DougH 270 #76 October 16, 2009 Quote Thanks for once again bringing in another ad hominem and adding nothing. I did bring something to the discussion, you made the claim that fiscal responsibility is not possible because of the distribution of wealth. 93% in the top 20%. What is the break down of that 93%? Where is that money residing?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #77 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty Source: Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003 What is it with you guys and Heritage? Do you think it's not an agenda site. I realize you walk around with your Walkman on, at work with your radio, with your car radio on the Limbaugh/Hanity network, but do yourself a favor and try to expand your horizons. If I posted a Moveon.org you would be all over me. I don't look at agenda sites so I won't bother looking it up, but that article, if even partially true, doesn't explain why some poor people are underemployed. Get real and do research from indep sites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #78 October 16, 2009 QuoteGet real and do research from indep sites. If you don't like my sources please feel free to provide refuting data from the sites that you feel are independent. I provided a secondary source that was based on US census data on property ownership and living conditions for the relative poor that I thought was interesting and relevant. Can you please tell me what your definition of poor is?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #79 October 16, 2009 QuoteI did bring something to the discussion, you made the claim that fiscal responsibility is not possible because of the distribution of wealth. 93% in the top 20%. Look, I don't care, but you made some personal implication.... move along, post data and other reference and quit the personalization; my feelings aren't hurt, I just hate to see people wiggle out of a debate over BS. QuoteWhat is the break down of that 93%? Where is that money residing? Welcome to the world of objecctive data, I won't post some agendda site, hope that's ok. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm Here's a video tutorial of the L-curve. I like the last statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU Here's a good graphic: http://markpalermo.tripod.com/id39.html Here's a cool 3D bar chart that depicts 5% from 95% taxes, population and wealth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #80 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteGet real and do research from indep sites. If you don't like my sources please feel free to provide refuting data from the sites that you feel are independent. I provided a secondary source that was based on US census data on property ownership and living conditions for the relative poor that I thought was interesting and relevant. Can you please tell me what your definition of poor is? You posted a RW Nazi site that is constantly perpetuated by Limbaugh, Hannity and other compassionate individuals. Yes, I'm not like conservatives, I actually listen to opposing sources. Not only that but it was a fragment of a point. If you have something to claim, pls do and I would be glad to entertain it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #81 October 16, 2009 This will explain how when we let the rich get uber-wealthy things go to shit: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html Main Causes of the Great Depression The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. So let's see, taxes hit a top bracket of 25%, wealth disparity hit record levels, and the GD ensued. Of course Hoover cut taxes, his friends and wanted to let the market fix it, which made it worse and 12 million died. Then he realized he fucked up and cranked taxes to a top bracket of 63% his last year and things immediately turned around. Fast FWD to Reagan's dream, another depression. He cut taxes over 3 increments from 70% to 28% which led to a long recession for GHWB to contend with. Of course the answer was to increase taxes which he and Clinton did and things finally became under control again. Enter G Dumbya. He cut taxes as well, only to 35% but that and with his massive spending things went to hell again. How many times do we have to pander ot the rich and cut the top brackets below 50% before we get it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #82 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteI did bring something to the discussion, you made the claim that fiscal responsibility is not possible because of the distribution of wealth. 93% in the top 20%. Look, I don't care, but you made some personal implication.... move along, post data and other reference and quit the personalization; my feelings aren't hurt, I just hate to see people wiggle out of a debate over BS. QuoteWhat is the break down of that 93%? Where is that money residing? Welcome to the world of objecctive data, I won't post some agendda site, hope that's ok. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm Here's a video tutorial of the L-curve. I like the last statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU Here's a good graphic: http://markpalermo.tripod.com/id39.html Here's a cool 3D bar chart that depicts 5% from 95% taxes, population and wealth. Impressive, the first round of google results. I read those too. Maybe I should point out that the first source you deem independent has 20% of the population holding 84% of the wealth, not 96%. What backs up your claim of 96%? http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf I find it interested to look at the wealth distribution for the top 1% which holds 34% of wealth. 10% of that wealth is equity in their principle residence. Property taxes are one of the key areas that wealth is taxed, not income, arguably some of that wealth is likely sheltered by "working farmsteads" etc. But this is wealth that is hit with taxes to some extent every year. 5.1% is in liquid assets... bank acounts, csv of life insurance, money market fund. All wealth that is in the money supply. 26.9% is in corporate stock. 49% is in unincorporated business assets. I would argue that only the government can distribute wealth, so that 34% was earned. Some portion of it was taxed since this is an accumulation of earnings. It really appears to me, that the wealth of even the top 1% is active in the economy, and creating value and economic growth. Your problem seems to hinge on the fact that they still hold possesion to a good deal of the wealth that they earned."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #83 October 16, 2009 QuoteSo the fact that poverty is still a problem isn't enough evidence to prove that the programs to eliminate it aren't effective? … 1969: ~12.5% 2007: ~12.5% The programs are not intended to eliminate poverty. They are intended to keep the poor people spending money in the economy so that the problem of poverty does not increase and spread. It looks like it's been working to do just that.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #84 October 16, 2009 Quote http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuote My personal responsibilities extend further than just myself and my family. I have personal responsibilities to society, as well. You're confusing personal responsibility and social responsibility. Personal responsibility and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #86 October 16, 2009 Quote The programs are not intended to eliminate poverty. They are intended to keep the poor people spending money in the economy so that the problem of poverty does not increase and spread. It looks like it's been working to do just that. Ok I will put aside my belief that these people are relatively poor, not the homeless hungry that most imagine Would their spending decrease if these programs actually lowered the level of poverty? Would their economic contribution decrease? If the programs are not intended to eliminate poverty, only to keep a level of spending, what exactly is the point? Who spends more, a poor person on social welfare programs, or a middle class person? Who contributes more to GDP?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #87 October 16, 2009 QuoteIf the programs are not intended to eliminate poverty, only to keep a level of spending, what exactly is the point? To keep everybody spending and contributing to the economy. QuoteWho spends more, a poor person on social welfare programs, or a middle class person? Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 October 16, 2009 Quote Quote http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. Don't forget the tripod site, too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo the fact that poverty is still a problem isn't enough evidence to prove that the programs to eliminate it aren't effective? … 1969: ~12.5% 2007: ~12.5% The programs are not intended to eliminate poverty. They are intended to keep the poor people spending money in the economy so that the problem of poverty does not increase and spread. It looks like it's been working to do just that. LBJ declared a "war on poverty." Wars are about elimination, not maintaining the status quo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 October 16, 2009 Quote Look what preceded the Great Depression, the 1990 Recession and the now Great Recession. The commonalities were the max tax bracket hitting the 20's%age or now the mid 30's. I think 94% is a but harsh, but 50-60% is reasonable along with responsible spending. Clinton had it at 40% with responsible spending; I think 50% is a good place to be. Of course Reagan initially took it from 70% tp 50%, but it was the spending that was the devil, this is referred to as spending based upon GDP and I guess we have to factor in taxation too. SO it's a dynamic process, but when taxation gets in the 30's we're asking for it, in the 20's it's imminent, my friends. Ah, more simple theories. So with your thesis, is it the marginal tax rate that matters, or just the marginal federal income tax rate? In CA, you tack on 9.6% more. If you can itemize, the effective rate is closer to 6%. And then sales tax is 9.X percent. So that adds another 5-6% to the true marginal rate. So 50% federal means more like 60%. And let's not forget the 12% dumped into the 401k because SS isn't a reliable or even intended form of retirement. So now I'm down to about 28% of my earnings. Yeah, that will encourage work. Quote Oh that's sooo clever. I'm in that group of the lower 80% that holds 7% of the cash, so I just don't have much. How about if I make it to the upper 20% and then we'll talk....what's that? Class mobility is virtually gone in the US? I know, so don't hold your breath for me making it there in this lifetime. Indeed, I see no reason to believe that you will make it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #91 October 16, 2009 Quote Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more. Yeah, because 25% of my income generates so-many-more jobs than 1% of Bill Gates income ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 October 16, 2009 QuoteImpressive, the first round of google results. I read those too. Then why ask me to do your research? Ridiculous. QuoteMaybe I should point out that the first source you deem independent has 20% of the population holding 84% of the wealth, not 96%. What backs up your claim of 96%? http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf I didn't make a claim of 96%, I made a claim of 93%. Furthermore, I claimed the top 20% held 93% of the cash, not of the wealth. I asserted in this thread or another, very recently that the top 20% holds 85% of all wealth; do you know the difference? Is this hard for you to keep up with? QuoteI find it interested to look at the wealth distribution for the top 1% which holds 34% of wealth. Quote OK, other than being maldistributed, why interesting? 10% of that wealth is equity in their principle residence. Property taxes are one of the key areas that wealth is taxed, not income, arguably some of that wealth is likely sheltered by "working farmsteads" etc. But this is wealth that is hit with taxes to some extent every year.Quote OK and with capital gains if they sell and profit; what's your point? I would argue that only the government can distribute wealth, so that 34% was earned. Some portion of it was taxed since this is an accumulation of earnings. Quote Not necessarily, it could be inherited or acquired other ways. It really appears to me, that the wealth of even the top 1% is active in the economy, and creating value and economic growth. Quote It appears this is your main point, not very assertive, as it's very passive and based upon a guess, but I'll address it. Whether the top earners have their wealth active or not, the spiraling affect is upwards and ends with virtuaally all the wealth being stuck up top. It might be better to have the rich stangnate their wealth if activity only ends up slewing the wealth distriution more. The only way the system works, fair or not, is when the gov sets the top bracket at at least 50%. Look at the worst times and what do we see? The top bracket set to the 20's %-wise. Even teh 30's are dangerous. Of course there are many other factors, but the brackets have been all over and only until they hit the 20's we know we are in for hell, my friends. Your problem seems to hinge on the fact that they still hold possesion to a good deal of the wealth that they earned.*** I don't give a shit if it was earned, borrowed, stolen or conveyed, when we lower tehtables to teh 30's we're asking for it, 20's we're dead. Can you argue that?????? Or just ignore it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #93 October 16, 2009 QuoteLBJ declared a "war on poverty." Wars are about elimination, not maintaining the status quo. Wars are not always for elimination. They are to obtain desired political end states. Presidents seem to like to declare a "War on insert noun here" without actually offering tools to eliminate anything.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #94 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf the programs are not intended to eliminate poverty, only to keep a level of spending, what exactly is the point? To keep everybody spending and contributing to the economy. QuoteWho spends more, a poor person on social welfare programs, or a middle class person? Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more. GDP isn't a relative number. Telling me that a poor person spends more realtive to their income is dancing around the point. Who spends more? Who contributes more? You can mold a social program to keep poor people spending, or you can model it to promote social and economic mobility. Both result in spending."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #95 October 16, 2009 QuoteGDP isn't a relative number. Telling me that a poor person spends more realtive to their income is dancing around the point. No, it is the most important aspect of the point. What matters is what percentage of money that is being received is being put back into the economy. QuoteWho spends more? Who contributes more? Relative to their income, the poor spend more. That's why trickle down economics do not work.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #96 October 16, 2009 Quote Quote http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. Is that author liberal? I dunno, I look at the page to see if it is obviously liberal or conservative and then go fwd if not. Strike it if it's too far either way. The point I was making with that article, THE ONLY POINT was that as taxes were cut to 25% in the late 1920's, the top .1% held what was = to the entire lower 40%. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st289?pg=3 Here they reference the gross disparity with the top .1%, but don't say what they owned. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-118956255/top-wealth-shares-united.html Here again they talk about the top 0.1% This dramatic decline took place at a very specific time period, from the onset of Great Depression to the end of World War II, and was concentrated in the very top groups within the top percentile, namely groups within the top 0.1 percent. Changes in the top percentile below the top 0.1 percent have been much more modest. It is fairly easy to understand why the shocks of the Great Depression, the New Deal policies which increased dramatically the burden of estate and income taxation for the wealthy, and World War II, could have had such a dramatic impact on wealth concentration. Here's another site that depicts the great disparity at the .01% level. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10399 So that was the purpose of that cite, which, if a lib agenda site, I don't think it is, but these clarify and support that piece of data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #97 October 16, 2009 Quote Ah, more simple theories. So with your thesis, is it the marginal tax rate that matters, or just the marginal federal income tax rate? If you botherd to read, you would see I stated that other factors are relevant, but one thing that is sure, when we hit the 30's we're in danger, the 20's we're dead. Show otherwise. Quote In CA, you tack on 9.6% more. If you can itemize, the effective rate is closer to 6%. And then sales tax is 9.X percent. So that adds another 5-6% to the true marginal rate. I'm talking fed tax Quote So 50% federal means more like 60%. State taxes are diff than fed and some states do not have those. You're desperate to pad the number. Quote And let's not forget the 12% dumped into the 401k because SS isn't a reliable or even intended form of retirement. Whne has it failed? It will be supplemented with some system. Saving 12% in your account cannot be considered a tax in any intelligent arguemnt. Quote So now I'm down to about 28% of my earnings. Yeah, that will encourage work. Don't forget to add that vacation ot Europe, have to expand your global awareness and that should be considered part of it. And that Italian sportscar, hey, just trying to love our neighbor and help their economy, we'll tack that on too. YOU'RE DESPERATE. I'm not trying to encourage work with this issue, that's a different issue. So I guess with your logic Americans in 1929 were lazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #98 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteAny thoughts on the other questions? They are actually the more interesting ones. I've answered them previously, but … >If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? It helps them specifically by allowing them such things as food and shelter. It also keeps money moving in the economy, which benefits everyone. Okay, but assuming the poor people seek food and shelter by shopping at Walmart and renting a place, that money quickly ends up back in the hands of rich people. You said yourself money flows from poor to rich. A month later we're right where we started. This may be okay if continued forever, but there may be sustainability issues, and I also may be losing sight of the goal. Does simply keeping people alive actually empower them in any way? I don't think "horrible economic times" stem from a simple uneven distribution of wealth. I think horrible economic times come from bubbles bursting. Situations where a relatively small group reel the masses into an unsustainable economic construct. This can take on any number of forms, and it's not always as obvious as the lead up to the dot-com bust or the housing market collapse. What does this have to do with social programs? Quite simply, I don't accept solutions (public or private) where everyone wins and the possibility that such a system may suffer a collapse in the future isn't addressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #99 October 16, 2009 QuoteOkay, but assuming the poor people seek food and shelter by shopping at Walmart and renting a place, that money quickly ends up back in the hands of rich people. Yes, the profits go back to Walmart. However, the money also goes to pay wages, suppliers, etc. A gain, some profit will come off the top and be diverted to the holders of the capital. Other portions will again go to pay for labor and supplies. QuoteYou said yourself money flows from poor to rich. Right. You offered an example of such. QuoteA month later we're right where we started. This may be okay if continued forever, but there may be sustainability issues, and I also may be losing sight of the goal. Social welfare exists primarily for the benefit of the whole of society, not just for the benefit of those receiving it. For example, unemployment insurance doesn't exist to offer incentive for not working (it has a limited duration to offer incentive to go back to work), it exists to make sure those who find themselves unemployed continue spending money in the economy to prevent the effects of the negative feedback loop that would otherwise be realized. I.e. Some people lose their jobs. They no longer spend the money they were spending while working. Companies realize reduced profits, and more people lose their jobs. People who still have jobs start worrying about their own job security and reduce their spending in order to prepare for their own potential job loss. Their reduced spending further reduces profits for companies, leading to more lost jobs. It becomes a vicious cycle. QuoteDoes simply keeping people alive actually empower them in any way? As opposed to what, allowing them to die? If those are the choices, then it empowers them by giving them the chance to recover and become a more productive member of society. QuoteI don't think "horrible economic times" stem from a simple uneven distribution of wealth. I think horrible economic times come from bubbles bursting. Define horrible. QuoteQuite simply, I don't accept solutions (public or private) where everyone wins and the possibility that such a system may suffer a collapse in the future isn't addressed. I don't see anyone proposing a system in which everyone wins. However, it would be naïve to believe that economic winners don't win at the expense of economic losers. Since winning and losing are concepts relative to each other, without some sort of safety net for those who lose, the group of winners grows smaller and smaller. It is the safety nets that allow a capitalist market to be generally sustainable.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #100 October 17, 2009 [reply You seems to favor putting a greater load on the more successful to cover the asses or those who are not. Meaning you define responsibility as that towards others and not themselves. , Here are a few of those very successful people of whom you write. www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/17insider.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #93 October 16, 2009 QuoteLBJ declared a "war on poverty." Wars are about elimination, not maintaining the status quo. Wars are not always for elimination. They are to obtain desired political end states. Presidents seem to like to declare a "War on insert noun here" without actually offering tools to eliminate anything.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #94 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf the programs are not intended to eliminate poverty, only to keep a level of spending, what exactly is the point? To keep everybody spending and contributing to the economy. QuoteWho spends more, a poor person on social welfare programs, or a middle class person? Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more. GDP isn't a relative number. Telling me that a poor person spends more realtive to their income is dancing around the point. Who spends more? Who contributes more? You can mold a social program to keep poor people spending, or you can model it to promote social and economic mobility. Both result in spending."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #95 October 16, 2009 QuoteGDP isn't a relative number. Telling me that a poor person spends more realtive to their income is dancing around the point. No, it is the most important aspect of the point. What matters is what percentage of money that is being received is being put back into the economy. QuoteWho spends more? Who contributes more? Relative to their income, the poor spend more. That's why trickle down economics do not work.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #96 October 16, 2009 Quote Quote http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6854/greatdep.html I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. Is that author liberal? I dunno, I look at the page to see if it is obviously liberal or conservative and then go fwd if not. Strike it if it's too far either way. The point I was making with that article, THE ONLY POINT was that as taxes were cut to 25% in the late 1920's, the top .1% held what was = to the entire lower 40%. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st289?pg=3 Here they reference the gross disparity with the top .1%, but don't say what they owned. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-118956255/top-wealth-shares-united.html Here again they talk about the top 0.1% This dramatic decline took place at a very specific time period, from the onset of Great Depression to the end of World War II, and was concentrated in the very top groups within the top percentile, namely groups within the top 0.1 percent. Changes in the top percentile below the top 0.1 percent have been much more modest. It is fairly easy to understand why the shocks of the Great Depression, the New Deal policies which increased dramatically the burden of estate and income taxation for the wealthy, and World War II, could have had such a dramatic impact on wealth concentration. Here's another site that depicts the great disparity at the .01% level. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10399 So that was the purpose of that cite, which, if a lib agenda site, I don't think it is, but these clarify and support that piece of data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 October 16, 2009 Quote Ah, more simple theories. So with your thesis, is it the marginal tax rate that matters, or just the marginal federal income tax rate? If you botherd to read, you would see I stated that other factors are relevant, but one thing that is sure, when we hit the 30's we're in danger, the 20's we're dead. Show otherwise. Quote In CA, you tack on 9.6% more. If you can itemize, the effective rate is closer to 6%. And then sales tax is 9.X percent. So that adds another 5-6% to the true marginal rate. I'm talking fed tax Quote So 50% federal means more like 60%. State taxes are diff than fed and some states do not have those. You're desperate to pad the number. Quote And let's not forget the 12% dumped into the 401k because SS isn't a reliable or even intended form of retirement. Whne has it failed? It will be supplemented with some system. Saving 12% in your account cannot be considered a tax in any intelligent arguemnt. Quote So now I'm down to about 28% of my earnings. Yeah, that will encourage work. Don't forget to add that vacation ot Europe, have to expand your global awareness and that should be considered part of it. And that Italian sportscar, hey, just trying to love our neighbor and help their economy, we'll tack that on too. YOU'RE DESPERATE. I'm not trying to encourage work with this issue, that's a different issue. So I guess with your logic Americans in 1929 were lazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #98 October 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteAny thoughts on the other questions? They are actually the more interesting ones. I've answered them previously, but … >If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? It helps them specifically by allowing them such things as food and shelter. It also keeps money moving in the economy, which benefits everyone. Okay, but assuming the poor people seek food and shelter by shopping at Walmart and renting a place, that money quickly ends up back in the hands of rich people. You said yourself money flows from poor to rich. A month later we're right where we started. This may be okay if continued forever, but there may be sustainability issues, and I also may be losing sight of the goal. Does simply keeping people alive actually empower them in any way? I don't think "horrible economic times" stem from a simple uneven distribution of wealth. I think horrible economic times come from bubbles bursting. Situations where a relatively small group reel the masses into an unsustainable economic construct. This can take on any number of forms, and it's not always as obvious as the lead up to the dot-com bust or the housing market collapse. What does this have to do with social programs? Quite simply, I don't accept solutions (public or private) where everyone wins and the possibility that such a system may suffer a collapse in the future isn't addressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #99 October 16, 2009 QuoteOkay, but assuming the poor people seek food and shelter by shopping at Walmart and renting a place, that money quickly ends up back in the hands of rich people. Yes, the profits go back to Walmart. However, the money also goes to pay wages, suppliers, etc. A gain, some profit will come off the top and be diverted to the holders of the capital. Other portions will again go to pay for labor and supplies. QuoteYou said yourself money flows from poor to rich. Right. You offered an example of such. QuoteA month later we're right where we started. This may be okay if continued forever, but there may be sustainability issues, and I also may be losing sight of the goal. Social welfare exists primarily for the benefit of the whole of society, not just for the benefit of those receiving it. For example, unemployment insurance doesn't exist to offer incentive for not working (it has a limited duration to offer incentive to go back to work), it exists to make sure those who find themselves unemployed continue spending money in the economy to prevent the effects of the negative feedback loop that would otherwise be realized. I.e. Some people lose their jobs. They no longer spend the money they were spending while working. Companies realize reduced profits, and more people lose their jobs. People who still have jobs start worrying about their own job security and reduce their spending in order to prepare for their own potential job loss. Their reduced spending further reduces profits for companies, leading to more lost jobs. It becomes a vicious cycle. QuoteDoes simply keeping people alive actually empower them in any way? As opposed to what, allowing them to die? If those are the choices, then it empowers them by giving them the chance to recover and become a more productive member of society. QuoteI don't think "horrible economic times" stem from a simple uneven distribution of wealth. I think horrible economic times come from bubbles bursting. Define horrible. QuoteQuite simply, I don't accept solutions (public or private) where everyone wins and the possibility that such a system may suffer a collapse in the future isn't addressed. I don't see anyone proposing a system in which everyone wins. However, it would be naïve to believe that economic winners don't win at the expense of economic losers. Since winning and losing are concepts relative to each other, without some sort of safety net for those who lose, the group of winners grows smaller and smaller. It is the safety nets that allow a capitalist market to be generally sustainable.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #100 October 17, 2009 [reply You seems to favor putting a greater load on the more successful to cover the asses or those who are not. Meaning you define responsibility as that towards others and not themselves. , Here are a few of those very successful people of whom you write. www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/17insider.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
