PDA

View Full Version : Economics Liberals on the board: Why is this guy wrong?


Chocolate Hog
11-19-2012, 07:50 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/12848_475564795827747_793819674_n.jpg

J Diddy
11-19-2012, 07:52 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

LiveSteam
11-19-2012, 07:56 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

You are just trying to bait me into another ban :evil:

Direckshun
11-19-2012, 08:00 PM
Capitalism in all its glory is a competition.

Some people will do very well, a lot of folks will do okay, and some folks will just do terrible.

This is unavoidable. This is the nature of competition. Everybody can't win. So we can shrug and say **** it, and suffer what will I'm sure will be nothing but happy, sunny side effects of a poverty class with third world finances, or we can provide some sort of safety net so that people aren't living in squalor.

That does mean some will abuse the system. Unavoidable. But when a basic life of work provides you a better quality of life than a life of living off food stamps, the light inside us will almost always guide us to productivity.

headsnap
11-19-2012, 08:20 PM
Everybody can't win.

liberal logic right there... it's not a 50/50, win/lose thing. Everybody CAN win, it's just that some win more than others. It's not just one battle that's fought, it's thousands of battles daily!

Taco John
11-19-2012, 08:24 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?



Won't sombodies please think of the rodes!

Taco John
11-19-2012, 08:25 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

WTF do roads have anything to do with social justice you ****ing nit wit?

Chiefspants
11-19-2012, 08:25 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/12848_475564795827747_793819674_n.jpg

;)

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz226/Kind_Cromang/elizabeth-warren-social-contract.jpg

J Diddy
11-19-2012, 08:25 PM
Won't sombodies please think of the rodes!

It was an example dipshit.

Just like defense, education, or anything else public.

J Diddy
11-19-2012, 08:28 PM
WTF do roads have anything to do with social justice you ****ing nit wit?

Was speaking to the "you keep what you earn and I'll keep what I earn"

Saulbadguy
11-19-2012, 08:32 PM
Walter, Give me 5 bucks so I don't steal your rims.

Direckshun
11-19-2012, 08:40 PM
liberal logic right there... it's not a 50/50, win/lose thing. Everybody CAN win, it's just that some win more than others. It's not just one battle that's fought, it's thousands of battles daily!

Orwell would be proud.

headsnap
11-19-2012, 08:44 PM
Orwell would be proud.

nice non response...

stevieray
11-19-2012, 09:29 PM
nice non response...

I can't ride a BMX bike as well as you...it's not fair!

listopencil
11-19-2012, 09:40 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

The Libertarian candidate in the last Presidential election spoke of a "consumption tax" to replace income tax. So you keep what you earn and public works are regularly funded by business transactions. It then becomes important for the state to encourage a robust economy that benefits producers.

There is also the option of voting on specific taxes via county or state to fund public works.

Taco John
11-19-2012, 10:01 PM
Orwell would be proud.

What in the world are you on about?

listopencil
11-19-2012, 10:18 PM
What in the world are you on about?

He's refusing to accept anything other than a zero-sum game.

Amnorix
11-19-2012, 10:19 PM
Capitalism in all its glory is a competition.

Some people will do very well, a lot of folks will do okay, and some folks will just do terrible.

This is unavoidable. This is the nature of competition. Everybody can't win. So we can shrug and say **** it, and suffer what will I'm sure will be nothing but happy, sunny side effects of a poverty class with third world finances, or we can provide some sort of safety net so that people aren't living in squalor.

That does mean some will abuse the system. Unavoidable. But when a basic life of work provides you a better quality of life than a life of living off food stamps, the light inside us will almost always guide us to productivity.


That about sums it up.

Amnorix
11-19-2012, 10:20 PM
He's refusing to accept anything other than a zero-sum game.


Capitalism / economics aren't really a zero sum game.

Amnorix
11-19-2012, 10:22 PM
liberal logic right there... it's not a 50/50, win/lose thing. Everybody CAN win, it's just that some win more than others. It's not just one battle that's fought, it's thousands of battles daily!

Orwell would be proud.

What in the world are you on about?


errr...Animal Farm, rather obviously.

Psyko Tek
11-19-2012, 10:24 PM
;)

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz226/Kind_Cromang/elizabeth-warren-social-contract.jpg

meet the next president of the united states of america

listopencil
11-19-2012, 10:28 PM
meet the next president of the united states of america

I agree with her quote.

listopencil
11-19-2012, 10:29 PM
Capitalism / economics aren't really a zero sum game.

Yes, I know, that's what I was implying.

cosmo20002
11-19-2012, 10:49 PM
Capitalism in all its glory is a competition.

Some people will do very well, a lot of folks will do okay, and some folks will just do terrible.

This is unavoidable. This is the nature of competition. Everybody can't win. So we can shrug and say **** it, and suffer what will I'm sure will be nothing but happy, sunny side effects of a poverty class with third world finances, or we can provide some sort of safety net so that people aren't living in squalor.

That does mean some will abuse the system. Unavoidable. But when a basic life of work provides you a better quality of life than a life of living off food stamps, the light inside us will almost always guide us to productivity.

Pretty much this.

And--What about the children? Seriously, what about them? Take them all away from their crappy parent(s) and have the state raise them 100%? Or try to keep the families together with the parent(s) maintaining some responsibility for the kids, even if they are leeching some off the system? There's no perfect solution, but you can't say "Let 'em rot" to the kids too, can you?

Chocolate Hog
11-19-2012, 11:53 PM
meet the next president of the united states of america

A lady who pretended to be native American?

listopencil
11-20-2012, 12:20 AM
A lady who pretended to be native American?

Are you really trying to stir up those muddy waters again?

headsnap
11-20-2012, 05:13 AM
errr...Animal Farm, rather obviously.

yeah, I got that but his post was just another of his Difleckshuns...

headsnap
11-20-2012, 05:13 AM
meet the next president of the united states of america

is it racist if I called her a Chief?

go bowe
11-20-2012, 05:22 AM
is it racist if I called her a Chief?

nope, sounds good to me...

i think she may actually have some indian heritage, but not so much as a chief...

now that i think about it, calling someone a chief these days could be considered insulting... LMAO

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:23 AM
Orwell would be proud.

Of you.

okoye35chiefs
11-20-2012, 07:31 AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/12848_475564795827747_793819674_n.jpg


:thumb:

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 07:42 AM
is it racist if I called her a Chief?

Depends entirely if you're calling her that out of respect for the former mayor of Kansas City and by using that nickname you are just summoning his almighty powers.

Easy 6
11-20-2012, 07:49 AM
I agree with her quote.

Me too, there is nothing untrue about it.

JonesCrusher
11-20-2012, 07:51 AM
Me too, there is nothing untrue about it.

It is as true as the 47 % comment. Minus the public outrage.

Radar Chief
11-20-2012, 07:53 AM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

Apparently Chinese construction companies.

loochy
11-20-2012, 07:55 AM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

The roads would be built by a private entity financed by someone that would benefit from the existence of such roads.

Chiefspants
11-20-2012, 10:21 AM
The roads would be built by a private entity financed by someone that would benefit from the existence of such roads.

Infrastructure has always operated with equal fairness and reliability when in the hands of private entities.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 01:13 PM
Won't sombodies please think of the rodes!

LMAO The entitlement sector is so transparent it is sad.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 01:14 PM
Are you really trying to stir up those muddy waters again?

Reported.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 01:21 PM
Reported.

Reported for spurious reporting.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 01:24 PM
Reported for spurious reporting.

:cuss: hoisted by own petard

philfree
11-20-2012, 01:34 PM
People who live off the goverment don't pay taxes so they didn't help build anything.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 01:43 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

You ever hear of funding things via tariffs, excise tax or sales tax instead?

Then again, businesses built roads in the early days of our republic, and collected fees from other businesses who benefited being on them. It was a win/win deal. Kinda like how old TV used to be.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2012, 01:55 PM
People who live off the goverment don't pay taxes so they didn't help build anything.


They should be out maintaing and building roads while they have 99 weeks of unemployment. We could rename it "employment".

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:09 PM
I still haven't really seen a good counter argument to this quote other than "roads" and no explanation on what % of earnings should be taxed and why.

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 02:09 PM
They should be out maintaing and building roads while they have 99 weeks of unemployment. We could rename it "employment".

That is a brilliant idea sir. We would have plenty too, after the hostess workers take all the road workers jobs, then we'll have experience!!!

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 02:10 PM
I still haven't really seen a good counter argument to this quote other than "roads" and no explanation on what % of earnings should be taxed and why.

So who would be responsible for making sure everybody gets an education?

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:16 PM
So who would be responsible for making sure everybody gets an education?

ROFL the government has done a great job at that haven't they?

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:17 PM
I still haven't really seen a good counter argument to this quote other than "roads" and no explanation on what % of earnings should be taxed and why.

What should be done with children? They need to be clothed, fed, schooled, etc. and some parents can't or wont provide it.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:20 PM
So who would be responsible for making sure everybody gets an education?

The parents?

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:21 PM
What should be done with children? They need to be clothed, fed, schooled, etc. and some parents can't or wont provide it.

Charity.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:25 PM
Charity.

Great plan. You asked a question, but obviously you aren't serious about it.

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 02:26 PM
The parents?

and if they're stupid and have no money to educate?

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 02:26 PM
Great plan. You asked a question, but obviously you aren't serious about it.

Sounds like Little House on the Prairie

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:28 PM
Great plan. You asked a question, but obviously you aren't serious about it.

No I asked a question and gave you an answer that you didn't like.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:30 PM
and if they're stupid and have no money to educate?

Lots of private schools have programs that take poor children.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:30 PM
No I asked a question and gave you an answer that you didn't like.

I didn't "like" it, but the main problem is that it is a ridiculous answer.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2012, 02:30 PM
That is a brilliant idea sir. We would have plenty too, after the hostess workers take all the road workers jobs, then we'll have experience!!!

Hostess workers would be excellent running food service for the highway workers.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:31 PM
Lots of private schools have programs that take poor children.

As long as "lots" do - Problem solved!

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:31 PM
Sounds like Little House on the Prairie

This is par of the course for this board. I give an answer neither of you liked so instead of debating the answer given you attack it. I also find it hilarious how bout of you pretend like charity is some fictional thing. I'll be sure to remember that when the Salvation Army or Food for harvesters asks for donations.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:32 PM
I didn't "like" it, but the main problem is that it is a ridiculous answer.

It's a ridiculous answer how? I guess I shouldn't expect the guy making fun of Romney all over his profile to give a reasonable answer.

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 02:33 PM
No I asked a question and gave you an answer that you didn't like.

You answered your own question to your OP.

Nope. Nothing wrong with a system designed for the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer. Should we institute slavery again?

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:37 PM
It's a ridiculous answer how? I guess I shouldn't expect the guy making fun of Romney all over his profile to give a reasonable answer.

For starters, whether a child eats or not shouldn't be dependent on if a charity raised enough money that week.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:38 PM
You answered your own question to your OP.

Nope. Nothing wrong with a system designed for the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer. Should we institute slavery again?

Where was any of that mentioned?

ROFL what's the current system do? All I hear is how the gap between rich and poor has became greater while if you look at numbers more have became dependent on government. That totally contradicts your outrageous claim.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 02:40 PM
For starters, whether a child eats or not shouldn't be dependent on if a charity raised enough money that week.

Right government has done a great job with food stamps haven't the?

vailpass
11-20-2012, 02:40 PM
and if they're stupid and have no money to educate?

The world needs ditch diggers too.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 02:41 PM
You answered your own question to your OP.

Nope. Nothing wrong with a system designed for the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer. Should we institute slavery again?

I'm listening....

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:50 PM
Right government has done a great job with food stamps haven't the?

I see, you are going with the "if it is not perfect, then we have to reject the entire idea" argument. I fully acknowledge that there are problems with the current system, and I probably couldn't design one that didn't have potential for abuse. But I think that kids deserve to be clothed, housed, fed, educated, etc. And if someone games the system, try to fix it, but nothing's prefect.

Radar Chief
11-20-2012, 02:53 PM
The world needs ditch diggers too.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e91/howieneil/bth_waiting.jpg

LOCOChief
11-20-2012, 02:56 PM
I see, you are going with the "if it is not perfect, then we have to reject the entire idea" argument. I fully acknowledge that there are problems with the current system, and I probably couldn't design one that didn't have potential for abuse. But I think that kids deserve to be clothed, housed, fed, educated, etc. And if someone games the system, try to fix it, but nothing's prefect.

Cool as long as the parents of the “child in need” submits to drug testing and community service unless that's too much to ask of a parent that just wants to feed and clothe their child.

Direckshun
11-20-2012, 05:01 PM
I still haven't really seen a good counter argument to this quote other than "roads" and no explanation on what % of earnings should be taxed and why.

Thoughts on post #4?

Calcountry
11-20-2012, 05:11 PM
;)

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz226/Kind_Cromang/elizabeth-warren-social-contract.jpgThe government wants to exercise its sovereignty over roads and tax you by the mile driven next.

Calcountry
11-20-2012, 05:13 PM
So who would be responsible for making sure everybody gets an education?GEEE, now there is a word. Somebody, please, suck it up and take some will ya?

It's Bush's Fault.

lewdog
11-20-2012, 05:55 PM
Cool as long as the parents of the “child in need” submits to drug testing and community service unless that's too much to ask of a parent that just wants to feed and clothe their child.

And when that parent is too dumb and fails a drug test, we should punish those children who are hungry and cold because of their parents dumbness?

Xanathol
11-20-2012, 11:37 PM
These arguments always come down to 'who should pay for xyz', but the question really should be, 'why should all of us pay for xyz just because you want to pay for xyz?' If you want to contribute your money for social services, go right ahead - but leave mine alone.

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 01:33 AM
These arguments always come down to 'who should pay for xyz', but the question really should be, 'why should all of us pay for xyz just because you want to pay for xyz?' If you want to contribute your money for social services, go right ahead - but leave mine alone.

Because it would be fucked up not to. Kids deserve to eat, get healthcare, have a place to live, etc. You want to live here, you pitch in. Frankly, the places that don't do such things--you probably really wouldn't want to live there.

nstygma
11-21-2012, 02:01 AM
Because it would be ****ed up not to. Kids deserve to eat, get healthcare, have a place to live, etc. You want to live here, you pitch in. Frankly, the places that don't do such things--you probably really wouldn't want to live there.whose job is it to instill discipline?

Chiefspants
11-21-2012, 02:12 AM
Charity.

Lol.

Chocolate Hog
11-21-2012, 10:11 AM
Thoughts on post #4?

Seems like suffering would guide people towards trying to be productive the difference between here and pick a shitty country is people here have opportunity. I find it laughable delusional thinkers such as J Diddy and that other troll with anti-Romney shit in his profile think opportunity comes from government food stamps and that those kinds of handouts are enough to take care of people.

Xanathol
11-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Because it would be ****ed up not to. Kids deserve to eat, get healthcare, have a place to live, etc. You want to live here, you pitch in. Frankly, the places that don't do such things--you probably really wouldn't want to live there.
You are more than free to give all of your money to whatever cause you want - you are not, however, free to give my money to your causes.

Let's be honest about this - you're harping on a 'feed the children' campaign but the reality isn't that children are homeless & hungry, or that all of us are paying for them. The truth in America today is that some of us ( those who work ) are paying for a shit ton of those that don't work - not because they are poor, forgotten children, but because they are lazy / dumb / on drugs / whatever and find it easier to vote themselves other people's money than to get off their ass and make their own. You're trying to paint a picture that isn't there to make your point that doesn't exist.

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 10:40 AM
;)

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz226/Kind_Cromang/elizabeth-warren-social-contract.jpg

The wisdom of this post will be wasted on delusional douchebags on the "self-reliance" lunatic fringe.

Their retarded redneck response is ususally something like, "Well, I ain't signed no damn contract!" Well, it's implied via citizenship. Dimwit.

If you'd prefer a one-way ticket to Afghanistan or Somalia...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. See ya!

listopencil
11-21-2012, 10:45 AM
You are more than free to give all of your money to whatever cause you want - you are not, however, free to give my money to your causes.

Let's be honest about this - you're harping on a 'feed the children' campaign but the reality isn't that children are homeless & hungry, or that all of us are paying for them. The truth in America today is that some of us ( those who work ) are paying for a shit ton of those that don't work - not because they are poor, forgotten children, but because they are lazy / dumb / on drugs / whatever and find it easier to vote themselves other people's money than to get off their ass and make their own. You're trying to paint a picture that isn't there to make your point that doesn't exist.

So...you don't believe that there are homeless or hungry children in this country?

JonesCrusher
11-21-2012, 10:57 AM
The wisdom of this post will be wasted on delusional douchebags on the "self-reliance" lunatic fringe.

Their retarded redneck response is ususally something like, "Well, I ain't signed no damn contract!" Well, it's implied via citizenship. Dimwit.

If you'd prefer a one-way ticket to Afghanistan or Somalia...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. See ya!

The problem most have with the Warren quote is that it implies that businesses currently pay nothing and it is time to start fulfilling their social contract. What should have been said is thank you for the roads we drive on but we kinda blew a shitload of money on waste and fraud and if we are going to keep this bottomless bucket of money mentality we will need a few more dollars please.

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 11:05 AM
The problem most have with the Warren quote is that it implies that businesses currently pay nothing and it is time to start fulfilling their social contract....

It implies nothing of the sort; businesses certainly do NOT pay for all that they benefit from--and nothing close to it. Sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and others....disproportionately paid by poor, working, and middle class citizens pay for much of those costs.

Asking those who benefit, disproportionately, to pay in a progressive fashion...has been the reasonable law of the land since the early 20th century. Only the precise degree of progressivity was questioned. During the last thirty years, plutocrats have bought politicians (the nonstop rhetoric of never-ending tax cuts) and coerced a reversal of those principles that built our great nation--a reversal that, now, threatens that same nation's future.

JonesCrusher
11-21-2012, 11:18 AM
It implies nothing of the sort; businesses certainly do NOT pay for all that they benefit from--and nothing close to it. Sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and others....disproportionately paid by poor, working, and middle class citizens pay for much of those costs.

Asking those who benefit, disproportionately, to pay in a progressive fashion...has been the reasonable law of the land since the early 20th century. Only the precise degree of progressivity was questioned. During the last thirty years, have plutocrats bought politicians (the nonstop rhetoric of never-ending tax cuts) and coerced a reversal of those principles that built our great nation--a reversal that, now threatens that same nation's future.

Agreed, the poor and middle class do make a lot of money, by all means keep a big hunk of it, but part of their underlying social contract is to pay it forward.

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 11:23 AM
Agreed, the poor and middle class do make a lot of money, by all means keep a big hunk of it, but part of their underlying social contract is to pay it forward.

And statistics on TOTAL tax burden (not the disingenuous GOP demagoguery of focusing on only federal income taxes--the "47%") indicate that, they indeed do...inf fact, they pay a higher per cent of their total income in a variety of taxes than the upper 5% do. But, of course, that doesn't serve the class warfare rhetoric of the plutocrats and dittoheads.

JonesCrusher
11-21-2012, 11:40 AM
And statistics on TOTAL tax burden (not the disingenuous GOP demagoguery of focusing on only federal income taxes--the "47%") indicate that, they indeed do...inf fact, they pay a higher per cent of their total income in a variety of taxes than the upper 5% do. But, of course, that doesn't serve the class warfare rhetoric of the plutocrats and dittoheads.

Okay, I never said they didn't. I, like Warren, was just making a vague comment designed to fuel class warfare.

2bikemike
11-21-2012, 12:05 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

Another Business with money provided by the earnings from taxes which are paid by other Businesses and the employees of other businesses.

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 12:13 PM
You are more than free to give all of your money to whatever cause you want - you are not, however, free to give my money to your causes.

Let's be honest about this - you're harping on a 'feed the children' campaign but the reality isn't that children are homeless & hungry, or that all of us are paying for them. The truth in America today is that some of us ( those who work ) are paying for a shit ton of those that don't work - not because they are poor, forgotten children, but because they are lazy / dumb / on drugs / whatever and find it easier to vote themselves other people's money than to get off their ass and make their own. You're trying to paint a picture that isn't there to make your point that doesn't exist.

So, you appear to be saying that there aren't children in need of housing, food, etc. And you're complaining about having to pay into a social welfare system. I think you are proving my point.

Chocolate Hog
11-21-2012, 12:18 PM
The wisdom of this post will be wasted on delusional douchebags on the "self-reliance" lunatic fringe.

Their retarded redneck response is ususally something like, "Well, I ain't signed no damn contract!" Well, it's implied via citizenship. Dimwit.

If you'd prefer a one-way ticket to Afghanistan or Somalia...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. See ya!

Irony.

Xanathol
11-21-2012, 12:32 PM
So...you don't believe that there are homeless or hungry children in this country?I don't believe that there are enough of them to demand even a slim percentage of the taxes we currently pay, much less more. But if we keep down this path, maybe there will be!

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 12:47 PM
I don't believe that there are enough of them to demand even a slim percentage of the taxes we currently pay, much less more. But if we keep down this path, maybe there will be!

So you're for a social welfare system, with some changes. Socialist!

listopencil
11-21-2012, 01:06 PM
I don't believe that there are enough of them to demand even a slim percentage of the taxes we currently pay, much less more. But if we keep down this path, maybe there will be!

Our taxes don't only go to feeding and clothing children. If you mean that the portion of our taxes that is supposed to go towards needy children isn't always spent in an efficient manner I agree with you. It is always going to be like that. We will err on the side of overspending because the alternative is horrible. We also try to keep families together so that money (typically) gets paid to the parents/guardians of those children. Yes it's a fucked up system. Because it's a fucked up world. I'm not willing to eliminate social programs just because they aren't operating at maximum efficiency.

Direckshun
11-21-2012, 01:13 PM
Seems like suffering would guide people towards trying to be productive the difference between here and pick a shitty country is people here have opportunity.

How is that a response to post #4?

patteeu
11-21-2012, 01:16 PM
And statistics on TOTAL tax burden (not the disingenuous GOP demagoguery of focusing on only federal income taxes--the "47%") indicate that, they indeed do...inf fact, they pay a higher per cent of their total income in a variety of taxes than the upper 5% do. But, of course, that doesn't serve the class warfare rhetoric of the plutocrats and dittoheads.

Lumping payroll taxes in with income taxes ignores the fact that SS and Medicare are intended to be standalone, self-financing systems through which the ratio of input (taxes) and outflow (benefits) are separately maintained. High income folks only contribute a pittance to those programs because their benefits are only a pittance (in percentage terms of course).

There's no reason to combine the two for this type of analysis. If we're going to do that, let's just get rid of payroll taxes and accept the implied reality that SS and Medicare are evolving into welfare programs instead of the insurance/forced pensions they were originally intended to be.

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 02:18 PM
Lumping payroll taxes in with income taxes ignores the fact that SS and Medicare are intended to be standalone, self-financing systems through which the ratio of input (taxes) and outflow (benefits) are separately maintained. High income folks only contribute a pittance to those programs because their benefits are only a pittance (in percentage terms of course).

There's no reason to combine the two for this type of analysis. If we're going to do that, let's just get rid of payroll taxes and accept the implied reality that SS and Medicare are evolving into welfare programs instead of the insurance/forced pensions they were originally intended to be.

What about sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and countless other state and local taxes that are incredibly regressive....that poor, working, and middle class folks foks pay, that represent a much larger share of their income than the top 5% pay as a percent of their income? SS and Medicare are only a part of the picture...again, we should be focused on total tax burden, as a percent of income.

instead of getting rid of payroll taxes and, instead, addressing the reality of SS and Medicare as popularly backed programs that serve as a insurance/forced pension program, yes....but which should be funded by taxes collected on all income, instead of just income below certain caps. Remove the caps, and....magically, solvency of those programs improves substantially. Over-night.

patteeu
11-21-2012, 04:53 PM
What about sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and countless other state and local taxes that are incredibly regressive....that poor, working, and middle class folks foks pay, that represent a much larger share of their income than the top 5% pay as a percent of their income? SS and Medicare are only a part of the picture...again, we should be focused on total tax burden, as a percent of income.

instead of getting rid of payroll taxes and, instead, addressing the reality of SS and Medicare as popularly backed programs that serve as a insurance/forced pension program, yes....but which should be funded by taxes collected on all income, instead of just income below certain caps. Remove the caps, and....magically, solvency of those programs improves substantially. Over-night.

Payroll taxes are a big part of the picture for people trying to make the case that the overall system is flat or regressive.

I think the other taxes you mention should be included in your analysis, but I think it makes more sense in many cases to discuss overall federal tax load/distribution and overall state tax load/distribution seperately.

Your second paragraph is, again, a call to transform SS and Medicare into welfare programs. The further down that path you push things, the more they will become resented and ultimately subject to the same political forces that "ended welfare as we know it" during the Clinton administration, IMO.

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 06:00 PM
Payroll taxes are a big part of the picture for people trying to make the case that the overall system is flat or regressive.

I think the other taxes you mention should be included in your analysis, but I think it makes more sense in many cases to discuss overall federal tax load/distribution and overall state tax load/distribution seperately.

Your second paragraph is, again, a call to transform SS and Medicare into welfare programs. The further down that path you push things, the more they will become resented and ultimately subject to the same political forces that "ended welfare as we know it" during the Clinton administration, IMO.

Payroll taxes are, indeed, regressive; that's why the caps on them should be removed. I don't even necessarily disagree that federal taxes should be discussed separately, because personally I do think everyone--even the poor and lower middle class folks who pay nothing now, SHOULD pay at least some symbolic amount (if for no other reason than to take away this silly 47% pay nothing demagoguerous bullcrap.)

Truthfully, everyone should pay something. However, given the bipartisan support in the past for the current structure and the "earned income" tax credit travesty...if push comes to shove, I expect a whole lot of supply siders realize that is money that is spent, quickly, in our economy--and thus, doubt it would be repealed. I'd like to be wrong about that though. Seriously.

Whether or not you or I like it (perhaps surprisingly, I don't either) SS and Medicare have become a sort social welfare program--though it is one that is funded by the primary participants themselves. That's why the idea that it will become 'resented' like true welfare is wrong, IMO; if anything, among all but the top 5-10% or so...it's become an intregal part of retirement planning. Again, I don't like that--but I live in the real world. It is what it is.

Thus a more constructive approach to fixing that reality would be securing the financial solvency of the programs; removing the current caps is a good starting point. However, means-testing (especially after payback for contributions + reasonable 'interest',) raising retirement ages, and allowing for more generous "working income" while retired or semi-retired should also be on the table IMHO.

FTR, this could (in a best case scenario) be an incremental step toward true tax reform, because I think once SS and Medicare and other popular and reasonable entitlements are secured....then, and only then, could we have a fair and even-handed debate over more radical tax reform--such as a flat tax or similar proposals, that could look more reasonable once the class warfare rhetoric and security for the working class are put to rest. FWIW, some libertarian-fiscal conservative Republican who would offer such a vision....could win the support of most Americans--including me.

patteeu
11-21-2012, 06:50 PM
Payroll taxes are, indeed, regressive; that's why the caps on them should be removed. I don't even necessarily disagree that federal taxes should be discussed separately, because personally I do think everyone--even the poor and lower middle class folks who pay nothing now, SHOULD pay at least some symbolic amount (if for no other reason than to take away this silly 47% pay nothing demagoguerous bullcrap.)

No, the SS system is progressive as it is. People with lower incomes get way more than their share as an input percentage back out again. People with higher incomes get way less than their share as an input percentage back out again.

There's no reason to transform Medicare into a welfare program other than the fact that our politicians have so far refused to address the real problem with health care, rapidly rising costs.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 06:55 PM
I agree with her quote.

As do I whole heartedly

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 07:25 PM
No, the SS system is progressive as it is. People with lower incomes get way more than their share as an input percentage back out again. People with higher incomes get way less than their share as an input percentage back out again.

There's no reason to transform Medicare into a welfare program other than the fact that our politicians have so far refused to address the real problem with health care, rapidly rising costs.

Are you serious....SS "progressive?" Lower income people get more as a percentage of contributions, of course; the REAL issue is ability to pay, and percentage of income contributed, which is why the current set-up is big time regressive (benefitting those with higher incomes more.)

The reason for making Medicare/SS into a social welfare program is expectations of current Americans--it already is, and politically it simply is NOT possible at this point to pull that rug out from under the majority of Americans.

I tried to toss you some bones....means testing, raising retirement ages, allowing for more working income, but....surprise, surprise....you opted the reverse class-warfare model expoused by plutocrats. I'm shocked.

RaiderH8r
11-21-2012, 08:46 PM
I agree with her quote.

The other part of that social contract is that everybody owes it to themselves and to the society that supports them to d their level best. If they don't then fuck them because they are stealing from those that produce as well as those who truly need help.

CoMoChief
11-21-2012, 08:54 PM
For starters, who is going to build the roads we drive on?

The state govt

Mr. Kotter
11-21-2012, 10:36 PM
The other part of that social contract is that everybody owes it to themselves and to the society that supports them to d their level best. If they don't then **** them because they are stealing from those that produce as well as those who truly need help.

Nope. Somewhere along the way....you confused American founding fathers with Marx, Lennin, and Stalin. "From each according to his ability, to each according to need," may be a RWNJ lunatic fringe curse--but it sure ain't real America.

The real irony is that RWNJ lunatic fringe types don't understand that....the social contract in our Democratic Republic requires just that--the difference being, that our system encourages our own volition (freedom, liberty, etc), whereas the bad guys coerce it through the threat and power of coercion by big, bad government. Except too many today mistake our freedom for a boogeyman of big, bad government that cannot even be imagined by the realities of American life...if one is remotely lucid. Of course, that is part of the issue though. Heh.

listopencil
11-22-2012, 01:01 AM
The other part of that social contract is that everybody owes it to themselves and to the society that supports them to d their level best. If they don't then **** them because they are stealing from those that produce as well as those who truly need help.

I think the other part of it is to make sure that we have an economic system that rewards production. Rather than how you phrased it, I would say that our society owes it to its producers to do its level best to only take what is absolutely necessary and to do so in a fair manner.

mlyonsd
11-22-2012, 06:59 AM
The problem most have with the Warren quote is that it implies that businesses currently pay nothing and it is time to start fulfilling their social contract. What should have been said is thank you for the roads we drive on but we kinda blew a shitload of money on waste and fraud and if we are going to keep this bottomless bucket of money mentality we will need a few more dollars please.
Nailed it.

patteeu
11-22-2012, 07:37 AM
Are you serious....SS "progressive?" Lower income people get more as a percentage of contributions, of course; the REAL issue is ability to pay, and percentage of income contributed, which is why the current set-up is big time regressive (benefitting those with higher incomes more.)

No, that's not the real issue. The real issue is what does the program look like from a comprehensive pov. That's tough to do with the general fund taxes and discretionary spending because it's hard to apportion benefits, but it's not tough to do with SS.

The reason for making Medicare/SS into a social welfare program is expectations of current Americans--it already is, and politically it simply is NOT possible at this point to pull that rug out from under the majority of Americans.

That's evidence that I'm right not that I'm wrong. To the extent that some people already see it as welfare (and from my pov, your assessment is seriously overblown), it's because the solvency fix that took place under Reagan has already pushed it in that direction. The next round of solvency fixes will push the program even further down the road and erode even more of it's support.

I completely agree that it's not possible to pull the rug out from under some Americans (the ones who are at or near retirement age and have based their financial plans on it's availability).

I tried to toss you some bones....means testing, raising retirement ages, allowing for more working income, but....surprise, surprise....you opted the reverse class-warfare model expoused by plutocrats. I'm shocked.

You're not shocked, you're just dumb. I neither embraced nor rejected your bones. I've been talking about the degree of progressivity/regressivity in the system and what the likely impact of making these programs solvent through some of the means you've described will be.

gonefishin53
11-22-2012, 08:08 AM
So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

tiptap
11-22-2012, 10:12 AM
Marginal Capitalism. You have to provide a universal level of the necessities: food, water, education and health to a population. Money/ownership is not paramount and the source for an economy. People are. No people, no economy. And when you insist upon one manner of economy and value you are wedded to an ideology whatever that ideology is. And no single ideology can correctly cover all situations.

mlyonsd
11-22-2012, 10:44 AM
So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

That's plan B. Storm all the rich folk's mansions and raid their refrigerators.

CoMoChief
11-22-2012, 02:37 PM
and if they're stupid and have no money to educate?

Not anyone's problem but their own.

ROYC75
11-23-2012, 12:05 PM
So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

Liberal response would be , Uh, the road builders and farmers. We will tax you more,tax and spend is all we do.