War on Poverty and government efficiency

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.