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.

Polonius wrote:They're simply wherever all the deficit hawk rightwingers were for 8 years. Partisans are, well, partisan!

A lesser man would respond: "In the White House?"

However, I'm above that.


()

halonachos wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Though you can make the argument that the Iraq War was the bigger problem for more of the protestors, and the situation in Iraq has gotten better by nearly any measure.

Quick question for clarification, are you saying that the situation in Iraq has gotten better so that's why there is less protest about it? I'm not arguing, just trying to figure out what you mean.

Yeah, at least from a money spent/troops deployed/deaths standpoint.

I think you're correct in that the main reason the protests ended was because they were more against Bush than the war, but there is at least some progress in Iraq.

There's also still quite a large number of protests. There was a 15,000 man one in New York a few months ago, one outside the White House in early July, and one in California in March, I believe.

The protests still exist, they just aren't being covered.

But yes, many of the anti-war protests were anti-Bush protests with anti-war signs in the mix.

Polonius wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Though you can make the argument that the Iraq War was the bigger problem for more of the protestors, and the situation in Iraq has gotten better by nearly any measure.

Quick question for clarification, are you saying that the situation in Iraq has gotten better so that's why there is less protest about it? I'm not arguing, just trying to figure out what you mean.

Yeah, at least from a money spent/troops deployed/deaths standpoint.

I think you're correct in that the main reason the protests ended was because they were more against Bush than the war, but there is at least some progress in Iraq.

Just making sure you didn't have a typo or anything.

mattyrm wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:And that's your tax money at work, folks.

Because everything was just fine till President Obama was sworn in.

This what makes me laugh as well, its the same in the UK. The Labour party were in charge for 13 YEARS, the market crashed in 2007, the outgoing chancellor left a note on the incoming guys desk saying "THERES NO MONEY LEFT, LOLZ!" and now its the current guys fault were skint?

Im stunned by this logic fail.

Obama has been in charge for what, 2 years? How the feth can people blame all this gak on him?!

I mean, I don't even like Obama, but its obvious when people are just being sickeningly partisan.

Can people not bring themselves to possibly accept any blame? Im not particularly well versed in US politics being an Englishman, but BC had a surplus right? And Bush was running up epic debts pretty much the entire time he was in office! How then, can something like this be Obama's fault when he is a relative newcomer? You cant feth an economy up over night!

Clinton and the Republican Congress had a decent budget surplus (around $200 billion) that was eaten up in spending after 9/11. His projected surpluses over 10 years from the OMB and CBO were going into the downright silly towards the end. ($5.6 Trillion in surpluses over 10 years? Only in everyone's dreams)

It's not just Obama's policies that have made the markets shaky, it's his words. He has yet to say he'll take tax increases of the table, he hasn't said that he'll lower or leave alone the corporate income and the capital gains tax, he hasn't said that he will stop spending at a level unseen in human history. All of this is uncertainty and it makes investors extremely nervous. Obamacare is going to be a compliance nightmare for larger corporations and will lead to much higher costs of doing business.

The only reason that the bottom hasn't fallen through is that there's no where else to take the money. Japan is an economic mess, China is having inflationary issues and their commodities futures have been poor and the Eurozone will be on the hook for the PIGS' ludicrous debt bombs. We're damn lucky that we haven't collapsed.

Stormrider wrote:He has yet to say he'll take tax increases of the table, he hasn't said that he'll lower or leave alone the corporate income and the capital gains tax, he hasn't said that he will stop spending at a level unseen in human history. All of this is uncertainty and it makes investors extremely nervous.

And he won't do any of those things, nor should he given that the political situation will likely require him to renege on such a promise. The elder Bush ably demonstrated what making such pronouncements is apt to cause.

Stormrider wrote:
Obamacare is going to be a compliance nightmare for larger corporations and will lead to much higher costs of doing business.

That depends on how many corporations keep their health plans.

Stormrider wrote:
The only reason that the bottom hasn't fallen through is that there's no where else to take the money. Japan is an economic mess, China is having inflationary issues and their commodities futures have been poor and the Eurozone will be on the hook for the PIGS' ludicrous debt bombs. We're damn lucky that we haven't collapsed.

Not really. Anything regarding global economics that you realize is likely something that politicians also realize, and took into account in their decision-making. Contrary to popular belief, there are very few incompetent politicians at the national level because those offices are not easy to secure, and they generally have a large array of support staff keeping them informed.

The last thing I want is for Obama to say tax increases are off the table. Having a worthwhile society to live in costs money, and living on debt is just not smart.

Those who have benefited the most from the rules that our society has are those who should pay the most towards sustaining it. I don't mind paying my share, but I resent seeing those who have clearly gained more from the system paying less than me. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Redbeard wrote:The last thing I want is for Obama to say tax increases are off the table. Having a worthwhile society to live in costs money, and living on debt is just not smart.

Those who have benefited the most from the rules that our society has are those who should pay the most towards sustaining it. I don't mind paying my share, but I resent seeing those who have clearly gained more from the system paying less than me. I suspect I am not alone in this.

How far does that go? If the government spends money wastefully, should we just shrug, dig a little deeper, and pay up? Or do the taxpayers (those who pay taxes) have some say in how much is taken from them and for what purpose?

I also resent seeing those who have clearly gained more from the system paying less. Like social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, farm subsidies, green energy subsidies, and pretty much every other type of direct fund transfer from the government to individuals. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Stormrider wrote:It's not just Obama's policies that have made the markets shaky, it's his words. He has yet to say he'll take tax increases of the table, he hasn't said that he'll lower or leave alone the corporate income and the capital gains tax,

That's because it'd be utterly irresponsible. And I doubt the ratings agencies would like it.

Personally, I think a lot could be accomplished with a simpler tax code. Which would technically represent a tax hike in some areas, but would raise revenue and have other benefits. I think it'd even have some bilateral support if Congress could stop acting like children...which they can't.

Why do people believe that the govt spends money wastefully? For as little as the American people are Taxed, our government sure does a lot. Most people are confused I think in relating money given to the government as lost wages. Americans want to improve their take home pay by decreasing their tax burden. Instead, doesn't it make sense to just aim to improve your gross pay? This is what befuddles me, too many people feel out of control of their source of income. Get a better job, suffer to improve your skill set, or be happy w/ the lot you have. The gov't helps most people in this country, and saves them from pure corporate Capitalists. Capitalism has become corrupted in a race to the bottom line and is gonna shoot itself in the foot. It's a shame.

biccat wrote:I'm not entirely convinced that starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessarily bad policy. I think that the continuation of the wars is inappropriate, and that it was poorly conducted, but that wasn't my call.

I give you a 9.6 as the mental gymnastics judge. Placing the blame on Obama for not ending the wars quickly because they've been going on under him for half as long as they did under Bush, and not on Bush for, you know, starting them in the first place with no plan to actually finish them is just amazing.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Placing the blame on Obama for not ending the wars quickly

I hope you don't mind, but I cut out the personal insults, trolling, and offensive statements from your comment.

I don't excuse Bush for some of the blame, but I also don't completely absolve Obama of any of it.

However, wars aside (and they're a minor part of the budget problem), Obama has been disastrous for the economy.

SPARKEYG wrote:Why do people believe that the govt spends money wastefully?

Because it does. In 2010 we recovered $4b of $90b in Medicare fraud.

SPARKEYG wrote: Most people are confused I think in relating money given to the government as lost wages.

That's because it is. When the government takes money from me by threat of force, I have less money to spend on things that I want or need.

As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure you understand capitalism.

biccat wrote:

SPARKEYG wrote:Why do people believe that the govt spends money wastefully?

Because it does. In 2010 we recovered $4b of $90b in Medicare fraud.

That's a really poor argument to make. Fraud is crime. You can no more say that the government is spending money wastefully when they (or, perhaps we) are the victims of fraud, than you can say that a bank spends money poorly when it is robbed, or that a rape victim is bad at family planning.

Rather than saying that the government's policy of helping those members of society who most need help is wrong, you should be arguing that better systems should be in place to prevent fraud in the execution of the policy. Which I'd agree with.

That's because it is. When the government takes money from me by threat of force, I have less money to spend on things that I want or need.

Now you're arguing for the abolishment of all taxes? When you have to build all the roads that you use, you'll have a lot less money to spend on other things.

biccat wrote:
How far does that go? If the government spends money wastefully, should we just shrug, dig a little deeper, and pay up? Or do the taxpayers (those who pay taxes) have some say in how much is taken from them and for what purpose?

Last time I checked, you did have some say in that. Isn't that why you elect representatives? I don't disagree that we're living beyond our means at the moment, and that we need to cut our spending as part of a smarter fiscal policy. However, additional taxes are also part of the solution. And they should be focused on those who have benefited the most from the society we all share. If you're making over a million a year, yes, you should be paying more than you are now. And if that doesn't give you enough to spend on all the things you want, well, you'll have to save a little. If you're not in that category, you have zero reason why you should be opposed to increased taxes on the wealthy.

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:

SPARKEYG wrote:Why do people believe that the govt spends money wastefully?

Because it does. In 2010 we recovered $4b of $90b in Medicare fraud.

That's a really poor argument to make. Fraud is crime. You can no more say that the government is spending money wastefully when they (or, perhaps we) are the victims of fraud, than you can say that a bank spends money poorly when it is robbed, or that a rape victim is bad at family planning.

Wow, way to completely distort the issue.

Fraud against a government agency is different than fraud against any private actor because the government has very little interest in preventing it. I have an incentive to avoid fraud because fraud reduces my buying power. The government doesn't have that incentive, because they can just tax, borrow, or print more money to make up the difference.

That aside, how about the Bridge to Nowhere or government subsity of flights that (almost) no one flies. Or a host of other programs that are inefficient or simply useless expenditures of money.

Redbeard wrote:Rather than saying that the government's policy of helping those members of society who most need help is wrong, you should be arguing that better systems should be in place to prevent fraud in the execution of the policy. Which I'd agree with.

Why should I argue that? It's your point. I don't think that I bear any personal obligation to "help[] those members of society who most need help." (I do give to charitable causes but none of them threaten to send me to prison if I choose not to give)

Redbeard wrote:Now you're arguing for the abolishment of all taxes? When you have to build all the roads that you use, you'll have a lot less money to spend on other things.

First, I'm not arguing for the abolishment of all taxes. But taxes are a necessary evil, not a universal good.

Second, I do think that the "government" can provide roads. But (a) it should be a function of state/local governments; (b) it's a very minor portion of the federal budget; and (c) this is the best place to address wasteful spending.

Redbeard wrote:However, additional taxes are also part of the solution.

Why? In 1999 the Federal Budget was $1.7 trilliion (assuming that this accounted for all of the spending that year, which it didn't, but since it's used as an example of responsible government, lets go with it). Revenue was at 19% of GDP.

In 2011 dollars, that $1.7 trillion is $2.3 trillion. Our GDP is $14.7 trillion (2010). At 18% taxation (1% less than in 1999), that would be $2.6 trillion in revenue. That leaves $300 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

So, what essential services do we have now that absolutely cannot be cut that were not present in 1999? (edit: note that Medicare Part D was only $68 billion in '10)

Redbeard wrote:And they should be focused on those who have benefited the most from the society we all share. If you're making over a million a year, yes, you should be paying more than you are now. And if that doesn't give you enough to spend on all the things you want, well, you'll have to save a little. If you're not in that category, you have zero reason why you should be opposed to increased taxes on the wealthy.

Your moral grandstanding is impressive, if not necessarily admirable. Suffice to say that there are plenty of reasons to oppose increased taxes on the wealthy. Here's one: legal equality.

Redbeard wrote:The last thing I want is for Obama to say tax increases are off the table. Having a worthwhile society to live in costs money, and living on debt is just not smart.

Those who have benefited the most from the rules that our society has are those who should pay the most towards sustaining it. I don't mind paying my share, but I resent seeing those who have clearly gained more from the system paying less than me. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are simply ludicrous.

biccat wrote:
Fraud against a government agency is different than fraud against any private actor because the government has very little interest in preventing it. I have an incentive to avoid fraud because fraud reduces my buying power. The government doesn't have that incentive, because they can just tax, borrow, or print more money to make up the difference.

I disagree that the government has little interest in preventing it. I do think that preventing it can be a monumental task at times, but that's not the same as not having an incentive.

That aside, how about the Bridge to Nowhere or government subsity of flights that (almost) no one flies. Or a host of other programs that are inefficient or simply useless expenditures of money.

I agree with you, those are some good examples of bad government spending. But earmark spending is not the same issue as entitlements. Don't confuse the two. What's more, if you look at why there are earmarks, you'll find that they do serve some purpose. I don't like the way that they're used, but they are, in essence, a form of governmental compromise. If you want to pass a bill that hurts one group of people, but helps a lot of others, those who get hurt can be given a replacement for what they are losing. That's what's going on with programs like the above. Some bill is going to impact those in Alaska. Rather than just hurt them, they create jobs - building a bridge to no where. I think it's a bad way to create those jobs, but that's why that happens.

Why should I argue that? It's your point. I don't think that I bear any personal obligation to "help[] those members of society who most need help."

That's been an accepted point of economic theory since Adam Smith addressed it in Wealth of Nations. If you can't see it, then there is no further point discussing this with you.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

What's more, no society can be more secure than its least fortunate members. The riots in London are a good example of this sort of thing starting to happen. Highly stratified societies aren't good. Those at the bottom have little incentive to play by the rules, as jail is often a preferable alternative to hunger. Whether you acknowledge your role in society or not, you do personally benefit from entitlement programs, in that when those at the bottom are fed, they're less likely to steal your stuff. I don't care one way or the other about the morals of letting people starve, I care about the pragmatic effect that starving people have on the rest of us.


And as for your 'legal equality' thing - whatever. I pay a higher percentage of my income than people who make far more than I do, because I don't have the loopholes that they do. You complain about how fraudulent claims cost the government. Well, the loopholes in the tax code cost us just as much, only they're legalized by special interest groups and lobbyists.

Redbeard wrote:I agree with you, those are some good examples of bad government spending. But earmark spending is not the same issue as entitlements. Don't confuse the two.

I'm not confusing the two, I was responding to the poster who asked why people think the government is inefficient.

The short answer is: because government doesn't have to compete for scarce resources. But examples tend to be easier to grasp.

Redbeard wrote:What's more, if you look at why there are earmarks, you'll find that they do serve some purpose. I don't like the way that they're used, but they are, in essence, a form of governmental compromise. If you want to pass a bill that hurts one group of people, but helps a lot of others, those who get hurt can be given a replacement for what they are losing. That's what's going on with programs like the above. Some bill is going to impact those in Alaska. Rather than just hurt them, they create jobs - building a bridge to no where. I think it's a bad way to create those jobs, but that's why that happens.

That's uh...wow.

So it's good to build a bridge to nowhere because it creates jobs. Why not give the money to Alaska and let them build a bridge wherever they want? Or, how about not spending the money and letting it be put to a more efficient use.

Redbeard wrote:That's been an accepted point of economic theory since Adam Smith addressed it in Wealth of Nations. If you can't see it, then there is no further point discussing this with you.

I honestly can't see how I owe any obligation to someone who consumers the resources that I produce. What have I done that requires me to give them money? What have they done that entitles them to my money?

Am I simply supposed to pay them off so they don't riot? Is government welfare simply an elaborate extortion scheme to keep the impovershed from threatening the livelihood of the wealthy? If that's the case, then I would redouble my calls to abolish the welfare state, because that description of welfare is tantamount to slavery or an oligarchy where the 'upper class' keep the poorer class suppressed so that they can maintain their standards of living. I'm not interested in living in such a society.

I'd rather prefer the society where people are free to earn whatever livelihood that they want by expending their labor in exchange for wages. And if some people choose to give to charitable organisations to help those who need it, good for them.

I'm still curious as to why we need to raise taxes. What programs do we have now that didn't exist in 1999 and we absolutely, positively cannot possibly cut from the budget?

biccat wrote:
Fraud against a government agency is different than fraud against any private actor because the government has very little interest in preventing it. I have an incentive to avoid fraud because fraud reduces my buying power. The government doesn't have that incentive, because they can just tax, borrow, or print more money to make up the difference.

There are strong political reasons to prevent it, just as there are strong political reasons to avoid preventing it. In fact, you're demonstrating the former right now.

The trouble is that, in terms of medicare at least, much of the fraud comes as a result of the exclusions for critical diseases which circumvent many of the bureaucratic checks in order to prevent people from dying before they receive Medicare coverage. Keep in mind this latter condition is both a political and fiscal problem. A person that dies before receiving Medicare becomes a political liability for many people, mostly House members. A person that is suffering from a critical disease, but is forced to pay for expenses out of pocket is actually an even bigger problem, because they are a political liability, and are likely to be an additional burden on Medicare due to the financial impact that comes with taking on medical debt, and possibly entering bankruptcy.

biccat wrote:
First, I'm not arguing for the abolishment of all taxes. But taxes are a necessary evil, not a universal good.

I don't think anyone called them universal goods, though if you already see them as "evil" I can see how it might be difficult to discuss them in relatively neutral terms.

biccat wrote:
Why? In 1999 the Federal Budget was $1.7 trilliion (assuming that this accounted for all of the spending that year, which it didn't, but since it's used as an example of responsible government, lets go with it). Revenue was at 19% of GDP.

In 2011 dollars, that $1.7 trillion is $2.3 trillion. Our GDP is $14.7 trillion (2010). At 18% taxation (1% less than in 1999), that would be $2.6 trillion in revenue. That leaves $300 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

So, what essential services do we have now that absolutely cannot be cut that were not present in 1999? (edit: note that Medicare Part D was only $68 billion in '10)

The issue isn't what is essential, it is what is politically feasible. Prior to the bailout and stimulus bills it would have been feasible to address the 2009 deficit with restrictions on discretionary spending. At this point the likely reality is that additional taxes will be necessary, even pending the Supreme Court ruling on healthcare.

biccat wrote:
Depending on how "wealthy" is defined increasing taxes on the wealthy can very well be consistent with legal equality, at least if we're considering "raising taxes" to be in line with "raising the effective tax rate" which seems sensible considering that any particular increase in any given tax is not necessarily material to what people actually pay.

dogma wrote:The issue isn't what is essential, it is what is politically feasible.

And I'm questioning the political reasoning as to why tax cuts are necessary.

dogma wrote:Depending on how "wealthy" is defined increasing taxes on the wealthy can very well be consistent with legal equality, at least if we're considering "raising taxes" to be in line with "raising the effective tax rate" which seems sensible considering that any particular increase in any given tax is not necessarily material to what people actually pay.

Legal equality means that people are treated equally before the law regardless of their relative standings. A progressive tax is simply the inverse of Anatole France's quote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

biccat wrote: What have I done that requires me to give them money? What have they done that entitles them to my money?

You live in a society predicated on the rule of law and order, which is enforced by a government that represents a nation that has historically decided that entitlements are useful means of maintains the "order" part of "law and order". That doesn't mean you have to like this particular means of maintaining order, but it does mean you are doing something (living in the United States) which requires you to give them money. Of course, the United State has democratic participation and freedom of speech, so you are free to voice your discontent and vote in a way which is consistent with a desire to change things.

biccat wrote:
Am I simply supposed to pay them off so they don't riot? Is government welfare simply an elaborate extortion scheme to keep the impovershed from threatening the livelihood of the wealthy? If that's the case, then I would redouble my calls to abolish the welfare state, because that description of welfare is tantamount to slavery or an oligarchy where the 'upper class' keep the poorer class suppressed so that they can maintain their standards of living. I'm not interested in living in such a society.

In some sense, yes. People who have a vested interest in the existence of the state tend to be unlikely to oppose the state. This, generally, means the poor (which, in the US, basically means the lower-middle class, and in other countries is the "peasant class" or lower class) and the wealthy (generally, this means the capitalist class, which is relatively large in the US). The middle class (minus US exclusions) tends to have a mixed appraisal of the state according to their particular situation, but generally is the most likely to oppose the state (Marx was, at the very least, right about the whole petite bourgeoisie thing).

However, keep in mind this not so much a system of slavery as it is another tool to fuel social mobility, as displayed in numerous countries to an admittedly much greater extent than in the US. It would be tantamount to slavery if there were legal restrictions on leaving the welfare rolls, or somehow suppressive. The only sense in which it is akin to slavery is the same sense in which Marxists discuss "wage-slavery".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
And I'm questioning the political reasoning as to why tax cuts are necessary.

I assume you meant tax increases.

It seems more like you're questioning the fiscal reasoning. The political reasoning for a lot of these programs has very little to do with national politics, except in the sense they relate to discretionary spending as a whole, which is why they're difficult to really hack away at. Everyone wants the discretionary spending of other people's representative reigned in, but relatively few people want the discretionary spending of all representatives reigned in.

Its like when terrible journalists look at an approval poll of Nancy Pelosi taken in Texas, and subsequently conclude that Nancy Pelosi is wildly unpopular, and will lose her next bid for reelection. Only Nancy Pelosi doesn't care, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to worry about Texas voters, she has to worry about voters in the California 8th. These voters might support discretionary spending reform, but they probably support the continuation of otherwise wasteful programs that happen in their district even more.

biccat wrote:
Legal equality means that people are treated equally before the law regardless of their relative standings. A progressive tax is simply the inverse of Anatole France's quote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Yes, and if the effective tax rate of the wealthy is significantly lower than the effective tax rate of the middle class (and there are arguments to that effect) then raising taxes on the wealthy works towards legal equality, presuming we're determining legal equality via the effective tax rate; which is certainly not the only measure of equality in this case. This is particularly true of we're using France's quote, in which case all are equal before the law in being required to pay a tax on income, though in many cases this tax may later be refunded.

biccat wrote:I also resent seeing those who have clearly gained more from the system paying less. Like social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, farm subsidies, green energy subsidies, and pretty much every other type of direct fund transfer from the government to individuals. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Which only makes sense if one defines the system beginning and ending with tax and social security, and makes no damn sense if you understand that those are just part of a greater system that allows us all to earn money in the first place.

Here's the thing, all those innovative, incredibly brilliant businessmen who've made personal fortunes in the millions and billions and who pride themselves on being self made men... if there was no society that enforced their contracts and allowed their businesses, that supported their corporate structures, that under-wrote the research their businesses rely on, that provided education to give them a steady supply of skilled labour, they wouldn't be able to generate billions in wealth. They would, at best, have a sturdy log cabin and enough meat to last them through the winter.

When you talk about the people who've gotten the most from the system, you should be talking about the very richest people in society. You should be annoyed that the people who have gotten the most from society are complaining about how much they have to pay, you should be scoffing at the crazy schemes to have them pay as little as anyone else. But you aren't, because you don't understand what the system actually is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Fraud against a government agency is different than fraud against any private actor because the government has very little interest in preventing it. I have an incentive to avoid fraud because fraud reduces my buying power. The government doesn't have that incentive, because they can just tax, borrow, or print more money to make up the difference.

When a politician comes out and says 'we've identified wasteful expenditure and saved you all millions of dollars' this is responded to very well by voters, and that politician's chances of returning to office are excellent. On the other hand, announcing a tax hike or a big deficit budget is very unpopular, and will hurt with voters.

This is plain and obvious common sense, and should be obvious to anyone that governmental waste still happens because like waste in any large organisation, it is very hard to stop. We probably need to spend a half dozen or more posts examining how your far right dogma caused you to miss that very obvious point, and invent a very silly claim instead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Legal equality means that people are treated equally before the law regardless of their relative standings. A progressive tax is simply the inverse of Anatole France's quote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

You need to do more reading, because I think you've really misunderstood the irony France intended with that quote. The point you see, is that to assume both men are treated equally is to fail to understand how the law really operates as part of society. We might have the same punishment for anyone who sleeps under bridges, but society only requires it of the poor man, while the rich man sleeps in his mansion.

France eventually became a communist by the way, in large part because of the way the way the law protected the status of the bourgeouis. He was a tremendous fan of irony, so I suspect he'd probably be quite delighted at the way you've misused his quote there.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Legal equality means that people are treated equally before the law regardless of their relative standings. A progressive tax is simply the inverse of Anatole France's quote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

You need to do more reading, because I think you've really misunderstood the irony France intended with that quote. The point you see, is that to assume both men are treated equally is to fail to understand how the law really operates as part of society. We might have the same punishment for anyone who sleeps under bridges, but society only requires it of the poor man, while the rich man sleeps in his mansion.

France eventually became a communist by the way, in large part because of the way the way the law protected the status of the bourgeouis. He was a tremendous fan of irony, so I suspect he'd probably be quite delighted at the way you've misused his quote there.

I'm not sure why you think I've misused the quote. Especially since I said that progressive taxation is the inverse of his quote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, punishes the rich and poor alike for earning over $1 million per year"

You may think, as many on the illogical left do, that progressive taxation is fair, but it's not. Punishing the rich for earning money stems exactly from the same logic as punishing the poor for sleeping under bridges.

To use another poster's language, "I've thought a few times that we must finally have reached the bottom of intellectual incoherence in the US leftwing, that surely now they'd start to man up, get honest, and get back to being the party of Kennedy. I've been wrong everytime before, but maybe just maybe this is as bad as it's going to get, and from now on we might see some improvement."

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure why you think I've misused the quote. Especially since I said that progressive taxation is the inverse of his quote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, punishes the rich and poor alike for earning over $1 million per year"

You may think, as many on the illogical left do, that progressive taxation is fair, but it's not. Punishing the rich for earning money stems exactly from the same logic as punishing the poor for sleeping under bridges.

You're making invalid assumptions. The first is that being taxed is a punishment. Taxes are not a punishment, they're a cost. Society provides infrastructure. It is this infrastructure that allows certain people to make their million dollars a year, while others make less than $10k. There is not one person you can point to and say, "this person made his money all by himself". Not one. Without the resources that taxes provide, and the protections that government supplies, no one can be rich.

A rich man benefits from having a fire department, a homeless man does not. A rich man benefits from a society that has rules to protect the right of an individual to own property, and a police force that enforces these rules. A poor man has little property to own, and none worth stealing. A rich man benefits from an established transportation network that allows him to get his goods to market. A poor man can walk on grass as easy as he can walk on a road. If you cannot see how the wealthy benefit more from every aspect of the society we live in, you are truly blind and brainwashed by right-wing talk radio hosts.

To say that it is unfair that the rich are expected to shoulder a greater proportion of the structure of society is asinine. The only way that this can be considered unfair is if it is also recognized that it is unfair that the rich have benefited more from what society has provided them.

Redbeard wrote:You're making invalid assumptions. The first is that being taxed is a punishment. Taxes are not a punishment, they're a cost.

Taxes are a limitation on someone's purchasing power. While you may not want to call it a punishment, the fact is that you're creating a detriment to success by taking money from those who earn it by threat of force.

Progressive taxation decreases the value of additional labor expended by a person which leads them to work less. If I can make $100/hour for every hour I work and that's more than I value my time spent doing other things, I will work as much as I can to maximize my income. However, when you introduce a progressive tax, the amount I receive for each hour of work decreases, and I'm eventually going to prefer to spend more time doing something else (playing with my daughter perhaps).

So at $100/hour, I might work 80 hours a week. That would produce $8,000 worth of value to the economy. If you're going to tax everything over $6,000/week at 95%, then those extra 20 hours I worked are only worth $5/hour. I'm not willing to work another 20 hours for only $5 per hour, so the taxation system has actually destroyed $2,000 worth of economic output.

Redbeard wrote:Society provides infrastructure. It is this infrastructure that allows certain people to make their million dollars a year, while others make less than $10k. There is not one person you can point to and say, "this person made his money all by himself". Not one. Without the resources that taxes provide, and the protections that government supplies, no one can be rich.

Even if this is true, what is the benefit provided by welfare? What benefit is provided by social security? How does having a non-producing recipient improve the ability of the producer to make money?

You're taking the basic construct of society (providing infrastructure and legal processes) and using it to defend everything that the government does. As I said before, I'm not advocating against some taxation, I'm arguing against progressive taxation and, more importantly, increased taxation to provide for benefits that haven't been shown to actually provide any value.

biccat wrote:
Progressive taxation decreases the value of additional labor expended by a person which leads them to work less. If I can make $100/hour for every hour I work and that's more than I value my time spent doing other things, I will work as much as I can to maximize my income. However, when you introduce a progressive tax, the amount I receive for each hour of work decreases, and I'm eventually going to prefer to spend more time doing something else (playing with my daughter perhaps).

You say this as though it is a bad thing; your daughter might think differently. Plenty of successful (AAA-rated, even ) countries don't have the work over all else mentality that some in the US do.

So at $100/hour, I might work 80 hours a week. That would produce $8,000 worth of value to the economy. If you're going to tax everything over $6,000/week at 95%, then those extra 20 hours I worked are only worth $5/hour. I'm not willing to work another 20 hours for only $5 per hour, so the taxation system has actually destroyed $2,000 worth of economic output.

The numbers you're using to demonstrate this are incorrect. Taxes don't suddenly kick up to 95% at a given point. It's more like, the first 40 hours are taxed at 35%, the next five at 36%, the next five at 37%, and so on. No one is suggesting 95% at any point, nor a sudden escalator, because that does exactly what you say. What's more, the economic output has not been destroyed, it's been redistributed. We are facing roughly 10% unemployment. If you're suddenly not going to work those 20 hours, someone else will step in and work them, probably happily. In this way, you working less is actually beneficial to the economy, as it gives someone else a chance to work at all. You get to spend more time with your daughter, someone else gets a job, and the overall economy is improved as there's someone else now earning a wage, no longer dependent on welfare.

Even if this is true, what is the benefit provided by welfare? What benefit is provided by social security? How does having a non-producing recipient improve the ability of the producer to make money?

You're taking the basic construct of society (providing infrastructure and legal processes) and using it to defend everything that the government does. As I said before, I'm not advocating against some taxation, I'm arguing against progressive taxation and, more importantly, increased taxation to provide for benefits that haven't been shown to actually provide any value.

We've already covered this. The benefits that welfare and social security provide are security and order. No society can be considered secure if there is a large class of people in it with nothing. They have no incentive to obey the law. They have no incentive not to steal your stuff, or to riot and destroy your economic value. Have you not seen what has happened in just the last year, in countries that have a disaffected lower class? I'd rather see a system where the government demanded some level of community service in return for the welfare checks they hand out, but even without it, the fact that I don't have to worry about my house being ransacked by looters and rioters who didn't even have the money for food makes it worth it.

Redbeard wrote:The numbers you're using to demonstrate this are incorrect. Taxes don't suddenly kick up to 95% at a given point. It's more like, the first 40 hours are taxed at 35%, the next five at 36%, the next five at 37%, and so on.

They're meant to be exemplary.

I might think that 25% taxation is appropriate, but 28% is too high to justify a return on my labor.

Redbeard wrote:What's more, the economic output has not been destroyed, it's been redistributed. We are facing roughly 10% unemployment. If you're suddenly not going to work those 20 hours, someone else will step in and work them, probably happily.

No, that's not necessarily true. First, economic output isn't fixed. There isn't suddenly a hole of 20 man-hours that need to be filled, if I don't work more, more work doesn't get done.

Second, an employer will only hire someone when it makes financial sense - they get more than they pay out. If my overhead is $2,000/week (health insurance, workspace, etc.) and I produce $150 of value for my employer for each hour I work, it's not a bad idea to keep me on at 60 hours per week.

Employer cost: $2,000 overhead + $6,000 wages = $8,000 out of pocket.
Employer benefit: $150/hour * 60 hours = $9,000 income.

But when I'm working 80 hours a week, he pays me an extra $2,000 for 20 hours, but gets $3,000 from my labor.

If he wanted to make up that extra 20 hours by hiring someone else (assuming the same overhead, $2,000, and production, $150/hr), he would have to pay them less than $50 per hour (20hr * $50/hr + 2000 = $3,000).

At those numbers it doesn't sound so bad. But when you cut back the margin of income and base rate, many employers wouldn't be able to pay the minimum wage and make a profit from hiring someone to pick up the extra work.

Redbeard wrote:Have you not seen what has happened in just the last year, in countries that have a disaffected lower class?

Yes, I have, and a valuable lesson should be learned from this. The concept of social welfare create a dependent class who will never be satisfied with what they're given. They will always demand more, because there's no risk to them for doing so. They've also developed an entitlement mentality that not only are they given their living expenses, but somehow they're entitled to them. Not only that, but they've got voting power and can elect representatives who promise them more of a share from other people's labor.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

My tax policy professor pointed out that no matter how high the tax rate is, people still work to get more money. Wealth, after all, is relative.

I mean, few people choose to work low paying part time jobs to take advantag of the EITC solely because of the taxes.

And given that right now, the problem is generally a labor surplus, having people bow out will simply cause the market to add labor from another source.

biccat wrote:
Yes, I have, and a valuable lesson should be learned from this. The concept of social welfare create a dependent class who will never be satisfied with what they're given. They will always demand more, because there's no risk to them for doing so. They've also developed an entitlement mentality that not only are they given their living expenses, but somehow they're entitled to them. Not only that, but they've got voting power and can elect representatives who promise them more of a share from other people's labor.

Somehow, I don't think so. And, what would you have the alternative be? There aren't enough jobs available, that's obvious. Some people will not have jobs, they will not be working. Should they be imprisoned for owing, ala debtors prisons? Should they be forced to work in Victorian-era work houses? (and, at what jobs?) Should they be jailed for stealing their daily bread? Should they be forced to live on the streets eating what scraps they find in the trash in the name of allowing you to pay less taxes?

In a vacuum, your comments sound great. People should work. People should not expect to have things given to them. But they're just that, they're sound bites. They ignore the reality of the world we live in.

Remember, the tax burden being discussed is on the rich, not the middle class. Your theoretical $8k/week is still not even half-a-million a year. It's a lot of money, but not even close to the amount that would place you in the realm of the ultra-rich. What, exactly, has Paris Hilton done that deserves a tax break?

Redbeard wrote:Somehow, I don't think so. And, what would you have the alternative be? There aren't enough jobs available, that's obvious. Some people will not have jobs, they will not be working.

Says you. I think that we can achieve full employment in this country. In fact, it wasn't too long ao that we essentially had full employment.

However, for those who are physically incapable of working, I see no problem with welfare. However, the bar should be high. You must be incapable of performing work, you must not have wealth stashed away, etc. If you can't meet that, go seek out private charities. Americans are generous and give a tremendous amount to religious-based charities. They are always willing to take people who need help and give it to them.

Redbeard wrote:In a vacuum, your comments sound great. People should work. People should not expect to have things given to them. But they're just that, they're sound bites. They ignore the reality of the world we live in.

No, they ignore the reality that you believe in. If we cut the expensive regulatory burdens for new businesses, more people will create businesses and therefore more jobs. When more jobs are available, there is greater demand for workers, and that raises the standard of living.

Redbeard wrote:Remember, the tax burden being discussed is on the rich, not the middle class. Your theoretical $8k/week is still not even half-a-million a year. It's a lot of money, but not even close to the amount that would place you in the realm of the ultra-rich. What, exactly, has Paris Hilton done that deserves a tax break?

That's also twice what Obama considers rich, and above the top 1% threshhold (roughly $350,000). What has Paris Hilton done? Obviously quite a lot, because her services are very much in demand and people are willing to pay for them. So she's delivering some value to someone, somewhere.

You should be asking instead "what has unemployed mook X done to deserve part of Paris Hilton's money." Not rioting is a pretty easy thing to do. I didn't riot today, but I didn't get a check from the government.

Ouze wrote:I look wistfully back at December 2008, when the deficit was zero, the budget was balanced, and protesters were still described as traitors and un-american.

I tought 2008 deficit was 455 Billion Dollar. (the amount may change according to how you calculate it, but still, it's far from zero.)