Prioritizing government spending.

[Centurion1]

I still can't get over how they call themselves "teabaggers" due to the other uses of the word.

It does explain their attitude though.

they dont i find the term insulting and derogatory

[Furunculus]

In many western nations, government spending is unsustainable.
CR

this is a very good point, the Bank of International Settlements recently produced a report that Britain was currently heading towards a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040, and that even if all the efficiences and spending cuts currently proposed by the three parties worked perfectly as advertised we would still have a national debt of 350% of GDP.

i.e. by 2040 half of annual Gov't spending would be used to service debt interest.

if you are a cold and callous right-wing nazi like me this is quite simply immoral.
but even if you are a happy clapping big social-responsibility kind of guy this ought to worry you, because how are we going to afford all those disability benefits and gender-awareness officers if we are giving half of government spending straight back to financiers?!?!?

we need drastic reform.

[al Roumi]

this is a very good point, the Bank of International Settlements recently produced a report that Britain was currently heading towards a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040, and that even if all the efficiences and spending cuts currently proposed by the three parties worked perfectly as advertised we would still have a national debt of 350% of GDP.

i.e. by 2040 half of annual Gov't spending would be used to service debt interest.

if you are a cold and callous right-wing nazi like me this is quite simply immoral.
but even if you are a happy clapping big social-responsibility kind of guy this ought to worry you, because how are we going to afford all those disability benefits and gender-awareness officers if we are giving half of government spending straight back to financiers?!?!?

we need drastic reform.

I think the key point here is that whichever UK party wins the election will have to get to grips with the deficit. Untill the debates begin to discuss it more directly, no one is going to bring it up or declare how much they are really prepared to cleave off.

I would suggest that concern over a deficit of this level transcends big/small govenment views, the manner and targetting of the cull will differ between parties however.

[Scienter]

APTG's post was TLDR right before I have to leave for work but I need to go back and read it. Financially, I'm pretty conservative, and I wish I could vote with my wallet. But, I'm so far left when it comes to social issues that I just can't bring myself to vote for the Republican candidates that run for office in my state. It's a choice I didn't wish I had to make, but both parties think that running to the extreme end of their ideologies is a better idea than coming towards the center. One thing I definitely think we should stop hemorrhaging money into is the war on drugs.

[Ironside]

The short answer; special interests. Believe it or not, there are groups that lobby for federal spending on a whole load of useless crap, like animals and plants and community programs and pet projects like ethanol that aren't on your list of necessities. For each one of them, the benefit from the special spending on their particular issue is much greater than the small negative impact from the increased deficit.

And there's only a few out of hundreds of congressmen who care enough to not tack on handouts to groups on every bill (ie John McCain).

I'm shockingly going to agree on this issue. The abillity to tag pork to major bills is a considerble problem.

Actually that's not fine. It's a colossal waste of money. GDP, or gross domestic product, is a measure of the value of goods created in the nation. Digging and then filling ditches has a value of zero dollars. So you're taking money (via taxes) from people earning it for useful work and giving it to other people to accomplish nothing. The people you're taxing would otherwise spend that money buying goods and thus increase GDP. So you're hurting GDP and people with jobs to accomplish, literally, nothing.

It would reduce crime, Hah! Basic concept is correct, but that kind getty increadibly complicated and messy quite quickly. I'm not sure if the ones working with it can follow that one. For example, the US money lost in Iraq due to American corruption is often respent in the US, making it causing US growth, while a viable Iraq is probably better for future American investments etc, etc.

Government cannot efficiently create jobs. Each job it 'creates', through subsidies or whatever, costs much more to the economy than just the worker's wage. It creates significant inefficiencies.

For example, when the government enacts protective tariffs to protect domestic jobs, the net cost to the economy ends up being many times the cost of those worker's salaries.

So every single goverment invested job is not contributing to the economy? Police, Fire department, Teachers, Road maintenance for starters? I know there's several economical ineffient subsided jobs, but all of them? Hardly.

I suspect more of those tariffs, when the efficient jobs start to drop below the number of people needed to be employed. It is this fear it plays on.

You also have people paid to do nothing. While you might constantly try to get a job, most people wait until the benefits are about to run out before really looking for jobs. Incentive wise, you're increasing the reasons not to hold a job and decreasing the reasons to hold a job.

Incentive wise, you would also encurage people to maintain a very large cash reserve in case they get unemployed. Which economic system maintains that having large money reserves are bad for the economy, since it is not spent and consumption is the driving force?

If people don't pay for doctor visits they'll go more often, since they don't see any downside to constant doctor visits even if they aren't really sick. Again, you're punishing people who pay for insurance and rewarding those who don't pay.

That's why you pay a minor sum for a visit. And keeping the population healthly also keeps them productive.

Again, you help people who don't deserve it. Why should someone who foolishly bought something they can't afford have the government pay for it? It creates a moral hazard. That is, it says to foolish people; "Go ahead and buy things you can't afford, because the government will bail you out if it gets tough!". And so you have people making foolish purchases without worrying about the consequences.

***********

That was the real miss of the bailout. If you use it to save the (banking) system, then you also want to make sure that the original risktakers is punished.

As for how to solve it - I don't have faith politicians can fix it, be they from any political party.

The main reason for that is that only half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

Since you implied having relative poverty yourself, do you pay federal income taxes? You have to, otherwise you're one of "those people". And linking it to your new voting suggestions, you claim that those people are few, yet they are enough to dominate the politics... The simple reason is that people won't support balancing the budget until they do, and for many people this is done only by necceccity, after the fact. That has very little to do with economical class by the way.

Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts. A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

So every time a ruler has broken a country in the past, it was because of the poor?
And how is this maintained? Loosing your job meaning loss of voting rights? Farmers, who are partially subsided to be a strategical food reserve, is going to be rewarded by loss of voting? Working for the goverment is a loss of voting?

Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

CR

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them?

[drone]

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them?

Originally, the State governments were responsible for selecting their Senators. This reflected to representation responsibilities that the Founding Fathers had for the two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives was to represent the people, this is why the Reps are distributed and voted on based on population (their districts). The Senate was to represent the States and the interests of the States, this is why there are 2 per State, regardless of population. The 17th Amendment changes the selection of Senators to be by popular vote in the State. State government power has thus weakened, with the Federal government assuming the power. The Senate was not for the plebs, although they could influence the Senate indirectly through their State government elections. The 17th is actually unjust to the voting public, since a voter in Wyoming has a great deal more influence in the Senate than a voter in California.

CR's tax-based voting rights idea isn't really feasible, since the benefits received aren't always measurable. The distribution of handouts/taxes are also a muddle. Where do "benefits" come from? Local, State, or Federal? A poor person might not pay any federal tax, but probably contributes to local/state taxes via sales tax, personal property tax, etc. Will the unwashed masses be cut out of federal voting, but still allowed to vote for the mayor? Too complicated to be fair.

[Furunculus]

I would suggest that concern over a deficit of this level transcends big/small govenment views, the manner and targetting of the cull will differ between parties however.

i disagree, this IS a big/small government question:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...e-out-at-last/

[al Roumi]

i disagree, this IS a big/small government question:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...e-out-at-last/

It certainly is when it comes down to (as i tried to express in the 2nd half of the sentence) deciding how to manage the deficit. The scale of the deficit however is such that a high spending government cannot afford to continue its "big government" aspirations, even if it wants to (without completely buggering the country -more than you might say they had already).

The balance of cuts and tax as a means to make up the deficit is indeed an ideological (big/small govt) battle ground.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You do know that woman's suffrage came about even while only men could vote?

They mobilized as a special interest group to get the bill through Congress (like most special interest groups do) and many individual states had long granted women the right to vote on the state level allowing them to get through the state legislature portion more easily. They were not as dependent on men as you seem to put it.

Just saying.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So every single goverment invested job is not contributing to the economy? Police, Fire department, Teachers, Road maintenance for starters? I know there's several economical ineffient subsided jobs, but all of them? Hardly.

I suspect more of those tariffs, when the efficient jobs start to drop below the number of people needed to be employed. It is this fear it plays on.

I was speaking about when politicians pass some spending bill and say it will 'create jobs' in the economy, not government service jobs.

Incentive wise, you would also encurage people to maintain a very large cash reserve in case they get unemployed. Which economic system maintains that having large money reserves are bad for the economy, since it is not spent and consumption is the driving force?

Indeed, it would encourage savings. And it is the failed Keynesian theory that says savings are bad. But we can see from the housing crash that more savings and less wild spending would have been very good. Savings are the foundation of a sound economy.

That was the real miss of the bailout. If you use it to save the (banking) system, then you also want to make sure that the original risktakers is punished.

I suppose we agree again.

Since you implied having relative poverty yourself, do you pay federal income taxes? You have to, otherwise you're one of "those people". And linking it to your new voting suggestions, you claim that those people are few, yet they are enough to dominate the politics... The simple reason is that people won't support balancing the budget until they do, and for many people this is done only by necceccity, after the fact. That has very little to do with economical class by the way.

No. I paid federal taxes (not income taxes though). Even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be one of 'those people' because I didn't get any unemployment benefits or the like from the government. And a group can be relatively small and still swing support to give one party the lead over the other.

And how is this maintained? Loosing your job meaning loss of voting rights? Farmers, who are partially subsided to be a strategical food reserve, is going to be rewarded by loss of voting? Working for the goverment is a loss of voting?

No, loosing your job doesn't mean loosing the vote unless you have no savings and run to the government for money. And subsidizing farmers is bad for the economy, while keeping third world farmers (who could produce food cheaper if not for first world subsidies) in grinding poverty (not to mention we'll never lose all farmers in the US).

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them?

No, Senators can not be trusted to look after the interests of their state instead of the federal government.

CR

[Ironside]

I was speaking about when politicians pass some spending bill and say it will 'create jobs' in the economy, not government service jobs.

Like infrastructure jobs? I get your dislike for "labour market policy measures" when it's about digging a ditch style, but I'm curious how far you're going with this.

Indeed, it would encourage savings. And it is the failed Keynesian theory that says savings are bad. But we can see from the housing crash that more savings and less wild spending would have been very good. Savings are the foundation of a sound economy.

And the million dollar question is: "Is the current system sound?" Personally I say no, but the problem is how to switch and what to switch to.

And doesn't Keynes talk about states more than induviduals? I mgiht be wrong since I haven't studied economics. For the brilliance of the current system, if you saved on the bank or in stocks, you were indirectly involved thanks to what the banks and the economical institutes were doing on the financial market.

No. I paid federal taxes (not income taxes though). Even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be one of 'those people' because I didn't get any unemployment benefits or the like from the government. And a group can be relatively small and still swing support to give one party the lead over the other.

But this isn't swing voters. Using the prejudice system they would be democrats or not voting at all. So why are the Republicans pandering for them as well?

Oh and simply to point out differences between our countries, the left wing parties are clearing leading in the polls for the election later this year and they are publically stating an increase in taxes. Not sure if it will last, but I'm fairly sure that it would be complete political suecide in the US.

No, loosing your job doesn't mean loosing the vote unless you have no savings and run to the government for money. And subsidizing farmers is bad for the economy, while keeping third world farmers (who could produce food cheaper if not for first world subsidies) in grinding poverty (not to mention we'll never lose all farmers in the US).

Free market wise, it's really bad. But if you have a strategical purpose as well? How is it going to be valued?

No, Senators can not be trusted to look after the interests of their state instead of the federal government.

CR

Because the voters think federally instead of state wise when electing their senator? Enlightened self interest indeed.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The short answer; special interests. Believe it or not, there are groups that lobby for federal spending on a whole load of useless crap, like animals and plants and community programs and pet projects like ethanol that aren't on your list of necessities. For each one of them, the benefit from the special spending on their particular issue is much greater than the small negative impact from the increased deficit.

I agree. And apparently there are very few people out there willing to say no to unnecessary spending in both parties.

Actually that's not fine.

I agree, in the context of what I was saying, it's useless to do that when you could be doing other more productive things with it.

You also have people paid to do nothing. While you might constantly try to get a job, most people wait until the benefits are about to run out before really looking for jobs. Incentive wise, you're increasing the reasons not to hold a job and decreasing the reasons to hold a job.

I don't know, when I look at my some 600 dollars I get to spend a month, which doesn't cover rent, food, car payments and insurance... I haven't put gas in the car except when I am looking for jobs, and I can't insure it.

I have every incentive to find a job. Even with benefits I cannot pay my bills.

Being unemployed is no sweet ticket to freedom unless you've also spit out a dozen kids and are actually making an industry out of your reproductive organs which the government ends up subsidizing. And then there is no incentive to be employed because you'd never be able to afford a babysitter. There are gaping wastes in the system, but a 1-year college man who had worked for 10 years straight since I was 15, utterly ruined due to a job loss, and 12% unemployment in my area, I'm afraid I will never see things your way.

There's no incentive to remain on unemployment for me, and most productive members of our society.

If people don't pay for doctor visits they'll go more often, since they don't see any downside to constant doctor visits even if they aren't really sick. Again, you're punishing people who pay for insurance and rewarding those who don't pay.

I haven't seen a dentist since I was 10.

I haven't had a proper doctor's visit since I was a child.

I cannot afford to go.

As for punishing those with insurance, I cannot afford car insurance at the moment, and when I am employed and I can, I can't afford health insurance premiums, which I could pay into for a decade and then be dropped because the company decided I was too high risk for them.

If minimum wage were higher I could afford it. There was a time when premiums were low enough, and a low enough percentage of the minimum wage, where someone could feed his family and have basic insurance. That's not the case anymore due to inflation and rising premiums, while the wage has trailed behind.

Again, you help people who don't deserve it. Why should someone who foolishly bought something they can't afford have the government pay for it? It creates a moral hazard. That is, it says to foolish people; "Go ahead and buy things you can't afford, because the government will bail you out if it gets tough!". And so you have people making foolish purchases without worrying about the consequences.

Sounds exactly like the bailouts to me.

***********

The main reason for that is that only half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

I think they pay for it by living off of the lowest amount of income, so the rich are allowed to generate more profits for themselves, which they are entitled to.

But when employers and wages cannot cover essential services like healthcare, I am not going to shed one tear for a man who has to pay a whole nother percentage point of his million dollar salary so that I (and about a thousand others) can see a doctor once a year.

Just saying.

Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts.

If:

A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

You remove any such thing as private campaign contributions, I'd support the first part.

Government shouldn't be determined by how much money one can afford to support a campaign, because then the consumers lose, and industry loses, and workers lose, and only the owners win.

Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

I'm pretty sure they're already appointed by insurers, bankers, and other big industries. I really would like the ability to outvote those whose sole interest is ripping me off a little more by removing safety regulations, getting former employees of your company to end up inspecting and regulating it, raising interest rates on everyone even when making huge profits, or canceling an insurance policy I paid into for decades.

I only have one defense as a man with no money or influence, and that is to be one vote. Removing that will remove the last shred of protection I have, in a system already slanted towards the richest 5%.



I'm not interested in class warfare though, my original post was supposed to be sidestepping that whole briar patch by leaving tax rates where they are, and moving unnecessary spending back toward essential services and cutting spending where it isn't absolutely vital. The "how much we spend on protecting the sick and unemployed" argument should be a separate discussion, and in my mind those are more essential than, say, spending millions on fish ladders that don't work and create very few jobs.

Like I said, there are plenty of contentious issues that can be addressed.... in my mind, after we stop the gigantic amount of hemorraging we're experiencing. And if tax hikes are necessary, they should be across the board, on the shoulders of all except those who have no money to tax. I am not out to screw the rich man, even though that is his sole mission in life, so he can show his billionaire friends how much larger his money pile is when compared with theirs. Hey, if that's what he thinks money is for, whatever makes him happy. If taxes get raised, perhaps by a percentage that's the same for everyone so it is fair. It's clearly necessary or we wouldn't be bleeding trillions of dollars into the abyss.

In the meantime, all I am saying is that every dollar spent on the most ridiculous wastes of money, is another dollar which could be paying for operations and transplants, or feeding the poor. And that money goes directly to the producers who made those products, and the doctors who want to treat patients and get paid for it for a change. It's almost exactly a 1 dollar spent is 1 dollar not wasted exchange, as opposed to 1 dollar spent, 99.99 cents wasted affair like the fish ladder. I rather think that people of all political persuasions and classes could get behind the idea. At least I'd like to hope.

Sadly I see that classism and hopelessness is going to prevent all this.

[jabarto]

Our current system gives a perverse incentive for politicians to highly tax the very successful so they can pay out money to the unsuccessful, but more numerous, people.

First of all, that's not 'perversion', that's called "not living under a caste system". Second, that's not how it works. Taxes on the rich are the lowest they've been in 50 years and our income inequality has soared over the last 30.

You know, CR, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now. What exactly is your background in economics?

[Beskar]

He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.

[jabarto]

He hates poor people.

Evicently. But I should probably soften my post a bit. Don't want to get another infraction.

[drone]

He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know, when I look at my some 600 dollars I get to spend a month, which doesn't cover rent, food, car payments and insurance... I haven't put gas in the car except when I am looking for jobs, and I can't insure it.

I have every incentive to find a job. Even with benefits I cannot pay my bills.

Being unemployed is no sweet ticket to freedom unless you've also spit out a dozen kids and are actually making an industry out of your reproductive organs which the government ends up subsidizing. And then there is no incentive to be employed because you'd never be able to afford a babysitter. There are gaping wastes in the system, but a 1-year college man who had worked for 10 years straight since I was 15, utterly ruined due to a job loss, and 12% unemployment in my area, I'm afraid I will never see things your way.

There's no incentive to remain on unemployment for me, and most productive members of our society.

I certainly recognize that you and many people on unemployment want to get a job. However, there are large numbers of people who don't;

In a state with the nation's highest jobless rate, landscaping companies are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.

It is unclear whether this trend is affecting other seasonal industries. But the fact that some seasonal landscaping workers choose to stay home and collect a check from the state, rather than work outside for a full week and spend money for gas, taxes and other expenses, raises questions about whether extended unemployment benefits give the jobless an incentive to avoid work.

Members of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association "have told me that they have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out that they're on unemployment and not looking for work," said Amy Frankmann, the group's executive director. "It is starting to make things difficult."

Chris Pompeo, vice president of operations for Landscape America in Warren, said he has had about a dozen offers declined. One applicant, who had eight weeks to go until his state unemployment benefits ran out, asked for a deferred start date.

"It's like, you've got to be kidding me," Pompeo said. "It's frustrating. It's honestly something I've never seen before. They say, 'Oh, OK,' like I surprised them by offering them a job."

Some job applicants are asking to be paid in cash so they can collect unemployment illegally, said Gayle Younglove, vice president at Outdoor Experts Inc. in Romulus.

"Unfortunately, we feel the economy is promoting more and more people and companies to play the system and get paid or collect cash money so they don't have to pay taxes," Younglove said.
$12-per-hour jobs

A person becomes ineligible for benefits if he or she fails to accept suitable work, said Stephen Geskey, director of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency.

The average landscape worker earns about $12 per hour, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. A full-time landscaping employee would make $225 more a week working than from an unemployment check of $255.

But after federal and state taxes are deducted, a full-time landscaper would earn $350 a week, or $95 more than a jobless check. The gap could narrow further for those who worked at other higher-paying seasonal jobs, such as construction or roofing, which would result in a larger benefits check.

The maximum weekly benefit an unemployed Michigan worker can receive is $387.

The jobless in Michigan are collecting for a longer time -- an average of 19.4 weeks last year, up from 15 weeks in 2008. State benefits last for up to 26 weeks.

The unemployed can then apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time on the public dole up to a maximum of 99 weeks.

I haven't seen a dentist since I was 10.

I haven't had a proper doctor's visit since I was a child.

I cannot afford to go.

As for punishing those with insurance, I cannot afford car insurance at the moment, and when I am employed and I can, I can't afford health insurance premiums, which I could pay into for a decade and then be dropped because the company decided I was too high risk for them.

If minimum wage were higher I could afford it. There was a time when premiums were low enough, and a low enough percentage of the minimum wage, where someone could feed his family and have basic insurance. That's not the case anymore due to inflation and rising premiums, while the wage has trailed behind.

I think the underlying problem is with how expensive doctor's visits and other medical costs are. People shouldn't have to be on insurance in order to visit a doctor. Simply subsidizing health care is treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Sounds exactly like the bailouts to me.

I was against them as well.

I think they pay for it by living off of the lowest amount of income, so the rich are allowed to generate more profits for themselves, which they are entitled to.

But when employers and wages cannot cover essential services like healthcare, I am not going to shed one tear for a man who has to pay a whole nother percentage point of his million dollar salary so that I (and about a thousand others) can see a doctor once a year.

Just saying.

Overall, helping people pay for doctor's visits is money spent a lot better than most government funds. The problem is special interest lobbying and the huge entitlement programs. Social security is just a giant ponzi scheme, and people would be better off if they put their savings in a bank instead of having to give it to the government.

You remove any such thing as private campaign contributions, I'd support the first part.

Government shouldn't be determined by how much money one can afford to support a campaign, because then the consumers lose, and industry loses, and workers lose, and only the owners win.

What reason do you have to say that? Large wealthy donors can give a candidate who otherwise wouldn't have much of a chance a shot at getting their message heard. Like it or no, money is often equivalent to free speech and the ability to get yourself heard. The government shouldn't be the one determining who gets heard - especially since incumbents and the two main parties would use it to increase their already sizable advantage over everyone else.

In the meantime, all I am saying is that every dollar spent on the most ridiculous wastes of money, is another dollar which could be paying for operations and transplants, or feeding the poor. And that money goes directly to the producers who made those products, and the doctors who want to treat patients and get paid for it for a change. It's almost exactly a 1 dollar spent is 1 dollar not wasted exchange, as opposed to 1 dollar spent, 99.99 cents wasted affair like the fish ladder. I rather think that people of all political persuasions and classes could get behind the idea. At least I'd like to hope.

Well the thing is, there's a lot of people who believe their stupid POS project, like community theater or salmon commissions are important, and they want other people's money spent on it.

He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.

You know nothing about me, and it's hilarious.

Taxes on the rich are the lowest they've been in 50 years and our income inequality has soared over the last 30.

Wrong. They're the lowest they've been since George HW Bush.

And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?

You know, CR, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now. What exactly is your background in economics?

I got a degree (a minor) in Economic Sciences.

CR

[jabarto]

Wrong. They're the lowest they've been since George HW Bush.

Fair enough. But my point was that 50 years ago, the rich had a maximum tax of 90%, and now it's at - what, 35%? No matter how you look at it, taxes on the rihc are nowhere near what they once were, so saying that we're incentivized to tax the rich is ridiculous. It's actually one of the most incediary topics in our country.

And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Prove it. The experts certainly don't think it's worthless.

Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?

See, statements like this are what made me question your background. When has this ever happened?

[drone]

Fair enough. But my point was that 50 years ago, the rich had a maximum tax of 90%, and now it's at - what, 35%? No matter how you look at it, taxes on the rihc are nowhere near what they once were, so saying that we're incentivized to tax the rich is ridiculous. It's actually one of the most incediary topics in our country.

Look at the peaks in the graph on the wiki page. The first peak is 1917-21, what world event might have caused the US government to raise taxes in such an extreme manner?

The second peak starts at 1932, tops out at 1944, and starts the drop at 1963. This peak is pretty interesting, especially if you look at the lowest tax bracket percent. This goes from 4% in 1932, jumps to 10% in 1941, peaks at 23% in 1944, drops a bit, then goes back up to 20+% through to 1963. This tells me that the rich got hit with high taxes during the Depression, then everyone gets hit for WWII, and then it slowly drops off for both rich and poor as war debt is slowly paid off.

Some may argue (myself included) that raised taxes should have been included as part of our ill-advised Mesopotamian adventure. There is precedent for it, and it invests the population into the outcome. But keeping at such high rates for any tax bracket just because is not a good thing.

[Beskar]

See, statements like this are what made me question your background. When has this ever happened?

In real-life, the recession hit, at that guy making 10k is now out of a job or on a lower income, while the guy making the 1million takes advantage of the situation and gets himself into the 100 million numbers.

[jabarto]

But keeping at such high rates for any tax bracket just because is not a good thing.

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the marginal utility of a dollar is lower for them anyway.

In real-life, the recession hit, at that guy making 10k is now out of a job or on a lower income, while the guy making the 1million takes advantage of the situation and gets himself into the 100 million numbers.

Well spoken. This is almost word for word what I tell people who believe in trickle-down economics.

[drone]

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more.

Even with a flat tax rate, the rich would pay more income tax.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the marginal utility of a dollar is lower for them anyway.

Well spoken. This is almost word for word what I tell people who believe in trickle-down economics.

So, you don't answer my question (hypothetical, yes) about 'inequality', you don't seem to know about economic incentives (who's going to work hard when the government takes 90% of their paycheck?), you agree with positively inane statements about economics (just how is a guy who makes $1M per year going to make $100M in a recession?) and then you question my background? I don't think you're qualified.

CR

[jabarto]

So, you don't answer my question (hypothetical, yes) about 'inequality'

Nor did you answer mine. Again. Would it trouble you terribly to share this magical gold dust that you've stumbled upon that expert economists somehow have missed?

you don't seem to know about economic incentives (who's going to work hard when the government takes 90% of their paycheck?)

Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.

you agree with positively inane statements about economics (just how is a guy who makes $1M per year going to make $100M in a recession?) and then you question my background?

Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.

I don't think you're qualified.

You're probably right. I have no claim to formal education in this matter.

[drone]

Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.

Look at why the Rolling Stones moved to the US in the 70's.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more.

How so? Same infrastructure etc. I often hear this mantra repeated, but never explained.

Marginal utility argument is a better one by far.

[jabarto]

How so? Same infrastructure etc. I often hear this mantra repeated, but never explained.

Marginal utility argument is a better one by far.

Education is the big one; employers wouldn't be very successful if their employees aren't educated on the public's dime. There are other points but to be honest I'm not on my home computer right now and can't look at my notes on the topic. Maybe in a day or two.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A point is that if you talk about your basic infrastructure: the rich tend to use, quite literally, more of it. (More water, more electricity, more tarmac, more real estate.)
And before you say “but I thought I paid the water/electricity/gas company a monthly fee” consider that often enough not all costs are amortized and charged to the customer in that fashion. (The running cost of power grids is amortized per customer; not per watt AFAIK.)

[drone]

A point is that if you talk about your basic infrastructure: the rich tend to use, quite literally, more of it. (More water, more electricity, more tarmac, more real estate.)
And before you say "but I thought I paid the water/electricity/gas company a monthly fee" consider that often enough not all costs are amortized and charged to the customer in that fashion. (The running cost of power grids is amortized per customer; not per watt AFAIK.)

In the US, your examples of infrastructure are not generally paid for through federal income taxes. Water is supplied by a local/county controlled concern in urban/suburban areas, in rural areas it is generally well-water which is the responsibility of the consumer (as well as the septic field). Electricity is paid for by the kwh, so increased usage is dealt with. Most utilities tack on usage taxes (either state or federal) to the bill, but the federal government does not run the infrastructure, it generally just regulates it. Tarmac is paid for through gasoline taxes, if you use more you pay more. Real estate is also taxed at the local/county level.

[Ironside]

And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?

Humans have a tendency to value equality quite a bit. It's part of that getting what you deserve bit that you're so fond of refering to.

Excempting risk possible social disruption later on, yes the poor would be better off in your example. See China.
Now for a real world example for the US, your boss now makes 13M (he got the GDP growth), while you just got back to the 10k you earned 8-10 years ago (that applies for the poor half of the US population). Then that other crash came along...

So what do you do if your income stands more or less still while your boss is making significantly more?