people were forced to provide a benefit to the unfortunate, I said that was incorrect. Now you're trying to dodge the point by claiming that doing so is a condition of Communism (but apparently not Communism itself). My point, that Republicans generally don't know what Communism is, stands quite nicely.
No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism. Without the authority and ability to compel people to act in the interest of the state rather than their own interests, Communism fails. This is why Communist states tend to be totalitarian.
The inherent component of Communism is providing for the interest of others at the expense of your own interests. Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion, it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.
biccat wrote:When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.
You're assuming they were his in the first place.
They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism. Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.
Just purely theoretically, who can prove that individualism is right?
biccat wrote:
They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism.
No, its at odds with the theories of liberty and individualism that underpin liberalism, but those aren't "basic" by any means. They might be your preference, but that's not relevant.
biccat wrote:
Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.
And?
biccat wrote:
No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism.
No it isn't. Everyone might go along willingly. Likely and necessary are not the same thing.
biccat wrote:
Without the authority and ability to compel people to act in the interest of the state rather than their own interests, Communism fails.
The interest of the state and the interest of the individual do not have to be distinct, if they did not form of organization (government or otherwise) would be viable. If we're speaking only to governance, even democracy fails without the capacity to compel individuals in terms of state interests.
biccat wrote:
The inherent component of Communism is providing for the interest of others at the expense of your own interests.
That's inherent to all forms of government.
biccat wrote:
Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion....
So you're forced to serve your daughters' interests?
biccat wrote:
...it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.
No, wrong, absolutely. Even per your argument such a state is only a precondition of Communism. It takes a long draw of bow to reach the next step of your argument.
Unless you would argue that, say, feudalism and communism are the same thing. In which case, well...you need to read more.
Oh, biccat, but economic slavery DOES exist. The only difference is that instead of the government owning your labor, it's the business you work for owning it.
And these days frequently you can't labor for anyone else because there's no jobs available elsewhere. And your own labor without a business is often worth nil. So it's effectively the same situation in all but name.
Heck, with non-compete clauses and other malarkey hidden in job contracts, you're often even legally compelled to either work for that company or not work at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Besides, the general talking point isn't "Yay capitalism!" its "Yay free market!" which is good deal more nebulous.
Thing is, free market is only really good when it's properly regulated.
Humans are bastards, they cheat and lie o get money. Not every human no, but you never want the ones that do to get into a position of unregulated power.
Melissia wrote:According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.
True, Frazzled is a sentient wiener dog, but he's a kind and slightly angry wiener dog.
biccat wrote:Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion....
So you're forced to serve your daughters' interests?
Nope, I do it by my own free will.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:...it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.
No, wrong, absolutely. Even per your argument such a state is only a precondition of Communism. It takes a long draw of bow to reach the next step of your argument.
Unless you would argue that, say, feudalism and communism are the same thing. In which case, well...you need to read more.
The inherent difference between Feudalism and Communism, at least for purposes of this conversation, is that Feudalism isn't invoked to "help others." It is a self-serving, top-down theory of governance. Communism, on the other hand, is a bottom-up theory that enslaves those who will work for the benefit of those who won't.
Melissia wrote:Oh, biccat, but economic slavery DOES exist. The only difference is that instead of the government owning your labor, it's the business you work for owning it.
I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.
biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.
Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.
Namely, the food, water, and shelter necessary to survive.
Just saying.
As for you not being aware of businesses that own a person's labor... look at the pharmaceutical industry, the entertainment industry, heck, even the friggin' food industry. The person making a burger at mcdonald's doesn't own their labor. The person working for Pfizer doesn't own their labor. The person working for Electronic Arts doesn't own their labor.
Only the ones who own their own business (the self-employed) really own their labor...
biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.
Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.
Namely, the food, water, and shelter necessary to survive.
Giving value in exchange for labor isn't sufficient. Slaves were given food, water, and shelter for their labor, but they most certainly were owned.
Melissia wrote:As for you not being aware of businesses that own a person's labor... look at the pharmaceutical industry, the entertainment industry, heck, even the friggin' food industry. The person making a burger at mcdonald's doesn't own their labor.
Sure they do. They can quit. The ability to deprive someone of the use of a good is one of the fundamental concepts of ownership.
Obviously it might not be a good idea to quit if you're making minimum wage at a burger joint, but that's reality for you.
So there exist means by which providing for the interests of others at the expense of your own (with the nominal caveats regarding possession and interest) which are not based on force and compulsion.
Thank you for making my point again.
biccat wrote:
The inherent difference between Feudalism and Communism, at least for purposes of this conversation, is that Feudalism isn't invoked to "help others." It is a self-serving, top-down theory of governance. Communism, on the other hand, is a bottom-up theory that enslaves those who will work for the benefit of those who won't.
That's completely wrong. Communism has never been about helping others, or enslaving those who work to those who don't, not in theory or practice. I suggest you revisit Marx and Lenin, or even the history of Communist Russia, because what you're pedaling now is just an American Conservative talking point. You are very obviously confusing Communism with Socialism, they are not the same at all.
As regarding the difference between Feudalism and Communism: Feudalism was often invoked for the benefit of others via divinity. Not all beneficial claims need to be material, in the classical sense.
biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that [...] don't give value in exchange for that labor.
Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.
Giving value in exchange for labor isn't sufficient.
There's something off and inconsistent here. I must look into this logical inconsistency later.
Also biccat, you always have the choice of not working in a communist society. The consequences you suffer aren't that different (not eating, poverty, etc), either. The main difference is only that in a communist country is that the government has a monopoly on all businesses, whereas in a capitalistic country, business and government are (mostly) separate. There can still easily be monopolies without heavy government regulation. And even WITH government regulation in some markets (Apple's rise to actually properly compete with Microsoft, for example, is pretty recent, and electricity companies often have effective monopolies).
dogma wrote:So there exist means by which providing for the interests of others at the expense of your own (with the nominal caveats regarding possession and interest) which are not based on force and compulsion.
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.
The only way to provide for the interests of others at the expense of your own is through force or compulsion. There is no other way. Of course, you could change that person's interest, which is what having a family does. I provide for my family because it's in my interest, not because of some other influence. I could walk away from them (if that were in my interest) and the only way to make me provide for their well-being would be...force or compulsion.
dogma wrote:That's completely wrong. Communism has never been about helping others, or enslaving those who work to those who don't, not in theory or practice. I suggest you revisit Marx and Lenin, or even the history of Communist Russia, because what you're pedaling now is just an American Conservative talking point. You are very obviously confusing Communism with Socialism, they are not the same at all.
I've obviously been brainwashed by that totally-not-communist statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Perhaps you should look up how production and consumption work, and how production is accomplished. Hint: it's not by the consumers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:There's something off and inconsistent here. I must look into this logical inconsistency later.
I hope so, because you're missing a ton of context.
Melissia wrote:Also biccat, you always have the choice of not working in a communist society.
biccat wrote:And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?
What do you think owning the means of production means?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.
Ahahahahaha.
There have been multiple successful cases of farming corporation being prosecuted for inflincting involuntary servitude in the last ten years, but this is recognised as being just the tip of the iceberg. They're paid an annual salary of about $7,000, and besides being incredibly low, it's also less than they were paid in the 70s, and that's for working six and seven day weeks, up to 16 hours a day. About half are housed in conditions that are classified as 'grossly unsatisfactory'. Their poverty and terrible living conditions have led to a vast number of health conditions, including about 80% suffering intestinal parasites from being provided with contamined water.
There's about 2 million migrant farm hands working in the US living like that, a situation you'd be happy to describe as economic slavery if it were happening anywhere but in the US. But you're so happy in your little bubble of free market driven self satisfaction you were entirely unaware of how people were living in your own country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism.
Communist societies have flourished. Nothing that could sensibly be called economic slavery occurred among the Australian Aboriginals, for instance.
What you're attempting to do here is comment on broad economic forces, without having any kind of grounding in economic history. It's making you sound ridiculous.
Communism almost certainly requires an oppressive government to remain as long as we continue to view material things as the primary form of gaining status. But it is utterly ridiculous to propose that the economic conditions that cause private property to drive status have always existed, and will always exist. These factors are about 200 years old, and even the briefest grounding in economic history will show you how quickly things change.
biccat wrote:
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.
The only way to provide for the interests of others at the expense of your own is through force or compulsion. There is no other way. Of course, you could change that person's interest, which is what having a family does. I provide for my family because it's in my interest, not because of some other influence.
It is very obviously from some other influence, that of your family; having it if we're being particular. If you had no family, there would be no influence instructing you to provide for it.
biccat wrote:
I could walk away from them (if that were in my interest) and the only way to make me provide for their well-being would be...force or compulsion.
You're moving the goal posts.
biccat wrote:
I've obviously been brainwashed by that totally-not-communist statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Perhaps you should look up how production and consumption work, and how production is accomplished. Hint: it's not by the consumers.
I still don't see a statement affirming that Communism is about working for others.
It is, however, cute that you extrapolate from Communism but not Feudalism, or even Capitalism. How very honest.
dogma wrote:Well, it only exists when its regulated.
Well, the term perfect market only really exists in the political rhetoric of the right wing, and it's efforts to fight market regulation. In economics they talk about perfect markets, and the conditions needed to meet that criteria have nothing to do with regulation. Indeed, if you look at the closest things we have to perfect markets, such as the stock market, they're the most heavily regulated markets.
sebster wrote:Indeed, if you look at the closest things we have to perfect markets, such as the stock market, they're the most heavily regulated markets.
You accuse me of not "having any kind of grounding in economic history" and yet you make this type of absurd statement?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:What do you think owning the means of production means?
From the context of your question, I assume you think that it means owning people and their labor. However, the term "means of production" generally refers to non-human contributions to manufacture. Under Marxist Communism, the state owns the factories and machines, but labor is not owned by the state.
sebster wrote:There have been multiple successful cases of farming corporation being prosecuted for inflincting involuntary servitude in the last ten years, but this is recognised as being just the tip of the iceberg. They're paid an annual salary of about $7,000, and besides being incredibly low, it's also less than they were paid in the 70s, and that's for working six and seven day weeks, up to 16 hours a day. About half are housed in conditions that are classified as 'grossly unsatisfactory'. Their poverty and terrible living conditions have led to a vast number of health conditions, including about 80% suffering intestinal parasites from being provided with contamined water.
Terrible living conditions are not the same as slavery. I'm not sure where you get that idea.
However, I acknowledge that there are instances of illegal slavery in this country, but the illegality of slavery and the resources we dedicate towards stopping slavery both here and abroad argues against public acceptance of slavery.
sebster wrote:Communist societies have flourished. Nothing that could sensibly be called economic slavery occurred among the Australian Aboriginals, for instance.
Small, voluntary communist societies can work because they don't have the means or ability to forcibly compel others and there's generally no need for central planning on the level of a national economy. However, when those communist societies interact with outside capitalist actors, communism fails.
sebster wrote:Communism almost certainly requires an oppressive government to remain as long as we continue to view material things as the primary form of gaining status...even the briefest grounding in economic history will show you how quickly things change.
This was Marx's basic thought: that somehow if you change incentives then you can change behavior. Even as incentives have changed, however, self-interest has continued. It is an evolutionary necessity and I'd argue is a necessary part of the human condition.
dogma wrote:It is very obviously from some other influence, that of your family; having it if we're being particular. If you had no family, there would be no influence instructing you to provide for it.
Yes, outside forces can change people's incentives. For example, I desire a ham sandwich. If I had turkey in the fridge, I might desire a turkey sandwich. But that doesn't change the fact that it is my interest that I am serving.
dogma wrote:You're moving the goal posts.
Umm...no, I'm not. Self-interest governs human actions. If my self-interest is no longer coincident with those of my family, there's no way to ensure that I care for them.
dogma wrote:It is, however, cute that you extrapolate from Communism but not Feudalism, or even Capitalism. How very honest.
The original post I responded to was concerning Communism, not Feudalism or Capitalism. I'm not sure why you've decided to start being a again, but please take your petty insults elsewhere.
biccat wrote:
Yes, outside forces can change people's incentives. For example, I desire a ham sandwich. If I had turkey in the fridge, I might desire a turkey sandwich. But that doesn't change the fact that it is my interest that I am serving.
Given that sort of definition any action you take is in your interest, which is fine, but it breaks your argument.
biccat wrote:
Umm...no, I'm not. Self-interest governs human actions. If my self-interest is no longer coincident with those of my family, there's no way to ensure that I care for them.
Yes, self-interest governs human action, and as you've shown a number of times the provision for the interests of others can be accomplished without force or compulsion (well, maybe not compulsion, as we can compel ourselves).
You made no mention of external (whatever that means) stimuli as distinct from internal, you simply claimed that force or compulsion are necessary preconditions for the placement of the interests of another over your own; which is plainly false.
biccat wrote:
The original post I responded to was concerning Communism, not Feudalism or Capitalism. I'm not sure why you've decided to start being a again, but please take your petty insults elsewhere.
Probably because you started speaking as an ideologue, which is the sort of thing that deserves petty insults.
about their student loans. Most I have known have paid theirs off, but others didn't with no negative consequence.
