|
|||||||
Birthers
this is a discussion within the Full Disclosure Community Forum; Originally Posted by jcp026 The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions. Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed ...
48Likes |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-20-2012, 07:17 PM
|
#41 |
|
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 6,324
|
Originally Posted by jcp026
Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed to shelter funds. The whole Buffett pays at a lower tax rate than his secretary was overblown, but there still was some truth there. 
As for raising the minimum wage, that affects less than 20% of the country, and unless you are talking about a 50% increase, those people will still be living in poverty: 40 hours X $7.25 X 52 weeks = $16 K a year. amazingly low number |
|
|
07-20-2012, 07:20 PM
|
#42 |
|
500th Post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 951
|
Originally Posted by Danno
Trickle-down works based on what? As long as American workers are competing with workers in low wage countries then wages will NOT rise. Are you kidding? Do we want to be China now? I don't get it. Companies move to countries with far less than a "living wage," and countries that they can pollute freely.
A book I read not too long ago, can't remember which one, talks about externalities. Those are costs that businesses inflict on someone else that they don't pay for. They give an example of a small business that is receiving an award at a ceremony in front of the store, but in the back there is a hill that slopes down to a stream and you can see that they're just dumping all of their waste products into the stream. If they'd been paying for the cost of disposing of their waste properly, then they might not even be profitable. Should they still receive this award? Should the government and law enforcement step in to shut this down? A public option DOES NOT imply that health insurance is a right and it wouldn't necessarily add to the debt. Those tax cuts I mention for the are temporary to help the economy, everyone in my DOES pay taxes and all of the loopholes are gone. I'm not saying that more government is necessarily better. I'm not saying that less government is better. I'm saying that better government is better. A government that is responsible to the people instead of "monied interests." |
|
|
|
07-20-2012, 08:38 PM
|
#43 |
|
500th Post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 951
|
Originally Posted by ScottF
Can't disagree with any of that, but the increase in the minimum wage I talked about wasn't necessarily to bring people out of poverty but to increase demand and bring the wage more in line with what it was at its inception.
|
|
|
|
07-21-2012, 01:11 PM
|
#44 |
|
Originally Posted by Danno
Post of the thread! So the question then becomes when will enough of the populace realize this and vote accordingly?
| |
|
|
|
07-21-2012, 08:03 PM
|
#45 |
|
500th Post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 951
|
Originally Posted by SmashMouth
It's sad that you think that.
|
|
|
|
07-22-2012, 01:30 AM
|
#46 |
|
Donated Plasma
|
Originally Posted by jcp026
I don't think it's sad at all actually. Yeah, the tax code needs work, but this country was not founded on "big" government. In fact this country was founded on anti-big government. The socialists do NOT have it better. Ask them. Don't ask the Socialism wanna be Californians. Ask the people living it.
Now, my friend from Russia thinks Communism beats Capitalism hands down. His perception is the Russia he grew up in was one where a government stayed out of the way but made sure everyone had what they needed. Of course he is here. Not there. And this escapes him completely. No, big government is not the answer. Getting back to the Constitution is the answer, and that means a lot of people in Washington will have to cease business as usual, which is the business of making the under class more and more reliant on government (them). The only way we're going to legislate our way out of the mess we're in in to legislate big government back to the stone ages. Can that happen? I'm not so sure. As I've already said, I don't know that I have enough faith in American's anymore, but it will happen or sure as the fall of Rome the America my kids grow up in will be a mere shell of what the founders had in their vision. Hell. It already is... |
|
C'mon Man...
|
|
|
|
|
07-22-2012, 07:50 AM
|
#47 |
|
500th Post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 951
|
You say that business as usual is "the business of making the under class more and more reliant on government." You might believe that, but I think you also see what I see. You see big corporations and the super rich making the rules. They control the purse strings that fund the campaigns of our congressmen. It's big business that lines up to suck from the government tit. There have been multiple studies that show that the wants on needs of the poor are completely ignored by government and the middle class doesn't fair much better, if at all. But the wealthy bark and they jump. I think you know that. I saw a video of Ron Paul talking about the "soft from of Facism" that he sees developing in the U.S. and it's because a couple of big corporations run the show.
The think you read the post about my economic plan, what did you think of it? Danno responded with talking points and republican dogma. I asked "Trickle-down works based on what?' The answer is nothing. It doesn't work. Bruce Bartlett, who is an economist who has worked for Reagan, Ron Paul, George H.W. Bush, and others, says it doesn't work. And this is a man who helped pioneer the idea. President George H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo economics." Danno talks about the FairTax and a Flat Tax, but Bruce Bartlett, in The Benefit and the Burden, gives a whole list of reasons that both of these ideas are terribly flawed. He talks about "over-regulation," but what regulations are bad and a lot of times it seems that people think all regulation is bad. Is the Dodd-Frank bill bad? I think so, but not because it over-regulates. The bill is over 2,000 pages long and an aide who helped write it said he was told to make it longer and longer so they could fit in all of the loopholes. Herman Cain talked about making bills three pages long (he may have sounded a bit nutty) but he was on the right track. The average America should be able to understand the law. The framers wanted that, but that's not how it works now. The Glass-Steagle Act was fewer than 40 pages and stabilized the financial system for decades. When I bring up Pygouvian, or good taxes, I referencing the work of Luigi Zingales, whose book A Capitalism for the People has praise from Congressman Paul Ryan on the back. If my economic plan leads to job growth, reduces spending, stabilizes the financial system and would allow us get by without raising tax rates and, over time, would allow us to lower taxes for everyone, how doesn't that jive with the Constitution? Isn't my plan really at the heart of conservatism? |
|
|
|
07-22-2012, 08:12 AM
|
#48 |
|
5000 POSTS! +
|
Originally Posted by jcp026
Oh, since you put it that way,
 , here's my two cents ... disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and don't get along with the Ron Paul people either, I dislike them all equally and just try to cover my ass regardless of who's running the country,  .Q: How do we get wages up? A: Do we need to, or do we need to bring outsourced jobs back to the US? That's where I'm at ... having the unions structured like they are in Europe as a single, collective union vs each individual trade acting seperately would help also. I don't agree with the raising of the minimum wage unless it's going to be raised to a 'living wage' and view it mostly as a safeguard for unskilled workers who would otherwise be taken advantage of by employers. - I see wages up in the skilled labor sectors, down in the unskilled ... Michigan has been proactively retraining/preparing it's workforce to compete for these higher skilled/higher paying jobs with some success ... those are the keys, IMO, train the workforce, bring the jobs back. Employer based healthcare will be covered under the next question & I didn't quite understand the 'Pigouvian Tax' and am generally opposed to taxes. Q: What about my health insurance? A: I would hope nobody begrudges a fellow human being that needs it, healthcare ... which is what we already do in the US ... you enter a medical facility through the emergeny room (excluding private) and you will receive medical care regardless of your ability to pay ... you may get your ass billed off later on and go bankrupt, but you'll get medical attention you need ... problem here is too many people are clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergency type care. I don't understand why we need another program like Obamacare and don't just issue everyone a Medicare card so they can access Urgent Care or a regular doctor ... those receiving government assistance can be billed for their healthcare just like is done with Social Security recipients to help defray costs, and maybe the politicians could stop raiding programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security so they can remain solvent, eh? The business tax could be reconfigured so employers contribute to the program, but only at a fraction of the cost they paid out to maintain their own healthcare programs. I don't agree with allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines for the very reason you stated, it would lead to 'crappier' private insurance ... I've opted out many an employer's health plan because it was 'crappy' and didn't feel it offered any real value for my money ... that kind of stuff is just smoke & mirrors healthcare, and really isn't healthcare at all. Q: What about the job creators? A: I'm tired hearing about 'the job creators' ... you mean the corporations we bail out with billions of tax dollars so they can discharge their creditors, remove legacy costs they promised to their retirees, close plants, layoff thousands of workers and pretend to pay back a portion of their debt to the American taxpayer with over-inflated stock where the price immediately plunges to less then 50% of the IPO? Last I heard, the 'trickle-down' affect there was a $38 billion dollar loss to the American taxpayer ... nah, I rarely see 'trickle-down' working, at any level ... instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, I'd rather see a penalty for them incorporating offshore (a popular method of avoiding US taxes) and/or outsourcing jobs offshore ... it's only right if you want access to US markets/consumers and do business here. I don't focus on small business because I think the whole notion that they're the largest source of jobs in the US is a farce ... they're the ones paying minimum wage, not offering health insurance or any kind of benefits and generally abusing their employees in my neck of the woods. Q: What about taxes in general? A: In general, I'll vote against any tax because I don't trust any politician on any level to apply tax dollars as they are intended, case in point: Social Security/any local millage applied to a 'general fund'. I don't care anymore if the 'Bush (now the Obama) tax-cuts' expire and support going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which were much lower then previous tax levels anyway, but still provided enough revenue to run the country. I wouldn't mind a flat-tax or a consumer-tax in that you could control how much you pay ... don't consume, don't pay tax ... why should I be subsidizing some eco-snob to purchase an overpriced, under-engineered Chevy Volt? Get rid of all tax-breaks, you say? If you do your own taxes, you should have noticed this is being done already. - I'll touch on the small-business tax code briefly ... in Michigan, it's a mess and they have/are revamping it to make it more small-business friendly ... I don't mind, my whole neighborhood is Mom & Pops and I don't begrudge anyone going into business for themselves ... but I also know these places are not sources of long term employment, pay minimum wage, offer no healthcare/benefits, cut corners where they can and consider their employees as an 'expense' rather then an 'asset' ... any breaks they get 'trickle down' into their personal budgets rather then into 'creating jobs', which is why I have a problem considering small business as 'job creators'. Q: With our current political system, how does this get done? A: It won't, partisan-politics and special-interests will be the death of the country ... SloMotion - "out". 
|
|
|
|
07-22-2012, 09:00 AM
|
#49 |
|
500th Post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 951
|
Originally Posted by SloMotion
Nice post. Exactly what I was hoping for. Thoughtful and original, not talking points and dogma.
I'll try to explain Pigouvian taxes better. With quotes, instead of my garbled non-sense. "The goal of this type of tax (named Pigouvian after Arthur Pigos, the British economist who invented it) is to correct distorted incentives, not to raise revenue. If it does generate revenue, however, we have a double benefit: we improve efficiency and we save the need to impose distortionary taxes to pay for government expenses. The tax on tobacco is an example of a Pigouvian tax, if we consider the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to be a cost imposed on the rest of society." (pg222) A Capitalism for the People by Luigi Zingales I'll go on quoting to try to explain the tax on the financial system: "A better solution is a tax on short-term debt, especially that held by financial institutions. By taxing the use of short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), we can discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion annually just among the top nine institutions. This is equal to the total amount of taxes raised from the 65 million households making less than $30,000 a year. So this tax could exempt 65 million households from paying taxes, while stabilizing the financial system and preventing a new crisis." (pg223) He says it "could exempt" but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. I take it a step farther and say that, for five years, those 65 million households could be exempted and this would put $107.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and increase demand dramatically. Then, those taxes on the 65 million households could be phased back in over the next five years to avoid a dramatic increase in taxes from one year to the next on people who functionally poor or working poor. I hope that helps. Zingales doesn't mention it, but I think a Cap and Trade tax on carbon would be a great example of a Pigouvian tax, because it would curb carbon emissions and raise revenue. And before any Cap and Trade haters get up in arms, we've done it before under President George H.W. Bush to deal with sulphur dioxide and acid rain. It was really effective. I have a question for you, SloMotion. How do we deal with health care costs that have been rising faster than inflation for years now? I like the idea of Medicare for all, but, until we can curb those costs, wouldn't it explode the debt? The purpose of my version of a "Public Option" is, for the most part, to hedge against this growth. No one is compelled to join, so we don't have questions about infringement on liberty, and because it's designed to be revenue neutral, if the cost of health care goes up, then the rates participants pay go up. No added cost on taxpayers not participating. If the public option ends up accidentally turning a profit, then those profits can be rebated to participants or go to pay down the debt. |
|
|
|
07-22-2012, 09:37 AM
|
#50 |
|
5000 POSTS! +
|
Thanks, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, it's just what I see and my own experience.
Alright, I understand the Pigouvian Tax theory when you explain it as a sin-tax ... not that I have any vices,  ... and that does kind of correlate with my opinion of flat/consumer type taxing ... if you want to play, you got to pay and in the same way I'd agree with that 1% taxing of financial institutions on short term debt (which they would pass on to the consumer, of course), with hesitation but in the knowledge that I could avoid that tax simply by limiting any short-term borrowing, ie credit.- I'm on the fence with Cap & Trade, mostly because I see how easy it is to get around by simply 'trading credits' ... you get a guy like Al Gore who promotes it, then jets around the country abusing it by offsetting his actions with 'carbon credits' or something like that ... IDK. The real problem, I've been told, with rising health costs, is people visiting emergency rooms with non-emergency illnesses ... my assumption is if you give these people access to urgent care or a regular doctor, they quit abusing the emergency room & you get control of this aspect of runaway health costs. I'm not for forcing people into taking anything, just providing it as an option for those who can't afford health insurance. IDK how you'd avoid not taxing everyone for this, but as we pay Medicare/Medicaid taxes already, I don't see the big deal. If anything & hypothetically, people would leave private insurance rolls, creating a huge competition for the remaining private insurance customers and drive the cost of private insurance down. As for costs like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, private insurance, et ... I'm all for supply,demand & competition controlling those costs. Of course, it all seems so simple to me, but I'm sure there's some good reason our politicians have such a problem with this ... something like some special interest isn't going to make a few million and be able to contribute to a PAC fund or whatever ... |
|
|
|
«
Dr. Doom 2013 Prediction - Global Economic Crisis Headed Our Way
|
At least 21 treated for burns after trying to walk on coals at Tony Robbins event
»
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.
