Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

[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

[champu 1]

First off, thanks for replying to my questions.

I think we can see eye to eye on unemployment and its intent, particularly its benefit to society as a whole in keeping unemployment from blowing up, but I still doubt that it helps individuals very much. It may be that it's just part of a solution that needs to involve other things. I can't imagine even the most comprehensively expanded unemployment programs preventing people from bouncing back and forth between dead end minimum wage jobs and the unemployment office. I think that's what people are talking about when they say "throwing money at poverty doesn't work."

There are a lot of programs in place that cover a lot of bases. There are still poor people. Before we expand or add to these programs we have to be clear about what we want to do for society and what we want to do for poor individuals. I don't think simply spending more in the same ways we have been will help either very much. That's all I'm trying to get across. I didn't mean to suggest we let people die because they get fired.

/edited to correct two improper uses of the contraction of "it is" where I should have written the possessive "its."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think we can see eye to eye on unemployment and it's intent, particularly it's benefit to society as a whole in keeping unemployment from blowing up, but I still doubt that it helps individuals very much.

A lot of, "it's" in there, but I guess you're saying that keeping unemployment low doesn't help poor people on an individual basis. I think that's ridiculous. I think welfare in general should play 2 roles:

- Sustaining them at bare levels now
- Educating them so they can get off the welfare roles.

I think if the gov fails at either then they have failed at all levels and then some of these people can turn to crime or juts die. I don't think the ocnservtaive doctrine cares about the latter.

Quote

I can't imagine even the most comprehensively expanded unemployment programs preventing people from bouncing back and forth between dead end minimum wage jobs and the unemployment office. I think that's what people are talking about when they say "throwing money at poverty doesn't work."

Really? In some blue states, more likely there than red states, unemployment is high enough to pay your bills and if your career field is dying they have paid retraining to reinstitute you back into the workforce in a different area. In many red states it's unemp comp that doesn't meet the bills and then fuck you. Again, the conservative message heard loud and clear.

So to address your point, I think a real comprehensive program that brings an unemployed worker back to the workforce is substantively helpful.

Quote

There are a lot of programs in place that cover a lot of bases. There are still poor people.

Yes, a lot of partial programs designed to plug holes, but not to fix problems.

Quote

Before we expand or add to these programs we have to be clear about what we want to do for society and what we want to do for poor individuals.

Below a certain income, say 25k/yr, state education is free. How about that? Then these people have no reason to not succeed, so we'll who the lazy ones are vs the poor ones who want to excell.

Quote

I don't think simply spending more in the same ways we have been will help either very much. That's all I'm trying to get across. I didn't mean to suggest we let people die because they get fired.

And that's a great approach, benefits for teh poor are feel-good measures taht plug holes as tehy become more obvious, but few states have comprehensive programs, that would be Socialism and we all know Socialism doesn't work

[lawrocket 3]

True. There's no way that guy could have stolen money if the government had taken it first.

Communism - the cure for white follar crime.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

True. There's no way that guy could have stolen money if the government had taken it first.

Communism - the cure for white follar crime.

Yea, it's Capitalism or Communism; true, they have a lot in common like distribution of wealth. At first I was skeptical of your assertion, now I realize you're right:

- Capitalism = rich people stealing all the money via a (gag, puke, cough) free market

- Communism = the government stealing all the money via no wage controls and general oppression


People who draw a substantive contrast of the end result crack me up

[champu 1]

I should have said "unemployment comp" in my previous post to avoid confusion. And, further, by "comprehensive expansion" I meant things like guaranteed coverage of housing, food, etc.

The questions I asked were intended to lead the conversation away from giving people money and towards things like expanded access to education (particularly things like trade schools) as I believe these types of programs are the ones that have the greatest potential to actually help poor people. If only the ones who appreciate the help.

On a side note... Take a compliment from me for what it's worth, but your salesmanship in this last post is much improved over what I've gotten used to reading from you.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

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

There will always be people who will try and cheat the system to get ahead regardless of what that system is. The people in the article are not a product of capitalism.

Don't group the Sergey Brins in with the Kenneth Lays.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

There will always be people who will try and cheat the system to get ahead regardless of what that system is. The people in the article are not a product of capitalism.

Nonsense - they are capitalist role models right up until the moment the handcuffs go on.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

True. There's no way that guy could have stolen money if the government had taken it first.

Communism - the cure for white follar crime.

That's a very binary world you are living in.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. Much like your world wherre the people who would be taxed are criminals, anyway.

What was your initial point, anyway?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Relative to their income, the poor spend more. That's why trickle down economics do not work.

Then the way to boost the economy would be to give $100K to a rich person instead of giving it to 100 poor persons - with a condition that everything which is not spent, should be paid back. It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway. A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I should have said "unemployment comp" in my previous post to avoid confusion.

REVISION: I think we can see eye to eye on unemployment comp and its intent, particularly its benefit to society as a whole in keeping unemployment from blowing up, but I still doubt that it helps individuals very much.

Ok, but if it were more comprehensive we would have the conservatives freaking out about Socialism. Most conservatives use unemp comp in their lives, so they justify it by saying they earned it thru their employer. Their employer doesn't have a choice as whether to pay into the unemp ins program, so this is Socialist redistribution. But it is limited and weak and really doesn't do much.

Quote

And, further, by "comprehensive expansion" I meant things like guaranteed coverage of housing, food, etc.

REVISION: I can't imagine section-8 guaranteed housing, food stamps, etc programs preventing people from bouncing back and forth between dead end minimum wage jobs and the unemployment office. I think that's what people are talking about when they say "throwing money at poverty doesn't work."

At times I think it's warranted. Since unemp comp is so minimal and temporary and deed arises, these are also required programs. They're really different than unemployment, in that unemployment is terminal, other programs can run on forever.

Quote

The questions I asked were intended to lead the conversation away from giving people money and towards things like expanded access to education (particularly things like trade schools) as I believe these types of programs are the ones that have the greatest potential to actually help poor people. If only the ones who appreciate the help.

I think money is also needed for basics, but I would as well rather work toward the, 'show a man to fish' mentality as well. I think even some funding toward 4-year education 'can' also be in order. To move toward a society that places emphasis on health and education is a society that can compete in the global market. But you see all the resistance from the right and ultimately from the people, so we are really a dumb society that deserves our form of government. I think we all agree that terminal welfare leaches are not helpful for society, the difference is some would rather ignore them and others deal with the situation. I always laugh when I hear people saying how some would intentionally get arrested to get a free roof and free jail education.

Quote

On a side note... Take a compliment from me for what it's worth, but your salesmanship in this last post is much improved over what I've gotten used to reading from you.

Well thx, but I don't think it's salesmanship, I mean it sincerely. And when people talk to me constructively, I answer constructively. If I get sarcastic it's due to people dodging issues; I spend a lot of time researching data and I like to get info that makes me research more, or better yet, others research some and make a good argument. Most well-researched responses elicit opposing views defending their ideologies rather than discussing a point, so they g nowhere. I'd like to see some quality opposing responses to my Great Depression thread.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Relative to their income, the poor spend more. That's why trickle down economics do not work.

Then the way to boost the economy would be to give $100K to a rich person instead of giving it to 100 poor persons - with a condition that everything which is not spent, should be paid back. It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway. A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax

So you think supply side works then. Look at the tax brackets leading to the 1990 recession and this current mess; the top brkts were 28% and 35%. There were other attributes that contributeed as well, but these were the worst recessions since 1954 when Congress imposed a federal income tax on individuals. Not to mention that the 3 or 4 years leading to the Great Depression were also years with a 25% top brkt., then Hoover lowered it a % more thinking the market was too tightly bound. 12 million dead people later he realized he was wrong.

I think your idea that supply side (trickle down) economics works is so antiquated that only stark regressives agree.

Quote

A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax

In times like this they might just pocket it in fear that times will get worse, which will make..... times worse. Poor people will spend that $1000 so fast your head will spin and jobs created. I know, not "FAIR."

Quote

It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway.

Unless the poor person doesn't have it, then they live in a box. Or maybe they spend it on silly things like HC.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Indeed. Much like your world wherre the people who would be taxed are criminals, anyway.

I'm all in favor of taxing criminals, but I can see it might cut down on lawyers' incomes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So you think supply side works then. Look at the tax brackets leading to the 1990 recession and this current mess;

Tax brackets had nothing to do with current mess. It was created by people - likely including some people you know personally - who somehow believed that they all could get rich in five years by selling same homes to each other for twice more they paid for it.

Quote

In times like this they might just pocket it in fear that times will get worse, which will make..... times worse. Poor people will spend that $1000 so fast your head will spin and jobs created. I know, not "FAIR."

If they pocket it, they'd lose it - so they won't. So they'll spend it.

And "FAIR" is heavily defined whether you'd be giving money, or to be given money. If I took a look on your budget, trust me, I'd instantly find that you can give at least 20% of your income to the poor by keeping only basics and getting rid of things which are not necessities - like booze, cell phone and so on. Of course, if you can afford to skydive, you're not poor either.

***
Unless the poor person doesn't have it, then they live in a box. Or maybe they spend it on silly things like HC.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then the way to boost the economy would be to give $100K to a rich person instead of giving it to 100 poor persons - with a condition that everything which is not spent, should be paid back. It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway. A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax

That method would completely miss those who most need the benefit as the funds are distributed, when the benefit of the infusion is greatest.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That method would completely miss those who most need the benefit as the funds are distributed, when the benefit of the infusion is greatest.

The "who most need" part is very questionable here.
Basically you either speak about relative need (then it's questionable whether a poor's need for a bottle of booze is greater than a rich person's need for a yacht), or you speak about absolute need (and then all the money to help poor should leave U.S., because by world measurements, there are much more people who have much more need than a typical poor in USA).

Even on the relative needs level it's still questionable whether it's better to pay for one person's medical school or for one hundred person unnecessary clothing and unnecessary food.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The "who most need" part is very questionable here.

Perhaps it is questionable if you truly believe that the rich need new yachts (your example) as much as the poor need food and clothing. To me, the answer is pretty clear.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Perhaps it is questionable if you truly believe that the rich need new yachts (your example) as much as the poor need food and clothing.

Well, it all depends on how you define "need". What is needed amount of food? Is it 2500 calories in ambiguous form (piece of bread, piece of meat, two carrots, glass of milk), or should we include the food poor would actually enjoy, and include there chips, ice cream and beer? The problem I personally have with programs like WIC is that those money are not spent on basics. They are often spent on ice cream, sodas, pizza and chips - the food, which is not only unnecessary, but also unhealthy, and contributes to health problems the poor often have.

It's pretty much the same with clothes. It's very cheap to provide anyone with a one set of usable clothes enough for survival. It's when you got "should they have more than one set?" question when it starts raising concerns.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The problem I personally have with programs like WIC is that those money are not spent on basics.

You do know that WIC specifies specific products, right? No ice cream, no soda, no chips.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You do know that WIC specifies specific products, right? No ice cream, no soda, no chips.

Yes, I thought it should - but I personally seen it several times in couple of places here.
Likely it's pretty much the same way people are buying booze using foodstamps.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You do know that WIC specifies specific products, right? No ice cream, no soda, no chips.

Yes, I thought it should - but I personally seen it several times in couple of places here.
Likely it's pretty much the same way people are buying booze using foodstamps.

It sounds like your complaint should be with the stores enabling the fraud, not the programs themselves.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It sounds like your complaint should be with the stores enabling the fraud, not the programs themselves.

I have complained twice (in California you can do it via email to Wicfraud@dhs.ca.gov), and so far nothing changed. Very likely because this kind of fraud is pretty difficult to catch (especially when it is based on store-customer relationship and probably even personally knowing each other), and fraud departments are busy with lower-hanging fruits.

However I'd mostly complain about participants in the program, who likely should never been enrolled in the program at all.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

However I'd mostly complain about participants in the program, who likely should never been enrolled in the program at all.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

How did you reach that conclusion?

Personal feelings.
There are people who would use some help.
And there are people who think they are entitled to help, and would abuse anything they got.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *