Jump to content

Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff


HeloDude

Recommended Posts

Instead of taxing it away, why don't you go to Bill Gates house and ask for a few Bil, then head over to Warren's hut and get a few more Bil. Then set up a line and give everyone 10 crisp Benjamins.

Point 1: lots of libs with lots of Bils, yet I don't see them redistributing it all to gov't or to the lowerlings.

Point 2: Class warefare is awesome!

Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving poor people the gift of money through redistribution of wealth does nothing to raise them above the poverty line (long term). It only does three things.

1: Temporarily assists with basic survival needs.

2: Creates a dependency on government handouts with an insatiable appetite for more.

3. Raises the poverty line through induced inflation to encompass all of the previous poor and more of the middle class.

There are other negative effects, but these are the ones that directly affect those welfare is supposed to help.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Decreasing wealth inequality need not be about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it can be about creating more wealth via economic growth. Because our government's tax and transfer policies are the largest factor in keeping even out insanely unequal wealth distribution in check, I happen to support policies that would make our tax system more progressive.

But beyond that narrow scope of government action, the bigger system should incentivize things that will allow for a strong middle class, good social mobility, and economic growth of the entire system. Your views on what policies will cause those things (or perhaps if they are even worthy goals) likely are heavily influenced by your political ideology.

I am pretty moderate on my positions. I just don't believe it is possible to lessen poverty by taxing the top 1% alone. Small increases in taxes on the top 1% may help but a large increase would just weaken the dollar. Serious changes need to be made to our economic system as a whole but they have to be gradual changes over decades for the changes to do anything that will have a long lasting positive impact.

The government can do something even better than creating new taxes for the top 1%. It is much more important the government makes it easier and more profitable for the top 1% to keep as much of their accrued wealth in the United States without letting it leak into other countries like China and India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty moderate on my positions. I just don't believe it is possible to lessen poverty by taxing the top 1% alone. Small increases in taxes on the top 1% may help but a large increase would just weaken the dollar. Serious changes need to be made to our economic system as a whole but they have to be gradual changes over decades for the changes to do anything that will have a long lasting positive impact.

Agreed. Emphasis added.

The government can do something even better than creating new taxes for the top 1%. It is much more important the government makes it easier and more profitable for the top 1% to keep as much of their accrued wealth in the United States without letting it leak into other countries like China and India.

This can be part of it for sure.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still missing my point if you are for equitable redistribution why not lead the way, if you do become wealthy? You are so in favor of taking other people's money, why not give up yours if do believe this so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still missing my point if you are for equitable redistribution why not lead the way, if you do become wealthy? You are so in favor of taking other people's money, why not give up yours if do believe this so much.

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

No by lead the way I mean cut a check to the government for the extra wealth you have because I mean you live pretty comfortable now right? Why do you need a bently or a multimillion dollar home when others are starving?

I see many rich democrats calling for redistribution of wealth but yet they have yachts, fancy cars ect., if you really believe in redistributing wealth why aren't they (or you if you become one) willing to open their books and give their excess money to the poor and needy?

Taxing to give money to others to "redistribute wealth" is taking money from one to give to the other. I understand the need to fund the military, Lewis enforcement, roads ect. Yes the government does need money to operate but the government should not take money from one person and give it to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

Your view of the role of government is greatly different than my view of government's role. Although your ideals are certainly noble, they're unsustainable in the long run and are economically damaging for all the reasons we've previously discussed. I don't have a problem with taxation, spending, or regulation. That's the how behind the government doing its job. The argument here is what the government's job is.

My view is that the government exists as the caretakers of our national community, to perform the tasks that individuals and smaller communities/business cannot do for themselves. These tasks include protection of individual liberties and agency/opportunity, provision for trade and commerce, defense from foreign and domestic threats, legislative and judicial oversight, assistance in recovery from grave disasters (beyond the scope and capability of local communities), developing/protecting baseline standards for national resources, interfacing with foreign nations, and other necessary tasks to administer their constitutional duties.

Redistribution of wealth, promoting populist agendas, and political brinkmanship are not core government duties. When politicians stretch the role of government beyond its basic purpose, unintended negative consequences always follow.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the government does need money to operate but the government should not take money from one person and give it to another.

See below.

Your view of the role of government is greatly different than my view of government's role...The argument here is what the government's job is.

Amen...this is the BIG question behind much of this debate. Your view totally makes sense depending on what your values and political beliefs are and I think mine does as well. I certainly know what I believe the role of government to be, and you're free to feel differently; it's something that will continually be renegotiated as history marches on via elections, changing government policies, and the changing views of new generations of citizens.

My view is that the government exists as the caretakers of our national community, to perform the tasks that individuals and smaller communities/business cannot do for themselves. These tasks include protection of individual liberties and agency/opportunity, provision for trade and commerce, defense from foreign and domestic threats, legislative and judicial oversight, assistance in recovery from grave disasters (beyond the scope and capability of local communities), developing/protecting baseline standards for national resources, interfacing with foreign nations, and other necessary tasks to administer their constitutional duties.

Good summation of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint on the role of government :beer:

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that we are very very far from equal wealth:

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Allow me to introduce you to post #613

Here's an interesting video depicting a visual representation of the distribution of wealth in the US. While bearing in mind numbers, statistics, graphs, charts, etc., can be manipulated to support an argument, It's still a little suprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the incentive for those on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth to wean themselves off of it?

Currently there is none in certain instances. If a single mother with two kids under school age is on TANF and food stamps and stays at home to care for her kids she has no incentive to go out and start at the bottom of the ladder because she'll be worse off after paying for daycare.

If, however, there was a procedure in place that would allow her to work while receiving those benefits, with that benefit reducing as she moved up the pay scale- then they'll have an incentive to work: more $$.

Now that assumes, of course, employers are offering a system that will allow for advancement up a pay scale... and a lot of menial labor jobs don't have that system.

It's a complex situation, and how we work our way out of it is even more complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is that complex. Human nature is simple. Where is Mr. Mazlo when we need him? Humans are lazy and will seek the path of least resistance most of the time. Others have the ability and drive to take a more difficult path if it leads to recognition/reward. If not working results in a more comfortable or adequate lifestyle than working, our solution to the problem should not be to spend more money to make working more like not working. The solution should be to make not working less comfortable and adequate than working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently there is none in certain instances. If a single mother with two kids under school age is on TANF and food stamps and stays at home to care for her kids she has no incentive to go out and start at the bottom of the ladder because she'll be worse off after paying for daycare. If, however, there was a procedure in place that would allow her to work while receiving those benefits, with that benefit reducing as she moved up the pay scale- then they'll have an incentive to work: more $$. Now that assumes, of course, employers are offering a system that will allow for advancement up a pay scale... and a lot of menial labor jobs don't have that system. It's a complex situation, and how we work our way out of it is even more complex.

Yes, if only this country had some sort of Earned Income Tax Credit. Having the other benefits scale would make sense too. Also, finding the father(s) of those two kids and making him/them contribute financially wouldn't hurt. So perhaps a subsidy for Maury Povich would net some income to Uncle Sam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if only this country had some sort of Earned Income Tax Credit. Having the other benefits scale would make sense too. Also, finding the father(s) of those two kids and making him/them contribute financially wouldn't hurt. So perhaps a subsidy for Maury Povich would net some income to Uncle Sam.

Cause no dads ever die.

Also EITC does not pay out bi weekly or however often TANF does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much agree. Are you arguing that there are currently equal opportunities for everyone in America?

Yep. Some paths easier, some more difficult, but every able-bodied and -minded person has a choice and a chance to work for their own version of success. Every one. Allow myself to quote myself: show me "disadvantaged" and I'll show you "opportunity."

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Some paths easier, some more difficult, but every able-bodied and -minded person has a choice and a chance to work for their own version of success. Every one. Allow myself to quote myself: show me "disadvantaged" and I'll show you "opportunity."

I like your vision. I worry that it's not at all close to American reality.

The problem becomes when a path paved by hard work makes success impossible. To me, the problems of the "disadvantaged" are real and important, but the squeezing of the middle class is much more concerning. I feel we've gotten to a point in America where hard work doesn't easily translate into success. When hard-working Americans are bankrupted by cancer, or when costs of higher education for children are increasing faster than wage increases for the parents...those are signs that we have real problems.

Go survey some folks who have "worked hard to achieve their own version of success." Most doctors I've met wouldn't recommend medical practice to their children as they feel the efforts and sacrifices they made in med school and residency aren't worth the long hours and insurance pain they have now. Have you talked to a major airline pilot? Ask him how he feels about being furloughed, having his pension stripped away and making less in real dollars than he did in 1990.

I feel like middle-class America is swimming really hard only to be drifting backwards, which is why I don't understand defending those with absolutely staggering wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When hard-working Americans are bankrupted by cancer, or when costs of higher education for children are increasing faster than wage increases for the parents...those are signs that we have real problems.

Stop subsidizing both and let the market drive the cost. Accounting for inflation costs for education at colleges have nearly doubled since the early 1980s, the government gives out more money the colleges raise their prices. Medical is the same way, charge the maximum amount of money the insurance will pay. Its no different than our lodging caps on TDY, are you going to stay in a $60 Motel 6 when the nightly cap is a $150?

I feel like middle-class America is swimming really hard only to be drifting backwards, which is why I don't understand defending those with absolutely staggering wealth.

Its the principle of the matter, once you open the door to the idea that the government can confiscate a super-wealthy persons money because they have "too much", where the hell do you draw the line?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop feeling. College is not required for "success". Having an employer is not required for "success". Having large amounts of disposable $$ is not required for "success".

Having choices & options is required for any definition of success. Start thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...