Riddle me this

[jaguar]

What it means is you're screwing yourself.

The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger, not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her.

This is the kind of thing that really makes me laugh. Or cry, depending on mood. Look at say, the kafuffle over estate tax, and look at who is affected by that. Or bush's last round of tax cuts that did little for the economy but sure helped some of his mates. Look at the tens of billions of public money effectively siphoned to rich cronies off by untendered contracts over Iraq.

The other thing that halfwits like noodle tend not to take into account is themore recent concept of non metric externalities. People's wellbeing and most forms of environmental damage being the most common two. By exploiting these things you're effectively borrowing against a finite resource you cannot really define or passing the cost silently over to someone else, this doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved. Look at the cost of things like depression on the economy (when they put a vague number or it) or the forecasts for economic damage from the greenhouse effect and it starts to come into focus. There is a vague school involving this called PAE - post autistic economics which has gained some ground but it's effectively fractured and a bit all over the place at the moment, postmodern economics is not very mature yet but needed more than ever in the face of people like noodle.

The minimum wage stops exploitative businesses doing people over even harder than they do at the moment, there is no way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour, it's not in their interest. People do live on the minimum wage, usually supplemented by a sideline of some sort, take the 'burden' of businesses to pay employees in something other than peanuts fucks over all those people, including particularly vulnerable categories like new immigrants. I suppose environmental law is a 'burden' as well, why not let them dump PCBs into the local ecosystem so they can concentrate on making more environmentally friendly products? Both statements are fucking non sequiturs.

As for your folks social security cheque, this admin is working to stop that as soon as possible.

[jaclyn8700]

Originally Posted by jaguar

What it means is you're screwing yourself.


This is the kind of thing that really makes me laugh. Or cry, depending on mood. Look at say, the kafuffle over estate tax, and look at who is affected by that. Or bush's last round of tax cuts that did little for the economy but sure helped some of his mates. Look at the tens of billions of public money effectively siphoned to rich cronies off by untendered contracts over Iraq.

The other thing that halfwits like noodle tend not to take into account is themore recent concept of non metric externalities. People's wellbeing and most forms of environmental damage being the most common two. By exploiting these things you're effectively borrowing against a finite resource you cannot really define or passing the cost silently over to someone else, this doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved. Look at the cost of things like depression on the economy (when they put a vague number or it) or the forecasts for economic damage from the greenhouse effect and it starts to come into focus. There is a vague school involving this called PAE - post autistic economics which has gained some ground but it's effectively fractured and a bit all over the place at the moment, postmodern economics is not very mature yet but needed more than ever in the face of people like noodle.

The minimum wage stops exploitative businesses doing people over even harder than they do at the moment, there is no way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour, it's not in their interest. People do live on the minimum wage, usually supplemented by a sideline of some sort, take the 'burden' of businesses to pay employees in something other than peanuts fucks over all those people, including particularly vulnerable categories like new immigrants. I suppose environmental law is a 'burden' as well, why not let them dump PCBs into the local ecosystem so they can concentrate on making more environmentally friendly products? Both statements are fucking non sequiturs.

As for your folks social security cheque, this admin is working to stop that as soon as possible.

do your eally think social security will be ended? or are you kidding.

[Undertoad]

No way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour - except of course for the obvious fact that every single person in the job market would like to be paid more, and is angling for that at all times, and when paid not enough generally departs for greener pastures.

The labour market doesn't exist in a vacuum, and historically every increase in the minimum wage results in a burst of increase in unemployment for a few quarters. The correction is that some businesses can't afford to continue with a higher percentage going to labor and so some of the jobs go away temporarily and others go away forever.

But at this point the M.W. has been low for so long in the US that it almost doesn't matter. Even mild inflation has left the M.W. behind. Very few jobs exist at minimum wage these days. Jacquelita's 16-year-old started work as a hostess at a Bob Evans restaurant (read: working class sit-down meals) for a good 30% over the M.W.

So it turns out that if you are concerned about wages, all you really need is economic growth. No amount of laws will permit employers to hire people at wages above what they can possibly pay in the economy. A decade of really good growth increases everyone's standard of living until they are ALL paid above "minimum" - even to just stand there and smile while people come in to get their biscuits and gravy. (After only three months of doing that, Jacquelita's young one will have enough cash to buy my old car, not bad at all for a teenager.)

[jaguar]

Let me know when they work out this whole really good growth thing, it doesn't look like happening anytime soon. Removing regulation will usually stimulate some economic growth but almost always at a cost.

[Undertoad]

Well that's kinda the problem: as long as a population looks to "them" to work out really good growth, it won't happen. "They" definitely do not know how to do it.

[jaguar]

and deregulation is not the answer. If you want to visit how it works, visit the Scandinavian states, the quality of life for everyone beats the shit out of the Anglo-Saxon model, for everyone. . The answer to the problem now is massive investment in education and research. While noodle's bizarre claims that the government can never do anything right are to be expected but they don't hold true. While governments often fuck things up they can and do do a lot of good. It's not like the republicans believe in small government anymore either. Also - the equally strange claim the rich pay 90% of tax is amusingly far from reality, the rich don't pay tax you sillybilly, that's for little people. Over a certain point the money fades into networks of shell companies, offshore tax havens and other tricks with the assistance of Private Banks. Big corporations tend not to pay tax either, last I checked GE was surprisingly based in a small Caribbean county. It's the middle class that pay the vast majority of tax in our societies.

[mrnoodle]

a visual. It even comes from the NYT, not known for its integrity when it comes to anything regarding Bush. Despite the normal class warfare rigamarole about "the rich", tell me jaguar, who bears the tax burden in American society? Why, then, is it unfair that those shouldering the burden should benefit from tax cuts? Should their percentage be higher still? And should we add the burden of forcing them to pay even higher wages? If so, are you willing to pay 50% more for the same products? Obviously you will answer this with some playground insult, but if you would couch the answers "yes" or "no" somewhere within, it'd be appreciated.

Perhaps it wouldn't be that much. What, then, should the minimum wage be? How much would you pay someone to wash dishes in your restaurant? $20/hour? After all, when they go to the grocery store to purchase the products whose price has trebled because the owner has to pay his/her employees $20/hour, they'll need enough to get by on.

The "rich", which by the way means "anyone who makes over 50k" to the left, are paying it all.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

a visual. It even comes from the NYT, not known for its integrity when it comes to anything regarding Bush. Despite the normal class warfare rigamarole about "the rich", tell me jaguar, who bears the tax burden in American society?

It depends on what you mean by burden. The word has a very different meaning depending on how much you've got.

The "rich", which by the way means "anyone who makes over 50k" to the left, are paying it all.

What makes you say that?

[mrnoodle]

The fact that they pay 88.4% of the money that the feds receive from taxes?

What I mean by burden is obvious. What you're talking about is whether or not poor people have a hard time coming up with the scratch to pay Uncle Sam. The answer is that most of them don't have to -- by the time they've received all of their government checks and gotten breaks for marriage, kids, etc., any amount they pay to the feds is offset. Most of the least wealthy people don't pay any federal income tax at all.

Now, the middle class does pay. And it would be great to have a system by which we could pay less. But as far as this fairness bullshit goes, if taxation were fair, then there would be a flat income tax (or no tax other than sales tax). This doesn't interest liberals. Libs are obsessed with idea that those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.

[LCanal]

[quote]those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.

Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.

[lookout123]

Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred?

Hope it works this time. click onThe Budget Deficit Shrinks in the upper right.

The accompanying chart of quarterly data shows how overplayed are the acute deficit fears that have frozen investors from time to time for several years now. The data graphed here show the federal deficit (or surplus) as a percentage of GDP for the past 35 years. This ratio is the best way to analyze the deficit. The dollar figures can mislead because everything becomes larger in dollar terms over time, including also the economy, federal revenues, federal outlays, and, frequently, deficits. But even more than this need to get away from the up trend in all dollar figures, the ratio of deficits to GDP has analytical value because it states the liability right next to the ultimate means by which the government can discharge it. Here, it is evident that deficits have become much less burdensome than last year or in 2003. In fact, deficits have retraced almost half the distance from the worst of the red ink to balance. What is more, the deficits currently differ little from much of this long past experience. Today's red ink looks bad, of course, compared with the impressive surpluses of 1998-2000, but otherwise, today's burden looks lighter than in much of the 1990s, 1980s, and even the 1970s, when taxes skyrocketed.

Though the fear-mongering that has accompanied deficits looks misplaced in this context, it still would be misleading to suggest that federal finances are in good shape. Today's deficits may look manageable, but even the least bit of red ink carries an ominous quality when looking farther out on the horizon to see the nation facing the retirement of the baby-boomers and the financial strains that phenomena will place on Social Security and Medicare. Indeed, the prospect of these great long-term strains makes an argument for the government to try amassing surpluses in the near term or, at least, to balance its budget. Today's deficits, no matter how moderate in an historical context, will only make that future financial burden more difficult to bear.

Still, however much these distant burdens loom, the government's finances at present clearly do not burden financial markets, as some have suggested. Longer-term budget strains give cause for concern, but the fact is, stocks and bonds will rise and fall several times before the nation has to confront its fundamental burdens of Social Security and Medicare. In the interim, federal financial demands clearly are manageable.

Just so we are being somewhat accurate about the sky is falling and all that jazz. the deficit is not a good thing, by a long shot - but it has been worse and we've made it through - so let's keep that in mind.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by LCanal

Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.

Exactly my point. It's punitive. Used as a punishment for traffic violations, it deters people from breaking the law. Used as a basis for taxation, it deters people from becoming successful and contributing voluntarily.

[jaguar]

Firstly, you want a real debate, well, it makes a nice change but you'll have to work by some basic laws first. First of all, stop making up numbers. Where did the trebling come from? Where did the 50% come from? Where is 20/hr come from? I'm not going to answer you question because it has no basis in reality. Yes noodle, I understand the inflationary power of the minimum wage but use real numbers. Include the deflationary effect of overseas manufacturing. Secondly, stop using misleading terms such as 'least wealthy', we're mostly fairly intelligent people, not a goddamn news-crew, it just gets in the way.

Also worth noting: the AMT hits the rich far harder than the superrich.
Notable label here: share of reported income.
I know some people with a villa on the French Rivera, a chalet in Switzerland and a penthouse in London that report an income of your average accountant. You so far have chosen to ignore this point. I don't think the rates should be higher, I think much more resources should be put into catching the very rich dodging taxes, which is estimated last time I saw in the tens of billions and long jail terms implemented for major tax fraud by individuals.

From the graphic the biggest tax demographics by far are the 'middle class', and middle/upper 160000-400000 or soish. Rich as far as I'm concerned is 150000+. Which is pretty much what I said. Do they deserve tax cuts? I don't see why. It's not about suffering, it's about fairness, by taxing those that have far more, more, we can help those at the bottom get by. I think tax on profits from financial instruments like shares and bonds should be far higher, it's essentially free money. You can argue all you want about the economic stimulus from investment but the same effect is had by just leaving the money in the bank, the bank just does it instead.

On a philosophical level this all comes down to how selfish you are. If you're more selfish the argument tends to run that what you earn is your business, your tax burden should be the same as everyone else and fuck those with less, they should get better jobs if they want more money. The other side says that those at the bottom are in circumstances that make advancement far harder and deserve help from those that have more. Some such as myself also feel that many services can be provided more cost effectively to everyone by the government than as optional services to those that can afford it. Look at healthcare in the US, you guys spend 15% of GDP, more than 5500 a head for healthcare that judging by what I hear, isn't that great compared to 11.5%(3800PP) in Switzerland for incredible healthcare for all or 9%(2900PP) in Denmark. Only the US spends more than 50% of its money on healthcare privately. As far as I'm concerned this is a superior model.

There is one other aspect here, why is the government cutting taxes to anyone while increasingly spending by a massive amount?

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Firstly, you want a real debate, well, it makes a nice change but you'll have to work by some basic laws first. First of all, stop making up numbers. Where did the trebling come from? Where did the 50% come from? Where is 20/hr come from? I'm not going to answer you question because it has no basis in reality.

Then remove the numbers that bother you and answer the basic question. If we are to raise the wage for every job in existence to the level at which the worker can live comfortably, where should the money come from? How much are you willing to pay for potatoes to ensure that every person who picks potatoes makes enough money to feed a family of four and still put some back for college tuitions? It's like trying to draw a circle in which the two ends don't meet. It just can't be done.

I don't have the patience for minutae that some of you do. I only have time for big-picture arguments, particularly when I'm at work, which is the only time I come to the cellar. So when I use a number, it's not statistically valid, it's for illustrative purposes only.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

So when I use a number, it's not statistically valid, it's for illustrative purposes only.

It it because you are going cold turkey that you are admitting this stuff?