The political knifes are drawn

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.

SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?

And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.

And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?

Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy!

[Shawnee123]

Yes, and China is merc's BFF!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I added a word above...

But in your earlier post you spoke of


So I'm curious how "equal share" is to be defined or determined.

As an equal percentage of income.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy!

Yea, they are doing great! They have no poverty, no pollution, eveyone has access to public trasportation, and they all have The Little Red Book!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.

So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?

Only if I get to choose the charity. And it depends on the amount of the tax. And not to a general fund controlled by the government or some groups that I do not agree with. The military has had such a system for years, pretax dollars sent to a charity of your choice, it is called CFC. What many people did not understand about it was that there were over 300 groups signed up to receive funds from it, but they never knew they could direct the funds to specific organizations. For a while there was a lot of pressure to contribute. That went away over time. But it did not replace, as in your example, the tax you actually paid. I can't think of anyone on AD who who made over 250k, so not that it matters.

[Spexxvet]

Another benefit for the wealthy: they only pay fica on the first $106,800 of their salary.

[TheMercenary]

China and India are doing fairly well... but let's look at the details. Danger, biased source.

Hillary Clinton raised more than a few eyebrows last week, when she aired her own views (and not necessarily those of the Obama administration, she said) on federal tax policy, saying she feels the rich “are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] – whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are.” CNN reports Secretary Clinton pointed to Brazil, long known for its high taxes, as a model of successful economic policy. “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate [35.3 percent] in the Western Hemisphere and guess what – they’re growing like crazy,” Clinton said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”

Clinton implies redistribution is necessary, or at least very useful, to poverty reduction. She is right that Brazil has substantially reduced poverty in the past decades: a study by Martin Ravallion of the World Bank’s Development Research Group notes a decline of the proportion of Brazilians living in extreme poverty – less than US $1.25 a day – from 17 percent to 8 percent during the period 1981-2005. But redistribution is not the only or best way of reducing poverty. China and India substantially reduced extreme poverty over the same period: China from 84 to 16 percent, and India from 60 to 42. Their tax-to-GDP ratios are only 18.3 and 18.8. China and India managed to reduce poverty while generating much greater economic growth than Brazil. Whereas Brazil’s GDP per capita increased an average of 0.8 percent a year from 1981 to 2005, China’s increased an average of 8.8 percent, and India’s an average of 3.9 percent over the same period.

Ravallion's World Bank study found that Brazil could have completely eliminated poverty in 2005 by taxing 0.7 percent of individual income in excess of the poverty line. In other words, if the Brazilian government had taxed each citizen’s income minus $1.25 per day at a rate of 0.7 percent, it should have had enough to guarantee every citizen a daily income of $1.25. Brazilians were and are taxed far in excess of this rate, yet extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor.

Clinton may be right that redistribution is in some cases an effective means of lifting people out of poverty, but the Brazilian example in and of itself is not compelling.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...erty-and-taxes

[SamIam]

This is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.

According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.

Just two examples:

1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.

2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.

Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

This is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.

According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.

Just two examples:

1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.

2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.

Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.

So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system? IS that why all the unions are getting such great breaks by the Obama Administration?

And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source? Sort of like when people jump on Fox News for what is otherwise factual information, but because you want to demonize the source it suddenly becomes false?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system?

Actually, yes. I don't think people like you and me, regardless of our political persuations, have much say at all in how the country is being governed. Unions, international mega-conglomerates and Bill Gates all have more power over Congress than we do. The US situation is not as bad as that of Brazil, but give it time.

And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source?

The part where it says "extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor." As I stated, "cash transfers" to the poor in Brazil are largely a polite fiction told by the Brazilian government. If you're really that interested, I'll pm you with the economic studies.

I never have much faith in sources that derive from someone's opinion - this includes blogs. Think tanks and foundations funded by true believers of any persuation are also suspect.

[skysidhe]

What are your sources for these economic studies? Why not post them here, since you are on the subject.

Does this interview with Maria Lopez include some of the polite lies from the government? I am curious. If the government is lying and foundations are biased, how is it that you can find the truth? What economic studies?

http://www.mediaglobal.org/article/2...ld_be_minister


Here is the same interview from the UNEP.
http://www.unep.org/south-south-coop...6/Default.aspx

MG: While your “Bolsa Famila” initiative, the largest income transfer program in the world, has helped reduce poverty, 45 million people in Brazil live in extreme poverty. Could you on comment on that? In addition, why do you think that despite international praise for the policy, it is actually really contentious and lacking in support within Brazil?
MML: This has changed. Up to 2006 we actually had a very strong opposition to Bolsa Familia, particularly in public opinion and the media. The situation is that we have social sectors in Brazil that believe we should have continued on with social policies where each person would just pursue their own path to improve their life. But these were very often paths of social exclusion, poverty, suffering, hunger, and death. Unfortunately, a lot of people felt these problems could be fixed on the basis of charity, aid, and volunteer work. There was also resistance in that President Lula and Bolsa Familia challenged the status quo. We have a problem with conservatives, but President Lula didn’t back down. He spoke of zero hunger, and he traveled throughout Brazil and saw what was happening in our country where so many; indigenous people, people in rural and inner city areas, were often dealing with hunger. Brazil could never have a level of balance, economic growth, and development without wealth redistribution.

[DanaC]

Worth also considering that tax rates set and tax collected dont always match up. There are quite a few countries out there which appear to tax heavily in that they set tax rates at a high level; but if the ability of the state to enforce and collect is significantly less than in another country where tax is apparently lower, but more likely to be paid, the actual tax burden is very small in real terms.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

What are your sources for these economic studies? Why not post them here, since you are on the subject.

No prob. I'm surprised someone else is interested. You can start with this schorlarly and well documented analysis:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/...l/Ferreira.pdf

Does this interview with Maria Lopez include some of the polite lies from the government? I am curious. If the government is lying and foundations are biased, how is it that you can find the truth? What economic studies?

No, the Lopez interview is shameless self-promotion of her role as Minister of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger. She is also doing some cheerleading for Brazilian president Luiz Ignacio Lula de Silva. Think WMD's and the start of the Iraq war for equivalent veracity. Politicians worldwide often lie. What? You believe every word of political rhetoric you hear or read? And I stated that foundations funded by TRUE BELIEVERS are suspect, not all foundations. For economic studies, see above.