War on Poverty and government efficiency

[tater]

The official number of poor in the US is ~44 million people (2009). That's the number the US gov considers poor so they can give them stuff.

That's not poor households, that's poor people.

Total spending on poverty and other "means tested" programs by the feds is ~900 billion.

That's over $20,000 per capita for the poor. So the single, working mom with 2 kids on a minimum wage job... the government spends 60 grand on her. You'd think that her poverty level job plus 60 grand would make her, you know, not poor. Particularly since the average US income is something like 47k, and the poverty level for that mom with 2 kids is over $18,000.

The US says the poverty level ('08-'09 so maybe a little higher now) is $10,830 for a single person (except AK and HI). So with their per capita share, every person at even ZERO income is twice the poverty level—assuming the government was 100% efficient in delivering aid. As it is we have 44 million, AND spend 20k a head. Based on simple math, there is no way the poverty level should be positive at all. The only way is if the government is vastly—heroically—inefficient. If we assume there are no "working poor" at all, then we still have 44 M at $0 income (including kids), then they all get 20k spending each, and all at 2X the single earner poverty level (kids really count as about half that each). Poverty should have been "solved" long ago.

Why do we not hear the government crowing that there are no poor in the US, because they've all been saved? Instead we hear that they need MORE spending. The average poor family of total aid is 80k (plus whatever their jobs provide since most are in fact "working poor" we've been told). 80k ain't poor. It's also enough to have real health insurance (instead of the medicaid they get).

If the government wrote any of us a check for $900,000,000,000, and told us we had to eliminate poverty (put all over poverty level by some fixed %) and cover insurance for 44 million people, and our pay would be whatever was left over, think we could make a good income?

Right, we could eliminate medicaid, some of medicare and SS, and all other social programs. All. Have a tax credit that is a number times total household members that slides based on annual household income. Heck, we'll set the % at double the poverty level. They could then buy private insurance as good as medicaid, too.

I'll use my pay and buy a few major corporations per year. Maybe some small countries, too.

[AVGWarhawk]

Welcome to the system. Of those 44 million considered at poverty level how many pay taxes on what they do earn?

[tater]

Welcome to the system. Of those 44 million considered at poverty level how many pay taxes on what they do earn?

To be at the poverty level, the single income is $10,830 or less. Add about 4-5k per household member. None pay any taxes at all (income). All pay FICA on their pittance.Note that FICA comes off the AGI, so they pay under the $828.50 that is FICA times 10,830)

Bottom line is that we could spend less than 50% of what we do now, and also entirely eliminate medicaid, AND have ZERO poor in the US (poor as defined by the government).

Right now every poor person (even though they never actually see it) has 20k spent on them. Each kid only takes ~5k to be above the poverty level, so kids get 4X their poverty level in fed gov subsidy. Adults all get 2X that level of spending. Many of the poor are kids, too, so the inefficiency is even worse than I paint it.

Also, that is just FEDERAL spending. States spend quite a lot per capita on poverty/means tested programs as well.

It boggles the mind.

[Armistead]

You're forgetting the bigger problem tater, the bailouts for the poor don't come close to the bailouts for the rich.... We've spent an average of $40 to $1 bailing out the rich and corporations....did it create jobs, not really, but it did create a lot of wealth for the chosen few.
This is what is creating a two class society in America.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bottom line is that we could spend less than 50% of what we do now, and also entirely eliminate medicaid, AND have ZERO poor in the US (poor as defined by the government).



This is why I said welcome to the system. There are a few I know who work the 'system' for monetary gain. The government definition of poor is well, poor. The checks and balances concerning welfare are poor. The entire system needs a complete and utter overhaul. For many, working the system has become a career in itself.

[tater]

You're forgetting the bigger problem tater, the bailouts for the poor don't come close to the bailouts for the rich.... We've spent an average of $40 to $1 bailing out the rich and corporations....did it create jobs, not really, but it did create a lot of wealth for the chosen few.
This is what is creating a two class society in America.

Sorry, that's not the bigger problem. TARP was a limited thing ( I was against that, too, I wanted the market to sort out the bad companies and have them fail).. We spend more than TARP every single year on the poor and still have poor, which is mathematically impossible, even at 50% efficiency.

If you think TARP mitigated the recession, then you need to give that whatever value to access it. Still, in a 10 year period, it's chump change compared to poverty programs that have been on ineffective autopilot since the 1960s.

Also, the rich guys at the large companies actually pay taxes. To properly weigh the bailouts on those guys, you need to first characterize their tax contributions. The poor are grossly net "takers" from the system (heck, the bottom 40-50% of taxpayers are).

Not saying the bailed out aren't net takers, they likely are. But no "per person" cost of a bailout is meaningful since 50% of tax payers don't remotely pay a share of taxes, so it in effect costs them nothing at all. The "rich" (top 20%) alone pay for ALL bailouts. So TARP and poverty programs both "soak the rich" virtually alone.

[Armistead]

We allow illegals in mass.
Trade policy totally corrupt
Tax policy totally corrupt. "You think the rich really pay most the taxes.":har:
Corrupt regulations.....Dems want too much, GOP don't won't any.
Mass jobs shipped overseas.


Most of these were done by the GOP to support corporations.

Ever get time read the book by Donald Trump "Why we want you to be rich." He cleary explains why and how America will be a two class system in 20 years or less due to corporate control of congress. IOW, use these tactics to be one of the 5% of the wealthy, instead of one of the 95% poor.

Hope Donald really doe's run this time.

[Armistead]

Sorry, that's not the bigger problem. TARP was a limited thing ( I was against that, too, I wanted the market to sort out the bad companies and have them fail).. We spend more than TARP every single year on the poor and still have poor, which is mathematically impossible, even at 50% efficiency.

If you think TARP mitigated the recession, then you need to give that whatever value to access it. Still, in a 10 year period, it's chump change compared to poverty programs that have been on ineffective autopilot since the 1960s.

Also, the rich guys at the large companies actually pay taxes. To properly weigh the bailouts on those guys, you need to first characterize their tax contributions. The poor are grossly net "takers" from the system (heck, the bottom 40-50% of taxpayers are).

Not saying the bailed out aren't net takers, they likely are. But no "per person" cost of a bailout is meaningful since 50% of tax payers don't remotely pay a share of taxes, so it in effect costs them nothing at all. The "rich" (top 20%) alone pay for ALL bailouts. So TARP and poverty programs both "soak the rich" virtually alone.

Hmm, you haven't added your taxes lately. The rich will gladly pay a higher tax, doesn't bother them as long as they can write regulation.

I make a lot less now, but still pay an average of 40% tax when I add all government taxes, property, sales, gas....any bill you got has a tax. Even a person making 50K that owns a home pays in around 35% in totat taxes.

The rich pay lots of taxes, but then should we go over the tax shelters they're given, but it's not about taxes, it's regulation.

In 20 years or less they say about 9% will hold over 80% of total wealth. Polls very, but it's always near there. Eventually you'll figure it out why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I assume you believe in trickle down economics in a global economy?

[tater]

The rich do pay most all the taxes collected. The data is there in black and white. Total federal taxes COLLECTED. The bottom 40% pay an average 5.1% of the federal tax bill (they pay negative income tax, but positive FICA).

The top 20% pay almost 70% of all federal personal taxes collected. It's only that low because of the SS cap. They pay over 85% of all personal income taxes COLLECTED. They pay almost 90% of corporate income taxes.

For the income tax, the top 10% pay over 72% of the taxes collected. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all income taxes collected.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mass jobs shipped overseas.

Manufacturing job for certain. Strangely overseas companies shipped their manufacturing over here! Honda, Toyota, VW!

[Sailor Steve]

A large part of the money spent goes to pay the people required to run the system, which is why, though it is spent "on the poor", the poor never actually see it.

It's the same with schools. Public-school proponents here love to point out that Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending of any state in the US. Yet if we were to give a teacher thirty students and hand her $146,700 ($4890 per pupil) and say "Teach these kids", think of what she could accomplish!

It's the administration of the programs that sucks up all the money spent, and the people who actually need it get what's left over. But how can it be done differently?

[tater]

The jobs thing is frankly dubious. After the war rthe US was over 50% of world manufacturing. We're in the high 20% range now (still the largest manufacturing nation on earth, BTW). The US had no place to go but down on that scale in a relatively peaceful world. There is no reasonable scenario oif keeping US mfg at that post war level indefinitely. It was a bubble. So if you want to whine about mass mfg jobs going overseas, then at least come up with what % of world mfg is sustainable for the US. We're at maybe 28% now, what is your magic number? 30%? 35%? Why?

You might be right, but it's not simple in the least.

On topic, however, government spending is demonstrably inefficient. We spend enough that the poor should be "average" in the US instead of poor. heck, at the amount we spend a working poor family with 4 members would actually be in the 4th quintile of taxpayers if they got their 80 grand we spend.

[mookiemookie]

The rich do pay most all the taxes collected. The data is there in black and white. Total federal taxes COLLECTED. The bottom 40% pay an average 5.1% of the federal tax bill (they pay negative income tax, but positive FICA).

The top 20% pay almost 70% of all federal personal taxes collected. It's only that low because of the SS cap. They pay over 85% of all personal income taxes COLLECTED. They pay almost 90% of corporate income taxes.

For the income tax, the top 10% pay over 72% of the taxes collected. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all income taxes collected.

All that proves is that the rich make ungodly gobs of money compared to the rest of everyone else. And if you think that tranfer of wealth to the rich stopped at the bailouts, you'd be wrong.

[tater]

SS, I agree that overhead eats it, but the overhead here is entirely labor, and even at 50% overhead, every single poor person should be lifted out of poverty. That's ~10k a head, and the single person poverty level is ~10k. So our mom with 2 kids at even 50% overhead should have a 30k expenditure AFTER overhead on her family. For her to remain in poverty, the overhead must be over 60%.

Mind blowing considering the IRS already exists, and the check-printers already churn checks out to these people. Dump all those government stooges, print a bigger check, and still save money.

[Armistead]

Manufacturing job for certain. Strangely overseas companies shipped their manufacturing over here! Honda, Toyota, VW!

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

As the poor get poorer, they will want more entitlements. As the rich get richer they can buy off congress for more entitlements. In the end the poor will lose. They're millions of now white americans being forced into poverty and rest assured if you see your kids starving you'll go stand in line for foodstamps and welfare.

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

Wonder what will happen with the next coming meltdown. Most agree it will be much worse.

[tater]

All that proves is that the rich make ungodly gobs of money compared to the rest of everyone else. And if you think that tranfer of wealth to the rich stopped at the bailouts, you'd be wrong.

Yeah, but the transfer is from rich to rich, 85% (99% if you add in the 4th quintile).

So a bailout for the rich is all from the top 40% of taxpayers (and most of the 4th quintile contributions come at the very top of the bracket, so it's really like 90-somethign % from the top 25% of taxpayers (people who earn ~100k and up))

[mookiemookie]

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

As the poor get poorer, they will want more entitlements. As the rich get richer they can buy off congress for more entitlements. In the end the poor will lose. They're millions of now white americans being forced into poverty and rest assured if you see your kids starving you'll go stand in line for foodstamps and welfare.

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

Wonder what will happen with the next coming meltdown. Most agree it will be much worse.

http://www.pursuit.eu/rimages/hammare.jpg

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.

[tater]

Not having money taken from you is NOT "welfare."

Welfare is money transfer. The money does not belong to the government.

This thread is NOT about tax collection, it's about SPENDING. The bulk of the budget is spent on social programs. A large chunk of that for the poor (the rest being the old). That said, since the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes actually collected, payouts to the "rich" are by definition funded by... the rich. If poverty programs were 90% funded by those in poverty, I'd have no place to whine, would I?

The money spent on people the government considers poor, divided by the number of those people that the government considers poor makes it mathematically impossible for them to be poor unless the government makes a massive mark up some how.

[Sailor Steve]

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.
Nice political speech, especially since this started as a thread on government misspending, but what is your solution?

[tater]

http://www.pursuit.eu/rimages/hammare.jpg

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.

No, it's hammer missing nail, not even hitting thumb, and putting a hole in the drywall (yeah, I'm oldschool, I remember nailing drywall, not screwing it). (I suppose I should have made the analogy nailing flooring and wreaking it since that is a spiral nail, not a drywall nail, but I did more drywall back in the day).

Read the OP. The issue was inefficiency in spending. Divide expense on the poor by the number of poor.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.



No sir I did not say that. Do not assume what I might have stated. Simply put we have manufacturing plants from foreign countries. No I do not need to see the numbers however as the world economy changes week to week foreign companies recognize that shipping cost, duties and taxes take their product out of the market compared to foreign companies already manufacturing cars/products in the states. For example, VW can not compete with Toyota and Honda concerning pricing in the states. The only way for VW to compete is making a factory in the states which VW has started and to be completed next year. The dynamics are changing.

Even so, I'm a firm supporter of keeping manufacturing here in the states.

[Armistead]

Not having money taken from you is NOT "welfare."

Welfare is money transfer. The money does not belong to the government.

This thread is NOT about tax collection, it's about SPENDING. The bulk of the budget is spent on social programs. A large chunk of that for the poor (the rest being the old). That said, since the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes actually collected, payouts to the "rich" are by definition funded by... the rich. If poverty programs were 90% funded by those in poverty, I'd have no place to whine, would I?

The money spent on people the government considers poor, divided by the number of those people that the government considers poor makes it mathematically impossible for them to be poor unless the government makes a massive mark up some how.


Your numbers aren't close, the bulk is spent on corporate bailouts and show me the trickle down effect to the average american:har:

Payouts aren't funded by the rich, they're added to the national debt for the next several generations.

You realize a once thriving middle class in America is on life support why a few percent get even richer. Again, it's regulation...not taxes is how they've become uber rich. They'll gladly pay any amount of taxes as long as they can write regulation...it's like winning the lottery.

[tater]

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.

No, the US has lost mfg jobs, no question. None the less we have even now low unemployment compared to much of the world (BTW, the unemployment rate for non-HS dropouts is close to 5%, only those that don't take FREE education are really hammered (~20% unemployment for HS dropouts).


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

True, also helped people with accounts.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

LOL. The budget is almost 4 TRILLION. Not 1.4. You are looking at the discretionary budget. Most spending in on social programs—programatic spending. Entitlements. Tax breaks are NOT the same in the least. The US corporate rate is very high, so the code is filled with loopholes. This is just like the old, high marginal rates before Reagan. The top rate was high, but no one actually payed that due to all the loopholes. the effective rates were basically identical to right now. Lower the corp rate, and eliminate loopholes—note that many loopholes are protectionist measures to keep business here, so be clear what you want, don't complain about lost jobs when loopholes go away.

Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud.

I'm against subsidies. That said, it's chump change compared to 900 billion spent on 44 million that doesn't solve the problem for the 44 million. I could halve the spending and have ZERO poor. Save money, AND the poor are better off. Win-win.

And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

37 billion. Wow. Under 1% of federal spending.

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

Entitled to pay loads of taxes? Again, any money the rich get is money collect from... the rich. Any money the poor get is money collected from... the rich. I am less concerned with the rich giving themselves their money back, after all, it's their money. I'm all for ending subsidy, and a rational, no loopholes tax policy (personal and corporate).

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

No CEOs shoudl have been bailed out, we agree, presumably that they should sink or swim on their own merits. If that puts GM, AIG, et al out of business, so be it.

[mookiemookie]

Nice political speech, especially since this started as a thread on government misspending, but what is your solution?

No easy solution. So much of politics is intertwined with corporate money. Laws and policies are written by the very industries that are to be regulated.

Take the rule on leverage for financial firms. It used to be that they were limited to a 12 to 1 ratio for debt to net capital. In 2004, the big 5 (Merrill, Goldman, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, Morgan Stanley) pushed to be exempt from the rule. The SEC allowed it. Lehman was at 33 to 1 when it failed (meaning a 3% drop in the value of their investments would wipe out all your capital.) Take a look at the current status of the names on that list to see how well that rule worked out.

So long as the inmates are running the asylum, you're going to end up with laws that favor the upper class at the expense of everyone else. I say ban all campaign contributions that do not come from individuals. No more corporate money. No more PAC money. That'd be a great start.

[tater]

Your numbers aren't close, the bulk is spent on corporate bailouts and show me the trickle down effect to the average american:har:
.

Most federal spending is on entitlements. Defense is a distant second.

You are right that they borrow a lot of the money, but when it comes to be paid, the rich will be the ones paying it.

My numbers come from the CBO, where do yours come from?

[tater]

So long as the inmates are running the asylum, you're going to end up with laws that favor the upper class at the expense of everyone else. I say ban all campaign contributions that do not come from individuals. That'd be a great start.

I might agree with that as long as that includes unions, too. I'd then eliminate the cap though, as long as the money was 100% public. No limits on personal contributions, but they must be made in the open, for everyone to see. No organization can contribute in your name, so it's a 100% personal decision.

Of course open contributions would mean a union boss could check his guys contributions, and they could face sanctions for not toeing the line... As could management guys if they were the other way (Wall street splits money pretty evenly between parties on average, though).

Campaign stuff is non-trvial.

Putting Geithner in charge is definitely more of the same (compared to W).


<EDIT> On Topic: We spend about $20,000 per person at or below the poverty line for programs to help people at or below the poverty line. Could the government improve outcomes with less money? I think so. So large cuts in spending, but large improvements for the poor into the bargain. Not talking about slashing what the poor GET, but slashing what we SPEND. The two things seem very disconnected. You can argue about ending any direct payouts to business, or eliminating the dept of agriculture, but I'll just agree they need to go away, too.

[AVGWarhawk]

as long as that includes unions

I agree and I might add for Armistead that these very same unions are an integral part of manufacturing ending up overseas.

[Armistead]

Most numbers I use are from "The Tax Policy Center" a washington think tank...

Don't start beating me up on typos...My arm is in a sling and I shouldn't be typing....you're killing me. You're smart enough to know what I'm saying:O:

You're aware the average tax break related to the last taxcut the average millionaire got back about 85K, the average 50K person got $20 bucks.

Again, it's not about taxes. If you could write regulation that would net you a 200% in profits, you would have no problem paying another 10% in tax.

The bigger issue wil be the global economy. America is being brought down to size now because of it. Why we may still lead the world in many ways, it doesn't work for most americans as they get poorer and poorer.

My lifestyle is half. I made over 200K 3 years ago. I'm disabled, but work. I'll be honest, I made a pity 72K this year. I get by because I don't have debt, but with my illness I'm putting every dime away, because I pay my expense out of pocket and if I took all the medical care they wanted I would be bankrupt in a week. Maybe one day adults with preexisting condtions will get affordable healthcare, but not if corporations have any say.

I think we both know our nation is headed for ruination and a two class system of a few percent rich and most poor. All the facts show that...The rich class has increased wealth 100 fold. Do you realize most now have loopholes and their wealth can go to their kids with no
inheritance tax..?

You should see the fox in the henhouse, that is unless you're one of the few uber rich.

I deal with several groups, mostly people with disease and living in poverty. Most worked all their lives, most once had insurance but couldn't pay cobra when jobs were losts. Most were denied or had to fight for years to get LTD they paid for for years, few see it, just search UNUM and see what people go through.

Sure, we have those that enjoy being poor and living off the government, but most don't. I've seen people eat dogfood, seen the sick blow their brains out waiting years to be approved for SS, medicare or LTD they paid for, so yea it burns me when another CEO buys his wife a million dollar coat knowing a disabled vet blew his head off not being able to get care. You call it capitalism...anyone with a brain knows better....it's bought and paid for regulation to do as they please.

[Armistead]

improve outcomes[/I] with less money? I think so. So large cuts in spending, but large improvements for the poor into the bargain. Not talking about slashing what the poor GET, but slashing what we SPEND. The two things seem very disconnected. You can argue about ending any direct payouts to business, or eliminating the dept of agriculture, but I'll just agree they need to go away, too.

I can agree with this....

[Armistead]

I agree and I might add for Armistead that these very same unions are an integral part of manufacturing ending up overseas.


I hate all unions. Maybe they once had a place, not anymore. I fear they will grow. Funny how unions can vote for something and then have the Dems exempt them from the things they voted for.

We all can agree on one thing....

The system is FUBAR .

Don't let em take your guns...

[tater]

You're aware the average tax break related to the last taxcut the average millionaire got back about 85K, the average 50K person got $20 bucks.

So what? The average person making 50k a year does not pay a full per capita share of taxes. The average middle quintile income is ~58k. Their effective income tax rate is 3%. So they pay no where near a share in income tax. Add in FICA, and they have a ~14% total effective rate, so 7k, under a share. The guy making a million pays ~$300,000 in federal taxes. That's 30 shares of the budget. If he gets 85k back, he still pays 27 shares.

The top deserves the break (assuming there is a break to give), they are the ones paying.

[Armistead]

I'd give them plenty of tax breaks if they weren't allowed to buy off congress and write any regulation they pleased.

Corporate CEO to Lawyer " Damn, 10% more taxes"

Lawyer to CEO "Yea, but 200% increased profits"


You do the math.

[mookiemookie]

The top deserves the break (assuming there is a break to give), they are the ones paying.

Nope. Not when they keep getting richer and everyone gets poorer.

[Armistead]

Nope. Not when they keep getting richer and everyone gets poorer.


Isn't it funny, corporate profits are the highest they've been in 60 years in this jobless recovery.

Is that trickle down working for ya now.

[tater]

I'd give them plenty of tax breaks if they weren't allowed to buy off congress and write any regulation they pleased.

Corporate CEO to Lawyer " Damn, 10% more taxes"

Lawyer to CEO "Yea, but 200% increased profits"

You do the math.

I see no math to do. You're not "showing your work" you're just making up numbers.

People complaining about the "rich" always argue using some CEO who makes 100 million a year (or even just a few million). Meanwhile, people I consider "upper middle class" can make 500k a year, and to them the extra 25k in taxes (the 5% Bush tax cut about to expire) really matters. It's not like at 500k money is no object. That 25k is money that might be spent on a remodel of the house (employing people), or private school (2 kids private school = 25k). It's non-trivial. And those same people already pay ~155k$ in federal taxes (then more state). These are people that work for a living.

Say surgeons that work on average maybe 80 hours a week or more (depending on how you count call). General surgeons here, for example, make around 230k. That puts them square in the top 20%. They pay ~60 grand in fed taxes. The average income in the 4th quint is 85k. They pay ~15k in fed taxes. So they take home 70k (ignore state for this for easy math). the General surgeon therefore works the equivalent of 2 jobs, and takes home <2.5X the pay of someone making 85k a year. That's a tiny increase for losing that much time. They also pay 4X the taxes. They work twice as hard, get paid 2.4X as much, and pay 6X the taxes. That Bush 5% is 10 grand. Sorry, but at 200k a year, 10k is a lot of money. It's not money you don't notice.

All the "rich" (most in fact) earn well under a million, and money is absolutely still "an object" to them (and they WORK, too. Hard). I call the real rich people who don't think about money when buying. That's maybe the top 1%. Maybe fewer.

[Armistead]

Tater,

If in the next 20 years or less and 10% of people hold 90% of all wealth, would you call that a problem or capitalism? All studies show that fact. About 20% hold 80% now..


Why do you reckon corporate profits are the highest in 60 years?

Don't give me the inflation adjustment, they still would be the highest in 60 years....and the poorer get poorer. Do you think most americans are that lazy and want welfare....


No making you understand the difference between tax code and regulation.
If you could write laws to make yourself rich, you would, wouldn't you...;)

[tater]

Nope. Not when they keep getting richer and everyone gets poorer.

They do not take money from the poor. Money is not finite.

The poor now are well off compared to the poor during the depression, for example. And they were better off than the poor 100 years before that. Standards of living are so high now that you need to lock people to an old lifestyle if you wish to make the "poor get poorer" argument. Prove that the poor life shorter lives than just after WW2, for example. Prove they have less stuff, smaller homes, less mobility, less access to entertainment and information.

They have more of ALL of those things. Finding a decent metric to compare is very difficult. When I was a kid we were in HS before I had a microwave in the house. We had what would be a small TV now (27"? 30-something? CRT). We had a 2d, tiny B&W TV at some point. 2 american cars, one of them really cheap (station car). My dad was president of a publishing house based in NYC. The average income now in the US household has better "stuff" than I had as a kid. More of it, too. And likely more square footage per constant dollar income as well. All that needs to weight the numbers or they are meaningless.

So you might be right about the poor getting poorer, but constant dollars ins't enough of a weighting, there are other, more complex factors. That goes for corps as well. Also

No making you understand the difference between tax code and regulation.
If you could write laws to make yourself rich, you would, wouldn't you...

Yeah, because regulations are horse-traded around til they protect some companies, often at the expense of others. The bottom line is that no money belongs to the government, it is all taken from others. Setting a fair rate to take is reasonable, but it is worth discussing what is fair. Using the tax code etc to change the balance of income distribution is wrong, IMO, government has no business doing that. I don't care in the least what % controls what % in a deregulated world. Not at all. In the regulated world it's a different story since like the taxes, the regs are unfair.

I'm in favor of flat taxes I think. Lower rates, no progressive rate increases with income, and zero loopholes.

Do you think most americans are that lazy and want welfare....

Yes. Most want to "soak the rich." Most want their SS and Medicare with only increases, no matter the insanity of the broken ponzi scheme. They will end up like France, protesting the retirement age jumping from young, to slightly less young given the chance.

[AVGWarhawk]

I hate all unions. Maybe they once had a place, not anymore. I fear they will grow. Funny how unions can vote for something and then have the Dems exempt them from the things they voted for.

We all can agree on one thing....

The system is FUBAR .



I agree with the above 100%. Unions do more damage then good. There was a purpose at one time in history for a Union but not anymore IMO.

[Armistead]

They do not take money from the poor. Money is not finite.

The poor now are well off compared to the poor during the depression, for example. And they were better off than the poor 100 years before that. Standards of living are so high now that you need to lock people to an old lifestyle if you wish to make the "poor get poorer" argument. Prove that the poor life shorter lives than just after WW2, for example. Prove they have less stuff, smaller homes, less mobility, less access to entertainment and information.

They have more of ALL of those things. Finding a decent metric to compare is very difficult. When I was a kid we were in HS before I had a microwave in the house. We had what would be a small TV now (27"? 30-something? CRT). We had a 2d, tiny B&W TV at some point. 2 american cars, one of them really cheap (station car). My dad was president of a publishing house based in NYC. The average income now in the US household has better "stuff" than I had as a kid. More of it, too. And likely more square footage per constant dollar income as well. All that needs to weight the numbers or they are meaningless.

So you might be right about the poor getting poorer, but constant dollars ins't enough of a weighting, there are other, more complex factors. That goes for corps as well. Also



Yeah, because regulations are horse-traded around til they protect some companies, often at the expense of others. The bottom line is that no money belongs to the government, it is all taken from others. Setting a fair rate to take is reasonable, but it is worth discussing what is fair. Using the tax code etc to change the balance of income distribution is wrong, IMO, government has no business doing that. I don't care in the least what % controls what % in a deregulated world. Not at all. In the regulated world it's a different story since like the taxes, the regs are unfair.

I'm in favor of flat taxes I think. Lower rates, no progressive rate increases with income, and zero loopholes.

Tater, I think I probably agree with you more than not, except you're living in a dream world of "what it should be like." not what it is.

The rich do take from the poor...who do you think will pay that massive national debt over the next 100 years....the rich. They haven't yet. If they truly paid their fair share we wouldn't have a debt. Now, they shouldn't pay it in taxes, but proper regulation where they can't steal wealth
from the dying middle class. How can you say the poor soak the rich when the rich hold 80% of real assests, given to them from a bought out congress and poor regulation.

... ain't gonna happen. You can't deny corporate corruption or the fact they buy congress to do as they please. If you think that's fair capitalism that works for americans as a whole, your crazy. Until we have proper regulation the tax code is useless, we'll continue to add trillions of debt why profits increase regardless of how much taxes are paid by any group.

Why not massive sin taxes on the rich, would that be better? Oh, not fair, but what is really fair with all the corrupt codes and regulations. I don't think anyone knows anymore.

The fact is we've probably now reached a point of no return, so I'll stock can food and ammo and you can call me crazy.

So again, I ask you. If 10% of people hold 90% of all wealth would you call that capitalism?

How do your reckon corporate profits are the highest in 60 years why 17% of americans are out of work, just those unemployed lazy huh...

[mookiemookie]

Using the tax code etc to change the balance of income distribution is wrong, IMO, government has no business doing that.

I believe it is. Your vision of unfettered Darwinistic capitalism leaves those without means at the mercy of those with the money. The way our system is set up(unfortunately), those with money get more of an influence in lawmaking. They stack the deck in their favor. A good government curbs excesses and ensures that the strong do not prey on the weak.

[Armistead]

I believe it is. Your vision of unfettered Darwinistic capitalism leaves those without means at the mercy of those with the money. The way our system is set up(unfortunately), those with money get more of an influence in lawmaking. They stack the deck in their favor. A good government curbs excesses and ensures that the strong do not prey on the weak.


No, what eventually happens is chaos'. The rich built high walls around their houses, but that won't stop millions of angry people as they burn the nation down and eat the rich. It's called a revolution and sadly that's where corporate america will take america.

The Uber rich will be in Australia, Indies, or maybe even outer space so they might make it.:haha:

Total manufacturing output, China is up an amazing 673% since 1990 (NKorea is next at an increase of 271%).

[Ducimus]

A couple of items i don't get:

If the US is the biggest manufacturer of goods, why is everything a person encounters in day to day life made in china, india, mexico, etc? To say we're the leading manufacturer, to me, sounds like wishful thinking hogwash.

If its so important to bailout the rich, to propagate this trickle down effect, why am i not seeing this trickle down? From where i sit, this trickle down is myth. Try making due on 14 dollars on hour, in a state that has one of the highest costs of living, all the while recieving no pay raises, no bonuses, no chance of promotion, and no opportunities to get ahead. Meanwhile, management has all of that in spades. Walk a mile in those shoes, and then tell me again how trickle down is supposed to work. I'd love to hear about it.

[Armistead]

One of my friends is a Project Manager for a large construction firm. The owner called 20 of them in for a meeting. They thought they were getting there xmas bonuses, they all got canned, not a dime severance.

Merry Christmas.

Anyway, I think we need a min wage of about 16 per hour for those out of high school. So the CEO's would take less bonus and no doubt the influx of money would push the economy.

Course a true capitalist like tater probably doesn't even believe in a min. wage at all.

[CCIP]

If the US is the biggest manufacturer of goods, why is everything a person encounters in day to day life made in china, india, mexico, etc?

The simple answer is that the average American wants to "encounter" far more things in real life than he can afford to buy from American manufacturers. And more importantly, the usual merchants want to sell far more to the average American than they can afford to manufacture in the US. Sadly everything from the government and media on down is very enthusiastic about keeping Americans addicted to "stuff".

[Armistead]

We love our stuff. Most changes came when we went off the gold standard, that was our undoing. The printing presses rolled. This resulted in a falling dollar that had to be made up with credit. Credit cards use to be for the rich, regulations were passed that changed the credit score and banks were allowed to give credit at high rates to anyone...and people spent like they were on crack. This created a good economy and more credit was pushed. The big failure came as banks were deregulated to sell homes to millions who couldn't really afford them. Most never take time or not educated to read through 100s of pages of loan documents, but it's easy to blame them.

The problem is we have no real dollar. If Americans can't use mass credit the economy fails. Right now were seeing that process as banks don't loan and Americans don't spend, but I doubt it will correct things.

[gimpy117]

All that proves is that the rich make ungodly gobs of money compared to the rest of everyone else. And if you think that tranfer of wealth to the rich stopped at the bailouts, you'd be wrong.

you beat me too it.

yes, their tax rates have fallen..but share in amount collected has gone up...hrm...what does that tell us...:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

A good government curbs excesses and ensures that the strong do not prey on the weak.
There's the problem I have with your beliefs. We don't have a good government, haven't in a very long time, and possibly never have. It's nice to talk of the government regulating business, and I'm all for the concept. In fact it's the only dealing I like to see between the two. The problem as I see it is that government isn't trying to regulate business - it's trying to control it. Government isn't trying to help the poor - it's trying to expand its power, using the poor as an excuse. I see the people who want to control taxes for this purpose as also wanting to consolidate power for themselves. I don't think any of them are idealists who really want to help. It's like the unions - these days it's a war between Big Business and Big Labor, and the worker is caught between the two. And the people who claim they want to help really want to make it a war between Big Business, Big Labor and Big Government, and it just gets worse.

If I'm going to be reamed, I'd rather have it be by some self-serving bigwig than by some power-hungry bureaucrat who's doing it "for my own good".