The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's based on the assumption that private charity can't reach some segment of the society that government can, which I would say is certainly at least questionable. Though given the feds' endless growth and ever extending reach into all areas of our lives, I can forgive people for assuming that the feds should be the primary source of care for the less fortunate. And of course it's not as though Almington or myself or anyone is advocating elimination of federal assistance to the most needy.

It's more that the government is, by definition, responsible for every one of its citizens (whether it meets that responsibility or not is another issue). Charities can pick and choose who they help, and are more so dependent on donations from other persons who get to pick and choose, and so forth. No doubt the end result would be a wide range of coverage, but there's also no doubt that such coverage would be far from universal and likely to vary by region and economic condition. And to the extent that most people seem to prefer charities precisely because they aren't government (and thus more like a private market participant, albeit ones without a profit motive), they're still subject to the whims and pitfals of the markets, including the market's failures (which are partially why government is necessary in the first place).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's based on the assumption that private charity can't reach some segment of the society that government can, which I would say is certainly at least questionable. Though given the feds' endless growth and ever extending reach into all areas of our lives, I can forgive people for assuming that the feds should be the primary source of care for the less fortunate. And of course it's not as though Almington or myself or anyone is advocating elimination of federal assistance to the most needy.

I agree with you 100% that voluntary charity where both the giver and recipient know each other personally is superior, because it establishes a bond between them, humanizes the relationship, stresses the responsibility for the recipient and reinforces a lot of basic and important social values. Islam is great about this, by the way, and Christianity used to be back in the days when 99% of the people you passed in the street today were the ones you passed last year and would next year.

When the transportation revolution allowed people to choose their neighbors, the providers moved away from the recipients, so now you got huge pools of people in need with no neighbors or congregation members nearby to help them. The modern welfare systems were created (by both liberals and conservatives) in response to industrial slums which were not being supported by any form of charity except missionary work, which was always far too small for the task.

Government assistance has lots of problems, but it's the only system so far that has been able to both penetrate isolated pockets of poverty and cover the need across the board. It's also democratic at its roots -- we can vote to end the programs -- so although it is "imposed" in the sense of revenue being tax collection, it's also a living social contract constantly being tweaked, examined, renewed, or pulled back as public opinion dictates.

Its main problem is inefficiency. We should strive for ways to decrease overhead so a larger percentage of the money allocated to it reaches the recipients. It's a payload fraction problem.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

It's more that the government is, by definition, responsible for every one of its citizens (whether it meets that responsibility or not is another issue). Charities can pick and choose who they help, and are more so dependent on donations from other persons who get to pick and choose, and so forth. No doubt the end result would be a wide range of coverage, but there's also no doubt that such coverage would be far from universal and likely to vary by region and economic condition. And to the extent that most people seem to prefer charities precisely because they aren't government (and thus more like a private market participant, albeit ones without a profit motive), they're still subject to the whims and pitfals of the markets, including the market's failures (which are partially why government is necessary in the first place).

There was a time in this country where there was much more of a sense that this nation's citizens had a responsibility toward one another. I understand what you're saying, but it's just a more government-centric way of thinking that I tend toward.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

There was a time in this country where there was much more of a sense that this nation's citizens had a responsibility toward one another.

And then somebody dripped acid on that for 30 years with a "me first," grab everything you can and the heck with the other guy, there is no such thing as "society," pursuit of personal interests is all that matters, philosophy.

I can't imagine why we changed.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

And then somebody dripped acid on that for 30 years with a "me first," grab everything you can and the heck with the other guy, there is no such thing as "society," pursuit of personal interests is all that matters, philosophy.

I can't imagine why we changed.

I won't argue with you on that history. But, that doesn't mean one can't decry what has happened and hope for better.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What do you do about the people it doesn't reach? Eventually you are going to have to make a choice with someone: government assistance or let them starve.

And since we can no longer afford Option A, we're going to have to go with Option B.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

And since we can no longer afford Option A, we're going to have to go with Option B.

they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I won't argue with you on that history. But, that doesn't mean one can't decry what has happened and hope for better.

I'll stand on that barricade with you, Bob.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm not the only one who suggests that Buffett just go and pay the higher taxes he says should be levied on the wealthy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tax-fortune-please-why-warren-buffett-volunteer-pay-191814147.html;_ylt=AqVZzgF0qxBvDnS1LIGt4g27YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFmbWxuMjQ1BHBvcwMzBHNlYwNleHBlcnRPcGluaW9uRHluYW1pYwRzbGsDd2h5d2FycmVuYnVm?sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm not the only one who suggests that Buffett just go and pay the higher taxes he says should be levied on the wealthy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tax-fortune-please-why-warren-buffett-volunteer-pay-191814147.html;_ylt=AqVZzgF0qxBvDnS1LIGt4g27YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFmbWxuMjQ1BHBvcwMzBHNlYwNleHBlcnRPcGluaW9uRHluYW1pYwRzbGsDd2h5d2FycmVuYnVm?sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

It's funny. Now this is the argument. When I pointed out over 4 years ago that I paid a higher percentage of taxes than the rich I got slammed around here by the righties. Now that Warren Buffett has proved what I knew all along they change the argument.

Pass a Straight Percentage across the board. NOW.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm not the only one who suggests that Buffett just go and pay the higher taxes he says should be levied on the wealthy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tax-fortune-please-why-warren-buffett-volunteer-pay-191814147.html;_ylt=AqVZzgF0qxBvDnS1LIGt4g27YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFmbWxuMjQ1BHBvcwMzBHNlYwNleHBlcnRPcGluaW9uRHluYW1pYwRzbGsDd2h5d2FycmVuYnVm?sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

So you've got some Yahoo.com contributor and Pat Buchanan in your corner. That's...swell, I guess.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Strange. To me Buffet is saying there is a problem with our tax policy (capital gains) when super rich folks like himself is paying less Tax RATE than the Janitor that cleans his office.

Fortunately, you can ignore this guy's spin. you know the world didn't end and our economy didn't crash in 1996-2000 when we didn't lower the tax rate.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax

The 1996 presidential campaign has rekindled the debate over tax reductions. Among the proposals being considered are an across-the-board reduction in tax rates, the repeal of rate increases imposed in 1990 and 1993, the deductibility of payroll taxes, and a modified flat tax. But regardless of the particular features of each change under consideration, the argument is the same. Proponents argue that lower tax rates will spur economic growth by reducing the penalty on working, saving, and investing. Opponents disagree, claiming that the economy is doing fine and that tax rate reductions, if enacted, will help the rich disproportionately while widening the deficit.

Fortunately, there is a way to judge the desirability of lower tax rates. The United States has had three major episodes of tax rate reductions -- the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What do you do about the people it doesn't reach? Eventually you are going to have to make a choice with someone: government assistance or let them starve.

You assume starvation is the alternative to the government teet? Not much faith in humanity, eh?

End free government assistance across the board for the able-bodied, and bring back the government work programs of the 1930s. If the New Deal was such a good deal, why not? According to numerous sources, America's infrastructure needs massive upgrade.

Oh, I forgot......the labor unions would scream bloody murder if the truly needy started doing their menial labor in exchange for food, housing and other staples.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

There was a time in this country where there was much more of a sense that this nation's citizens had a responsibility toward one another. I understand what you're saying, but it's just a more government-centric way of thinking that I tend toward.

Agreed. I also agree wholeheartedly with Kepler. Didn't quote cos it was so long. It is hard in many cases to get involved in charity/social ministry stuff that is up close and personal. There are a lot of big charities or very organized ones because that is the only way to be efficient with the huge need but it emphasizes the distance a person has from the situation. It is hard to help one person and make a difference without doing so through an organization because the exposure to those people is limited for many.

Kepler pointed out many that need help are not in direct contact with those who help. I think this is true. Even with the huge need there are so many who have no idea there is a huge need. I can't even count the amount of times I have heard people going on about about how it is the fault of those in need, portraying them as lazy, taking advantage of the system, etc. I imagine there are those people but the ones I run into are in a bad way and do not have the coping skills to pull it together. If the Gov't safety net were to contract there are a lot of people who will be without the tools to make it. Somehow we should be providing these folks with the fishing rod rather than the fish.

 

[sagard]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Strange. To me Buffet is saying there is a problem with our tax policy (capital gains) when super rich folks like himself is paying less Tax RATE than the Janitor that cleans his office...

Taxing the rich would incrementally raise revenues.

These estimates were made using a 50% tax rate on $1M+ earners and 20% capital gains.

From if anything left leaning CNN:
All told, if one combines the three changes -- setting aside the economic effects if they were all implemented -- it's possible that Treasury could pull in more than $450 billion over a decade.

In the context of deficit reduction, $450 billion is less than 5% of the new debt the country is on track to accrue over the next decade. But it's a lot of money in terms of potentially valuable government programs that might otherwise need to be slashed absent additional revenue.

Bottom line is that the Dems need to get it through their thick skulls that we can't tax ourselves out of our debt. Republicans offer so little for the greater good other than ****ing off the people left of Obama, but at least they are good at that.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Taxing the rich would incrementally raise revenues.

These estimates were made using a 50% tax rate on $1M+ earners and 20% capital gains.

Actually I would be willing to make Bush tax cuts permanent IF capital gains rate (15%) is turned into income tax rate.

That 52% majority benefits about 2% of their income while top 1% = 30% income and higher to Buffet level where income is almost meaningless and capital gains everything.

I believe Mccain used this quote in 2008 election (replace 52% with Majority of Americans) when talking about capital gains tax.

http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes

obviously the stock market going up like crazy from 1997-2000 had nothing to do with capital gains tax revenue.

totally ignore 1997-2000 and mention how capital gains revenue took off after 2003 cut to 15%... maybe it took off because rich can usually decide when to sell and sold at historic low tax rate. And If I remember correctly there is usually a drop off in capital gains revenue after the initial spike.

The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bottom line is that the Dems need to get it through their thick skulls that we can't tax ourselves out of our debt. Republicans offer so little for the greater good other than ****ing off the people left of Obama, but at least they are good at that.

I'll agree spending is a MAJOR problem. It's just amazing how our government can keep spending at 20%+ rate for years in boom/bust cycle and can't cut/or freeze spending.

I think republicans have sold us out to the corporations and the rich but they do have a point about government spending.

Let me spin: After the tax cuts we had a depression. ergo tax cuts = depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon

If the rates were set more reasonably, taxpayers would have less incentive to avoid paying. His controversial theory was that by lowering the tax rates across the board, he could increase the overall tax revenue.

Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:

1. Cut the top income tax rate from 77 to 24 percent
2. Cut taxes on low incomes from 4 to 1/2 percent
3. Reduce the Federal Estate tax
4. Efficiency in government

Mellon believed that the income tax should remain progressive, but with lower rates than those enacted during World War I. He thought that the top income earners would only willingly pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. Mellon proposed tax rate cuts, which Congress enacted in the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 58% in 1922, 50% in 1923, 46% in 1924, 25% in 1925, and 24% in 1929. Rates in lower brackets were also cut substantially, relieving burdens on the middle-class, working-class, and poor househ

 

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I wonder what it costs us for every dollar of food stamps given out? 2,3 4 bucks? I can't imagine the Govt being very efficient in this case(or any other)

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I wonder what it costs us for every dollar of food stamps given out? 2,3 4 bucks? I can't imagine the Govt being very efficient in this case(or any other)

If it's more than a buck fifty, I'd be shocked. More likely it's about a $1.11 or so, which would be about a 10% overhead rate (.11/1.11).

But I suppose it's all in how much you count. Do you include the IRS for collecting the taxes which pay for the food stamps? The U.S. Marshall's office and/or the FBI for "enforcement"? Etc.? The grocery store expenses for dealing with food stamps vs. credit cards?

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I wonder what it costs us for every dollar of food stamps given out? 2,3 4 bucks? I can't imagine the Govt being very efficient in this case(or any other)

Would you also wonder how much of that goes directly into the economy or it's reabsorbed by the gov't?