Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

How very unreasearched talking pointy of you.

I disagree. Rich people benefit greatly from the security and stability that the government provides much more than poor people. When you have five houses that are vacant most of the time and a legal system that says a poor person cant claim squatters rights, you are gaining from the political construct.

Poor people are dependent on a system created and established by the rich. It is to the Rich's benefit that these people be taken care of.

Now I agree that the benefits the Poor receive need to be better regulated. The Rich must however be careful with the opportunities they provide. When work is outsourced and people have less opportunity to work, well the Rich are creating a situation to their own peril.

Like I said the Rich and the Poor have both been running around rampantly. But the Poor really have little fear of a government collapse, they will be poor either way.

The poor have a much larger stake in smooth governance as evidenced by every governmentally dysfunctional region in history. The rich are insulated by their power and assets from sea changes in economic conditions. When you have a buffer you are better off then someone who is directly effected by changes in food prices. The wealthy also have increased fallback options such as the ability to re leverage wealth into newer more functional assets or the simple ability to leave the dysfunctional state. Being "poor either way" just means the poor are more directly and harshly effected by failures of the system meant to maintain them.

The poor have a much larger stake in smooth governance as evidenced by every governmentally dysfunctional region in history. The rich are insulated by their power and assets from sea changes in economic conditions. When you have a buffer you are better off then someone who is directly effected by changes in food prices. The wealthy also have increased fallback options such as the ability to re leverage wealth into newer more functional assets or the simple ability to leave the dysfunctional state. Being "poor either way" just means the poor are more directly and harshly effected by failures of the system meant to maintain them.

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

I really think the payroll tax cap needs to be eliminated. A major group of taxes that are only collected up to the first $102,000 an individual earns. So if you make more than that you are taxed the same as someone who makes $102,000. Someone who earns only $1M pays (percentage wise) one tenth the tax that someone who earns $102,000. Puts a lot of burden on the middle class.

The rich say that they don't use social security so why should they pay into it. Granted the rich will probably never need their benefits directly. But indirectly this is what keeps the poor in their place, so it is Social Security, not social security.

Of course this is not the only reform to Social Security I advocate.

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth (as evidenced by most examples in asia and africa (cultural revolution excluded of course).

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

VoidAngel wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
This is the exact opposite of truth. Economies are driven from the bottom up. The working class for the most stays in one area, and spends all their money on local businesses, which are either owned by or buy their stock from wealthier, non-local companies, in addition to employing other locals who also spend money thusly. The large, non-local companies are generally owned by even larger multinational corporations, like GE. They, in turn, take the money they've earned, and pay it out to their executives, who put it in swiss bank accounts and sit on it, living on a comparable pittance (millions of dollars) of what they actually own (much, much more), which just sits, locked away in a vault. The wealthy don't drive economies in the least, they suck money out of them for its own sake.

Ah yes, the myth of the evil rich people. Do you actually know any C-level execs? Have you ever worked for a Fortune 300 company? I do. Our company is fairly typical for it's type. I know the leadership well. I know how they live, what they own, and how they spend. I know what our company spends on the community. It would be fair to say that the community wouldn't be livable without us. You've swallowed a party line hook, line, and fishing trawler - and now you're repeating it.

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.

They don't actually earn the money, they pay other people to earn it for them, or steal/swindle it through convoluted tricks (like speculation and high-frequency trading), and they pay significantly less of their income than poor people who can't afford to hire professional tax-evaders to minimize their costs with a tiny fraction of what they save by doing so.

See above.

While I don't actually believe you, even if every word you're saying is true: you're not at the top of the food chain, instead falling somewhere in the middle. Money exits the top, flowing into swiss bank accounts and third world sweatshops/bribe money, while the wealthy employ armies of accountants to better help them evade taxes, and in some cases actively steal from tax payers (*cough*GE*cough*). You're at best on the lower edge of upper class, and more likely solidly in upper-middle class (if even that), as are your boss and coworkers, which, while enough to have an accountant help you evade your taxes with loopholes and arbitrary deductions, doesn't quite reach the level in question.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.

The idea of capable people living on the public dime is largely a myth, and the rare exceptions being anything but a drop in the bucket even more so. And even if it weren't, they're still Americans, who spend the money on local businesses, who employ locals, and buy from/are owned by larger corporations, and thus cannot be a drain on the economy as a result.

Do you live or work in an impoverished area? Have you ever driven through one (with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, of course)? There are whole cities, effectively, that I assure you are a huge drain on the local economy.

That's not physically possible, aside from high crime rates causing businesses to move elsewhere, which doesn't result in a net change overall, merely a local depression. None of the related problems come from social programs being too generous, rather the exact opposite. The only way to fix such areas is to improve the quality of education, help people who can't pick themselves back up, and encourage jobs to move to the area. Cutting spending just makes it worse.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

That's much less of a problem than it's made out to be. They fill sub-minimum wage positions performing strenuous, unpleasant, untrained labor, working for private individuals or businesses that are small enough they don't think they'll get investigated. That's not to say the border shouldn't be secured, though I personally think just annexing mexico would be the simplest, easiest solution to that...

It's a huge problem. There is no simple answer that everyone will like - and the Democrats own the Hispanic voters. So...the best ideas won't get implemented any time soon.

Which is why Hispanics predominantly support republican candidates, then?

Andrew1975 wrote:True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

Ah, the common misconception of revolution. The less rich use the poor to turn on the more rich to become richer. Ala French revolution BTW.

Andrew1975 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

If that were true the tea party wouldn't be fighting the taxation of the rich. Poor americans love rich ones to their own detriment. Americans are idiots when it comes to economic ideology.

So, the fight about this 1.5% of the budget is pretty heated. Imagine the fight over the 6.2 trillion dollar cuts proposed over ten years by Ryan for the 2012 budget?

Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed.

Now, as a Generation-Y baby (what's up with the generation catch-phrases? I don't understand them), I pretty much blame my parent's generation for most of the financial troubles we're facing. These are the baby-boomers who basically lived lives of prosperity off the back of their parents who lived through the depression and then went on to squander it when it was their turn to take the reins of power.

Now, I'm not laying blame on every last baby-boomer, but look the people who have reigned over us for the last 20-30 years. Baby-boomers mostly.

I think it's time for the 40's and under to actually educate themselves and get involved in their country. I feel like there's almost an under-current of "I got mine, screw you" that's going on in politics now-a-days.

So, the fight about this 1.5% of the budget is pretty heated. Imagine the fight over the 6.2 trillion dollar cuts proposed over ten years by Ryan for the 2012 budget?

There wont be one. Thats both unrealistic and politically dangerous. They're talking it up to appease the tea party who want them to perform actual, meaningful cuts now then they'll forget about it once a yearly budget is passed. They may even try to blame it on the dems, despite there being no realistic political will in the reds for cuts that are that deep.

Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed.

You shouldn't applaud people with unrealistic and politically charged budget proposals as they serve to do little more then damage the conversation.

Now, as a Generation-Y baby (what's up with the generation catch-phrases? I don't understand them), I pretty much blame my parent's generation for most of the financial troubles we're facing. These are the baby-boomers who basically lived lives of prosperity off the back of their parents who lived through the depression and then went on to squander it when it was their turn to take the reins of power.

You should blame raeganomics and every president since that espoused trickle down economics or deregulatory superiority. Blaming a generation of people is lazy.

I think it's time for the 40's and under to actually educate themselves and get involved in their country. I feel like there's almost an under-current of "I got mine, screw you" that's going on in politics now-a-days.

Yes, thats the under 40's you're getting that from.

I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

As much as it pains me to do so, maybe we need to just establish that anyone who will reach the age of 65 after the year 2030 needs to provide for their own retirement while still paying taxes until those on SS die off.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

As much as it pains me to do so, maybe we need to just establish that anyone who will reach the age of 65 after the year 2030 needs to provide for their own retirement while still paying taxes until those on SS die off.

Because the democrats want Soc Sec reformation only and the republicans (who want to cut it entirely according to their ideology) are beholden to a massive elderly voting base. The party that wants to reform/cut it most is too chicken gak and political and the party that supports soc sec is busy trying to amend it via healthcare.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So, the fight about this 1.5% of the budget is pretty heated. Imagine the fight over the 6.2 trillion dollar cuts proposed over ten years by Ryan for the 2012 budget?

There wont be one. Thats both unrealistic and politically dangerous. They're talking it up to appease the tea party who want them to perform actual, meaningful cuts now then they'll forget about it once a yearly budget is passed. They may even try to blame it on the dems, despite there being no realistic political will in the reds for cuts that are that deep.

Well, perhaps there needs to be political will. That's the point.

Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed

You shouldn't applaud people with unrealistic and politically charged budget proposals as they serve to do little more then damage the conversation..

As opposed to ineffectual cuts of between 35 and 61 billion dollars? Should I be applauding them? Why is it unrealistic? Because in the current climate it isn't politically feasible?

Now, as a Generation-Y baby (what's up with the generation catch-phrases? I don't understand them), I pretty much blame my parent's generation for most of the financial troubles we're facing. These are the baby-boomers who basically lived lives of prosperity off the back of their parents who lived through the depression and then went on to squander it when it was their turn to take the reins of power.

You should blame raeganomics and every president since that espoused trickle down economics or deregulatory superiority. Blaming a generation of people is lazy.

Nice selective quoting. The very next line said I don't blame the entire generation. Also, Obama has not espoused reaganomics, and has increased the debt far more than Reagan ever did. Bush was an idiot in a lot of ways - including financially.

I think it's time for the 40's and under to actually educate themselves and get involved in their country. I feel like there's almost an under-current of "I got mine, screw you" that's going on in politics now-a-days.

Yes, that's the under 40's you're getting that from.

So? Maybe they're right. I find it disheartening how little the younger folks care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

As much as it pains me to do so, maybe we need to just establish that anyone who will reach the age of 65 after the year 2030 needs to provide for their own retirement while still paying taxes until those on SS die off.

Because the democrats want Soc Sec reformation only and the republicans (who want to cut it entirely according to their ideology) are beholden to a massive elderly voting base. The party that wants to reform/cut it most is too chicken gak and political and the party that supports soc sec is busy trying to amend it via healthcare.

How does healthcare reform social security? I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard the specifics?

How does healthcare reform social security? I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard the specifics?

Healthcare is the largest exceptional cost to social security recipients. It's roundabout and ineffectual (also only incidentally related). They'd probably attempt to reform the main body of social security, but healthcare reform was their big political stunt for this half term. It's unlikely they'll try something more substantial until Obizzles second term is in some way secure. It's just unfortunate the alternative party wouldn't attempt to seriously reform either one due to inbuilt monetary or voter interests in their party and is seriously benefitted by being obstructive and detrimental to the process of reform (it looks bad for them if the dems succeed in any sort of well implemented reform policy).

ShumaGorath wrote:

How does healthcare reform social security? I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard the specifics?

Healthcare is the largest exceptional cost to social security recipients. It's roundabout and ineffectual (also only incidentally related). They'd probably attempt to reform the main body of social security, but healthcare reform was their big political stunt for this half term. It's unlikely they'll try something more substantial until Obizzles second term is in some way secure. It's just unfortunate the alternative party wouldn't attempt to seriously reform either one due to inbuilt monetary or voter interests in their party and is seriously benefitted by being obstructive and detrimental to the process of reform (it looks bad for them if the dems succeed in any sort of well implemented reform policy).

God, I wish there was a third (or even fourth) party. Ever played a three-way game of warhammer 40k? There's a lot more.... compromise.

You know, I just had a scary (personal) thought;

Government shutdown = angry people. Angry People = Bad Things Happening.......

And if my (now locked) thread has any basis in reality.....

Slarg232 wrote:You know, I just had a scary (personal) thought;

Government shutdown = angry people. Angry People = Bad Things Happening.......

And if my (now locked) thread has any basis in reality.....

It doesn't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:You know, I just had a scary (personal) thought;

Government shutdown = angry people. Angry People = Bad Things Happening.......

And if my (now locked) thread has any basis in reality.....

It doesn't.

I suppose to one of little faith, yes.

Ahtman wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich.

Other than the opportunity to gain and control vast personal, political, and economic power of course.

Can I draw your attention to the word "mainly"?

Also, you can't really compare the number of privileged members of political dynasties to the number of poor people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

No, they aren't. All the members of my family pay taxes, but we are by no means "the rich".

Same with a lot of middle class families.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

And the backs of the hard-working people whom they stepped on to get rich at their expense.

I know some very rich people. Can't point to a darn one that did it by "stepping on" someone else. I see them killing themselves at high-stress jobs I wouldn't want to do; and most of them provide scores, hundreds, or even thousands of other people with jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
While I don't actually believe you, even if every word you're saying is true: you're not at the top of the food chain, instead falling somewhere in the middle. Money exits the top, flowing into swiss bank accounts and third world sweatshops/bribe money, while the wealthy employ armies of accountants to better help them evade taxes, and in some cases actively steal from tax payers (*cough*GE*cough*). You're at best on the lower edge of upper class, and more likely solidly in upper-middle class (if even that), as are your boss and coworkers, which, while enough to have an accountant help you evade your taxes with loopholes and arbitrary deductions, doesn't quite reach the level in question.

I'm going to choose not to be as insulted by this as I should be. You don't know me, and I *could* claim any darn thing I could dream up. However, everything I said is true. I also never claimed to be among their number (not sure how you came to that conclusion) I merely know them well enough to judge their characters and ethics. The corrupt few don't represent the honest many.

Do you live or work in an impoverished area? Have you ever driven through one (with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, of course)? There are whole cities, effectively, that I assure you are a huge drain on the local economy.
>>That's not physically possible, aside from high crime rates causing businesses to move elsewhere, which doesn't result in a net change overall, merely a local depression. None of the related problems come from social programs being too generous, rather the exact opposite. The only way to fix such areas is to improve the quality of education, help people who can't pick themselves back up, and encourage jobs to move to the area. Cutting spending just makes it worse.

Camden.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

If that were true the tea party wouldn't be fighting the taxation of the rich. Poor americans love rich ones to their own detriment. Americans are idiots when it comes to economic ideology.

Many Americans are scared and follow party lines. They are more scared about the black guy moving in nextdoor than they are interested in him getting a job. Both Repubs and Dems, hell all politicians should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm really disappointing in Obama's leadership here. I'm not blaming him, but i just thought he would be able to step up, really I haven't seen him accomplish much.

I know some very rich people. Can't point to a darn one that did it by "stepping on" someone else. I see them killing themselves at high-stress jobs I wouldn't want to do; and most of them provide scores, hundreds, or even thousands of other people with jobs.

So the fact that the rich came to the poor for bailouts means nothing to you, these same banks have the audacity to charge 30% on credit cards. GE pays no taxes. They buy up small businesses or drive them out of business and create massive unemployment by shipping jobs across the borders.

I understand the anything for a buck approach, I don't hate the rich. I just think they have gotten too powerful, too out of control, and too greedy. I don't hate the lion because it eats the lamb, that is it's nature. They do need to be careful though as predators can't eat all the pray, and the natives are getting restless.

LordofHats wrote:There's a lot of debate and a lot of evidence that says Roosevelt made the Depression worse not better. Others say he didn't change it at all. Economic historians are still slapping each other over it.

No, there isn't debate. There's the broad consensus of the economic world, and there are the loons at the Cato institute pretending otherwise.

It's nice to think that the economy lives in a bubble but it doesn't work that simply. I don't know much about the Meiji Era of Japan, but post WW2 and the Reconstruction South had their economies effected more by outside sources than by their domestic governments.

A flow of money into the economy stimulates aggregate demand. This is plain and simple truth. It doesn't matter whether that dollar comes from domestic government, foreign government, exports or anything else.

As such, the plain and simple fact is that a government running a short term stimulus will increase aggregate demand. You just have to accept this and move on to debate sensible things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:You should also note that the GOP is open to serious efforts to reduce the cost of government sponsored healthcare by attempting to repeal Obamacare (HRRA? HIRA? Whatever the heck it's called.)

Which is, of course, political bs, given how much of HCR is actually aimed at reducing the cost of healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

They are the engine of the economy. Your argument that that engine will stop functioning if they face a 2 or 3% tax increase is crazy.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

Studies have shown that illegal immigration is a net boon to the economy, actually enough. Because they are still hit for many taxes, like sales sax and payroll tax, but can't claim many services.

And they also allow building and infrastructure construction at much lower overall costs.

The current chaos could have lead to the domino effect the free world was looking to set up ("Hey, look at them! They're free, and prosperous, and still MUSLIMS! The Americans didn't try to convert them! Hey...waitaminute...maybe we could have that too...?")

Umm, we knew this was the actual goal of the operation. We also knew it was stupid and doomed to fail. Which it did. As Tunisia showed, you can get a flow of revolution from one coutnry to another. It was just very stupid to think you could start with a military invasion from a foreign power.

- but we are currently mucking it up in Libya by *participating*. For this to work, it has to be a Muslim idea, executed for and by Muslims. We need to get the hell out of there.

Which is, of course, why invading Iraq and thinking it would lead to a democratic domino was ridiculous. And that you recognise this with the small involvement of NATO in their support of the local rebellion, but can't see it with the full blown invasion of Iraq just shows how ridiculous your thinking is.

Lastly, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

And Churchill was, being entirely disingenuous, and was proven to be entirely wrong. A clever turn of phrase doesn't make a thing true. Actually watching it work does. And, gosh and golly, we've seen keynesian spending programs work, and work constantly to reduce the impact of economic downturns. This was observed and the debate ended 50 years ago. All we see now are disingenuous loons on the fringes of economics relying on the generally poor economic understanding of the general population to make bs arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:Prosperous companies can afford to hire more people. Prosperous companies spend more on their communities. It's very simple. Without the prospect of prosperity, where is the drive to earn, innovate, or build? These things are not theories, they are truths.

You're pretending that an increase in taxes on the wealthy is the same thing as denying them a chance at prosperity. Which is a ridiculous thing to assume.

Seriously, people don't see a tax increase of 3% and say 'oh feth it all, I'm not going to bother starting up that factory now, $380k in after tax earnings just isn't worth bothering with, but I totally would have if the old tax rate was in place and I could have earned $400k after tax!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Connor McKane wrote:Less than 50% of Americans pay taxes. This is the 1/2 that is considered "Rich."

So yeah, lets tax the "rich" so 50%+ of those who don't pay ANY federal taxes at all continue to have a free ride...

This is why the govt doesn't have enough money to continue. If everyone paid thier fair share via a "Flat" or "Fair" tax then there wouldn't be such a short fall.

Actually, this is more an indication of the chronic wealth disparity in the US. You pretty much can't tax that 50% because they barely make enough as it is, and doing so would be pointless as they earn so little it would add little to total government coffers.

If you had a decent minimum wage and an education system that bottom 50% might be earning enough to make taking taxes off them worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

They have had those opportunities because of the economic and legal structures built and maintained by government.

Now it's good that they've been able to generate that wealth, in doing so they've created jobs and wealth for others as well. Capitalism is the engine of the economy and all that.
But to argue that they couldn't possibly pay a greater portion of the tax burden is just plain wrong.

There is certainly a point where having them pay more is unjust and impractical (as they will leave for other countries) but the US is nowhere near that rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed.

Yeah, he's the only one talking about cuts on the scale that is actually needed.

His plan is absurdly stupid, unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

Alternatively you can just fund it properly by generating sufficient tax revenues.

But yes, either way something needs to be done. In Australia your employer is required by law to put 9% of your salary into a superannuation fund, which you can invest how please but can't spend until you're 65. There are also significant tax incentives to invest some of your own money in your superannuation fund.

sebster wrote:No, there isn't debate. There's the broad consensus of the economic world, and there are the loons at the Cato institute pretending otherwise.

I'm not talking about economics I'm talking about economic history studied by historians (as opposed to economists, though I assume an economic historian knows something about economics). I have a text book behind me with a least five articles by five people debating it from different places and even different countries. If there were a broad consensus on the issue then it would have no value in a classroom and wouldn't be the topic of discussion and debate for an entire fifty minute period.

A flow of money into the economy stimulates aggregate demand. This is plain and simple truth. It doesn't matter whether that dollar comes from domestic government, foreign government, exports or anything else.

As such, the plain and simple fact is that a government running a short term stimulus will increase aggregate demand. You just have to accept this and move on to debate sensible things.

Except that the two example given that I commented on didn't involve just government stimulus. Both the post Civil War depression and post WWII depression/recession (whatever, we're talking about something that varied quite a bit one nation to another) relied on other economic factors to be in play for their recovery. EDIT: Notice I offered an example that did show what was suggested.

I am not an economist and offer no comment on the value of government stimulus. Just that the precedents I commented on were not in support of the point made because the stimulus came along with other non-government related factors to provide economic recovery.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Huh. I always assumed it was more than that. That's about a one in one hundred ratio of serving to non-serving citizens then?

Well, when compared to the developed world, the US actually has a really high rate of military participation. The only nations with higher rates are those with mandatory service (Scandanavia, Israel, Turkey), or those in which the military serves a police function (Montenegro). In the undeveloped world high rates of participation are generally a combination of profit motive (the military offers power and money), and the willingness of poor states to pay for security forces due to instability.

Anyway, while personnel incur a large military cost, the main budget component is maintenance: ~290 billion v. ~150 billion. Procurement is also very important at ~140 billion.

LordofHats wrote:I'm not talking about economics I'm talking about economic history studied by historians (as opposed to economists, though I assume an economic historian knows something about economics). I have a text book behind me with a least five articles by five people debating it from different places and even different countries. If there were a broad consensus on the issue then it would have no value in a classroom and wouldn't be the topic of discussion and debate for an entire fifty minute period.

I'd be fascinated to see the names of any economic historians that honestly argued that there was no stimulus effect to the spending programs. I've seen a lot of commentary that specific elements were much less effective than others, and that specific elements such as wage controls were contractionary in their effect, but I've never seen an honest claim that government spending wasn't stimulating.

Except that the two example given that I commented on didn't involve just government stimulus. Both the post Civil War depression and post WWII depression/recession (whatever, we're talking about something that varied quite a bit one nation to another) relied on other economic factors to be in play for their recovery.

I am not an economist and offer no comment on the value of government stimulus. Just that the precedents I commented on were not in support of the point made because the stimulus came along with other non-government related factors to provide economic recovery.

But they're all stimulating effects. A dollar coming in to the economy provides stimulus. You can point out that other things are also providing stimulus and you'd be right (economic studies are looking at complex systems operating in the real world and so they're never particularly neat), but it makes no sense to speculate that therefore government provided stimulus doesn't do anything.

I mean, if you look at foreign dollars coming in to the economy you see the same mechanics in play, a person is employed to perform a service, he then spends his salary, which employs other people, who in turn spend their salaries. The impact is the same regardless.

There's a lot of scope for arguing which kinds of stimulus dollars are the most effective (econometric studies printed in The Economist show infrastructure as the best, and tax cuts as the worst, albeit that's limited by time pressure, as infrastructure projects can take a long time to come on line). There's even scope for arguing whether the methods should be limited to only the most immediate, catastrophic of economic problems (as smaller problems are often gone by the time you've recognised them and put in place a response) but there just isn't an argument that stimulus spending boosts aggregate demand.

Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

That almost never happens. The poor rarely have any significant political voice. Generally political conflict is between the rich, and the slightly less rich, or the rich and the middle class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Ah, the common misconception of revolution. The less rich use the poor to turn on the more rich to become richer. Ala French revolution BTW.

Yep. At least when the poor are relevant at all. Its actually really, really hard to convince truly poor people (read: no significant portion of the population of any 1st world nation) to cause a ruckus because, in general, if said ruckus is not productive said poor people will probably be dead very shortly.

Maybe it is a ploy by the more rich to p-off the less rich to incite the poor to have a go at the more rich so the more rich can impose martial law and retain their status as more rich.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If that were true the tea party wouldn't be fighting the taxation of the rich. Poor americans love rich ones to their own detriment. Americans are idiots when it comes to economic ideology.

There's good evidence to suggest that the Tea Party is predominantly composed of the middle class and the wealthy. The real anomaly evidenced is that the middle class and slightly less rich favor the increased income of the massively rich, which breaks basically every rule of economic politics except those that exist in Latin America; which is interesting in the sense that there may be a "New World" paradigm of economic ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Maybe it is a ploy by the more rich to p-off the less rich to incite the poor to have a go at the more rich so the more rich can impose martial law and retain their status as more rich.

That's happened before, as ridiculous as it might seem. In Brazil the industrialist class used concessions to the peasant class in order to create a new type of landholder so as to alienate the old agrarian elites, and divide the, rather large, class of unlanded, rural workers.

dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Maybe it is a ploy by the more rich to p-off the less rich to incite the poor to have a go at the more rich so the more rich can impose martial law and retain their status as more rich.

That's happened before, as ridiculous as it might seem. In Brazil the industrialist class used concessions to the peasant class in order to create a new type of landholder so as to alienate the old agrarian elites, and divide the, rather large, class of unlanded, rural workers.

With the way things have been going for the last decade or so, I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs did this in the US. I figured there was no intervention in Libya so as not set a precedent if gak kicked off in the states. Not that I see the North Koreans dropping supplies to any kind of rebels or anything.

Khornholio wrote:
With the way things have been going for the last decade or so, I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs did this in the US.

Its been postulated that, eventually, the GOP will turn towards a pro-immigration position in order to capitalize on the socially conservative nature of many 1st generation Hispanics while simultaneously satisfying their wealthy backers given the tendency of the former group to be indifferent to social programs; all to alienate what is, really, a problematic base of traditionalist/nationalist Christians who will either form an irrelevant third party, or strain the Democrat base.

Khornholio wrote:
I figured there was no intervention in Libya so as not set a precedent if gak kicked off in the states.

The US is, like China and India, the beneficiary of regional hegemony. Too powerful to suffer intervention by foreign powers that is not requested. Of course, the US is also a prime case for unopposed revolt as its primary means of forceful control (the military) tends to draw from the same group of people that is likely to revolt; meaning they aren't very likely to shoot, even if ordered.

Khornholio wrote:
Not that I see the North Koreans dropping supplies to any kind of rebels or anything.

Nah, as you allude, they know their role and stick to it: selling technical information to states on the outs.

Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

That almost never happens. The poor rarely have any significant political voice. Generally political conflict is between the rich, and the slightly less rich, or the rich and the middle class.

Most revolutions succeed when the common (read poor) people take to the streets and refuse to be part of the social contract. Of course usually they are usually led by some rich person, but not always. The poor are not really the hardest to keep in line until someone mobilizes them somehow, this is why bread and vodka were and will always be cheap in Russia. As long as they have a drunk, full belly, usually they are to apathetic to do anything.

Usually those poor are lead by a cadre of the rich (or elite at at least) though. The American, Russian, and French Revolutions were spearheaded by upper class thinkers that elucidate the cause.