The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

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?

Strickly the costs that gov't incurs to get the help to those that qualify. You think its as low as 10%, that seems low but ....

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Strickly the costs that gov't incurs to get the help to those that qualify. You think its as low as 10%, that seems low but ....

After the initial paperwork and disbursement of a credit card to use, it's all automated.

Edit And since any money not used rolls over or goes back to the Gov't, those costs get paid for.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Strickly the costs that gov't incurs to get the help to those that qualify. You think its as low as 10%, that seems low but ....

It appears that while the overall cost has increased by about 50%, the percentage of admin costs has decreased to ~5%. What's really disturbing (both fiscally and sociologically) is the total amount spent has more than tripled over the past decade. We have become more efficient at giving out more $$$

Source

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Planning to retire? Kiplinger has a guide to the most / least friendly states.

You may be surprised to learn that those foundations of uber liberalism, New York and Massachusetts, are retirement friendly. California is not.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Planning to retire? Kiplinger has a guide to the most / least friendly states.

You may be surprised to learn that those foundations of uber liberalism, New York and Massachusetts, are retirement friendly. California is not.

Just thinking about this....

I wonder if there is an inverse relationship between large retiree regions and the vibrancy of the local economy. Not to say that retiree states aren't 'rich'. But think about it...say 30% of your population is retirement age (and in some states another 10%+ percent are 'unemployed' snowbirds)...don't you think major companies would see (and understandably so) that as a fairly medeocre source of human talent? And with fewer companies locating there, it would likely reinforce itself as there would locally be on average less workforce experience.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Since tax burden for the rich seems to go up as tax rate goes down. maybe we should punish them by lowering it even more. And why are stupid rich folks asking to shoulder more of the tax burden by lowering the tax rate.

top 1% 2000 = 30% total tax burden, 2010 = 40% total tax burden ... clearly rich should be clamoring for higher tax rates.

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

Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, tax rates were slashed from the confiscatory levels they had reached in World War I. The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent.

The share of the tax burden borne by the rich rose dramatically. As seen in Chart 5, taxes paid by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent of the total tax burden in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Since tax burden for the rich seems to go up as tax rate goes down. maybe we should punish them by lowering it even more. And why are stupid rich folks asking to shoulder more of the tax burden by lowering the tax rate.

top 1% 2000 = 30% total tax burden, 2010 = 40% total tax burden ... clearly rich should be clamoring for higher tax rates. [/B]

I assume that is only talking about income tax, bet those numbers change significantly when you add in payroll taxes as well.

What fraction of total income does the top 1% get? How have total tax burden changed, is that 30% from 2000 greater or less than the 40% from 2010 (as a % of GDP).

Back in the 1920s, the faction of the tax burden % (not talking about the actual tax receipts to the government) increased because the tax rates on everyone else was also cut.

Talking about percentages is misleading because the percentages always add up to 100%, even if the underlying numbers change by huge amounts: If you cut all taxes on income to below $1M to 0% and charged those with income above $1M at 1%, those with incomes above $1M would have 100% of the tax burden but the total amount of the taxes collected would fall dramatically.

Their is some tax rate where income to the government will be maximized, it falls somewhere between 30% and 70%.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

It appears that while the overall cost has increased by about 50%, the percentage of admin costs has decreased to ~5%. What's really disturbing (both fiscally and sociologically) is the total amount spent has more than tripled over the past decade. We have become more efficient at giving out more $$$

Votes aren't cheap.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Votes aren't cheap.

Neither is not starving.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Neither is not starving.

You're the second person to suggest that the poverty-stricken would die sans government food programs. You must have little faith in humanity, and even less in the ability of people to survive within a civilized society.

I'm still in favor of bringing back FDR's government work programs, especially with the infrastructure upgrades needed. Need food? Shelter? Health insurance? Grab a shovel. Can't dig? Cook for the diggers. Can't cook? I'm sure we can find somthing for you to do.

Don't think that's moral? I don't think giving someone something for nothing is moral.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're the second person to suggest that the poverty-stricken would die sans government food programs. You must have little faith in humanity, and even less in the ability of people to survive within a civilized society.

I'm still in favor of bringing back FDR's government work programs, especially with the infrastructure upgrades needed. Need food? Shelter? Health insurance? Grab a shovel. Can't dig? Cook for the diggers. Can't cook? I'm sure we can find somthing for you to do.

Don't think that's moral? I don't think giving someone something for nothing is moral.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Not in the slightest.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Not in the slightest.

Are you prepared to deal with the labor unions going batsh*t crazy over the prospect of the truly needy doing the menial labor jobs on these infrastructure projects? Not to mention the public sector unions crying foul over the loss of thousands of cushy desk jobs issuing the no-longer-existent social welfare handouts?

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're the second person to suggest that the poverty-stricken would die sans government food programs. You must have little faith in humanity, and even less in the ability of people to survive within a civilized society.

I'm still in favor of bringing back FDR's government work programs, especially with the infrastructure upgrades needed. Need food? Shelter? Health insurance? Grab a shovel. Can't dig? Cook for the diggers. Can't cook? I'm sure we can find somthing for you to do.

Don't think that's moral? I don't think giving someone something for nothing is moral.

I didn't say they would die, just that they would suffer from starvation. Even with the government food programs we still have children in the US who are malnourished and underfed. I fail to see how this would change with the elimination of government assistance. I fail to see how this is moral.

I don't think that giving people something for nothing more than existing is ideal, but I feel that is is far more immoral to make some in the US suffer without having basic needs meet while others live in lavish opulence.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Are you prepared to deal with the labor unions going batsh*t crazy over the prospect of the truly needy doing the menial labor jobs on these infrastructure projects? Not to mention the public sector unions crying foul over the loss of thousands of cushy desk jobs issuing the no-longer-existent social welfare handouts?

You'd be adding millions to the government payroll, many would join those same unions, and those in the desk jobs would be reassigned to handle the massive influx of new employees. I don't think that the results would be what you'd want.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You'd be adding millions to the government payroll, many would join those same unions, and those in the desk jobs would be reassigned to handle the massive influx of new employees. I don't think that the results would be what you'd want.

You'd also be eliminating millions in food stamps, Section 8 funding, Medicaid costs and other general assistance programs. We'd be streamlining the majority of five or six programs into one. But we're not talking about unionized government workers, as there is no unionized government work program. We're talking about a CCC/WPA government work program. Much like welfare, the idea isn't for these progams to be careers. They're designed to help people up, develop some passable job skills/job history, and allow them to continue supporting themselves in the job market.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You'd also be eliminating millions in food stamps, Section 8 funding, Medicaid costs and other general assistance programs. We'd be streamlining the majority of five or six programs into one. But we're not talking about unionized government workers, as there is no unionized government work program. We're talking about a CCC/WPA government work program. Much like welfare, the idea isn't for these programs to be careers. They're designed to help people up, develop some passable job skills/job history, and allow them to continue supporting themselves in the job market.

Either the program ends and you are back to the same problem, or it never ends and you have massive growth in the government. Assuming that the typical 21st century American can even be trusted to operate construction equipment without killing themselves or others.

The true solution isn't to help these people find jobs as adults, it's to make sure that everyone gets a proper education and job training/retraining to allow them to find jobs on their own and not need government assistance. Universal education is great, but universal college preparatory education (which is what your typical HS curriculum is) is a waste of money. We need to start skimming the lower performing students off in HS and giving them classes that will actually help them in the real world (personal finance classes, applied politics and government classes) and get them into trade programs at 16 or 17. Being able to debate the merits of 19th century Russian authors isn't going to help them make better choices with money nor understand how the political process actually works.

 

[Carter]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I don't think that giving people something for nothing more than existing is ideal, but I feel that is is far more immoral to make some in the US suffer without having basic needs meet while others live in lavish opulence.

You can't say it any better than that.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're the second person to suggest that the poverty-stricken would die sans government food programs. You must have little faith in humanity, and even less in the ability of people to survive within a civilized society.

I'm still in favor of bringing back FDR's government work programs, especially with the infrastructure upgrades needed. Need food? Shelter? Health insurance? Grab a shovel. Can't dig? Cook for the diggers. Can't cook? I'm sure we can find somthing for you to do.

Don't think that's moral? I don't think giving someone something for nothing is moral.

I was going to type but Almy did before me.

I didn't say they would die, just that they would suffer from starvation. Even with the government food programs we still have children in the US who are malnourished and underfed. I fail to see how this would change with the elimination of government assistance. I fail to see how this is moral.

I don't think that giving people something for nothing more than existing is ideal, but I feel that is is far more immoral to make some in the US suffer without having basic needs meet while others live in lavish opulence.

Either the program ends and you are back to the same problem, or it never ends and you have massive growth in the government. Assuming that the typical 21st century American can even be trusted to operate construction equipment without killing themselves or others.

The true solution isn't to help these people find jobs as adults, it's to make sure that everyone gets a proper education and job training/retraining to allow them to find jobs on their own and not need government assistance. Universal education is great, but universal college preparatory education (which is what your typical HS curriculum is) is a waste of money. We need to start skimming the lower performing students off in HS and giving them classes that will actually help them in the real world (personal finance classes, applied politics and government classes) and get them into trade programs at 16 or 17. Being able to debate the merits of 19th century Russian authors isn't going to help them make better choices with money nor understand how the political process actually works.

I see people every day who aren't taking their meds because they can't afford it, are losing their homes (as in apartment, not over reaching their mortgage), who are trying to figure out how to feed their kids. I live in a sprawling suburb. Some of these people could really use the classes in the above quote. I didn't get this without actually seeing it. People need some basic knowledge to negotiate the real world.

For those of us who watched functional families (as is financially, not psychosocially) deal with $ this seems to be something that people should figure out. You would be shocked how little some of the people I take care of know about resources for saving $ or can't use because they can't afford it up front. They can't afford the paper for coupons (go to library), they frequently can't buy in bulk because they don't have the cash up front (most stores mark down meats or other produce on certain days- shop then), they don't have a car which limits when/where they shop and how much they can buy. This is stuff that we would all do to keep things cheaper.

The social net used to provide those classes for some and used to give more financial support. The net is shrinking and it shows. Most of these people can't get to a food bank (too far away) are not involved in a church that would support them and even I with all my resources can't line up stuff.

Killing funding for what little we have left is scaring me. The thought that they will get help somehow if we cut the cash is not realistic in some cases.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Les (and others)

Have we abdicated our moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate than us to the government? If the Federal and State stepped out of the picture, I would hope that the neighbors would step in.

An interesting debate, but if government does step out, will we, as individual citizens, step up??

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

An interesting debate, but if government does step out, will we, as individual citizens, step up??

HAHAHA...no.