Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,969 Year: 2,226/9,624 Month: 71/1,588 Week: 267/338 Day: 16/55 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 350 (605958)
02-22-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
No, their real income decreased.
Did it now?
Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005. (Saez, E. & Piketty, T. (2003). Income inequality in the United States: 1913-1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-39.
"Saez, E. (October, 2007). Table A1: Top fractiles income shares (excluding capital gains) in the U.S., 1913-2005.")
This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2007, in 2007 dollars. ( "Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1947 to 2007". Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. United States Census Bureau. Archived from the original on 2009-04-12. Retrieved 2009-04-12.)
Household income levels and gains for different percentiles in 2003 dollars. ("DeNavas, C., Proctor, B. D., Mills, R. J. (August 2004). Income, Poverty, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003".)
Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains by top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar).
"Inflation adjusted income data from the Census Bureau shows that household income has increased substantially for all demographics, with larger gains experienced by those with higher incomes."
Gilbert, Dennis (2002). American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality. Wadsworth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 8:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 350 (605959)
02-22-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Taq
02-22-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Taq writes:
Actually, it's socialism, not communism.
Nope, in socialism you are rewarded relative to the amount you contribute to the group. Not simply based on need, or working according to your ability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 8:39 PM Taq has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 350 (605961)
02-22-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
02-22-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Taq writes:
It is only an inefficiency if you consider profit as your only motivator.
Once you dropped any pretense of economic argument and start arguing efficiency gains based on subjective criteria, I'm completely finished talking to you. You don't have anything meaningful to add.
Taq writes:
It isn't against the law, that's the whole problem. Some of this was fixed in the health care bill that was signed into law not too long back.
Arguing against dishonesty in trade isn't an argument against capitalism.
Taq writes:
Also, other countries pay way less per capita than we do, and they get better care. Guess what? Their health care systems are government run. Ours is run by private enterprise. What does that tell you?
"Better" care is subjective. If someone doesn't get sick do they pay less for healthcare than sickly people? Do they have the freedom to choose where they allocate their healthcare money on an individual basis? Nope, and nope.
But your entire pitch at this point is completely opinion so I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 8:35 PM Taq has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 109 of 350 (605970)
02-22-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Hi Phage0070, nice try.
Basically you are arguing that the CEO working to run a corporation isn't really "working".
The amount of "work" done by a CEO could be compared to the work done by the "white collar slaves" (I'm sure you know the term), and the amount they are paid. Anything more than that is fat cat gluttony that is not earned by "working".
Equal pay for work of equal value is not just a glass ceiling women's issue.
One easy way to cut the gluttony is to tax high pay scales.
Republicans used to be big on "user fees" where people using gov't services pay a fee in addition to income tax. Apply this to income tax as well: people that benefit from using the US economic\legal system pay a fee in increased taxes.
Cut out the corporate loop holes and get taxes from those who benefit most.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:20 AM Phage0070 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 350 (605973)
02-22-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 9:08 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Did it now?
Yes.
Do you just find graphs really hard to read, or something? Here's the relevant information again:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 9:08 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:07 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 350 (605974)
02-22-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coyote
02-22-2011 8:43 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Are you aware that those who are productive will not carry those who are leeches forever?
That's a terrible way to talk about your grandmother! But, you're right. Eventually "those who are productive" age past their productivity and become the "leeches, and it's up to a new generation of "productives" to support them, with the social understand that they'll be taken care of when they reach a certain age. Of course, in this country we have people like you, who want to pull the ladder up after them and demolish that social contract (not for current retirees, of course, who not-so-coincidentally are the primary demographic for this political movement.)
And that is why it has failed everywhere it has been tried.
Like your family and mine? Seems like it was pretty successful in those cases. Or did you simply fall out of your mother's vagina and into a full-time job?
Sorry, but you are thinking like a college sophomore who has been exposed to too many economics courses.
Luckily, I've never taken even a single one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 8:43 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 10:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2080 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 350 (605975)
02-22-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Just how much of the income of those who are productive do you think you and those who think like you can steal?
50%? 75%? 100%?
And have you given any thought to what will happen when those of us who are productive decide we don't want to support you and all the other leaches?
Does the term, "Who is John Galt" mean anything to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 11:08 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2011 2:11 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 3:21 PM Coyote has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 350 (605977)
02-22-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
No, they still have an incentive to be efficient.
No, inefficient. Indeed the incentive is to increase a very specific kind of inefficiency - the kind that makes people rich. To the extent that there's an incentive against other inefficiencies, the incentive is simply to transform the inefficiency into profit-inefficiency, not actually eliminate it. We've agreed, after all, that perfect efficiency doesn't make anybody any money.
What do you think happens to the profit?
The exact same thing that would happen to an inefficiency - somebody pockets it. Aggregate spending equals aggregate income, by definition. Since the ultimate result of the two things is the same, that's how I know profit is an inefficiency.
To spell it out for you, if you are arguing that there are inefficiencies when people break the law then people are still capable of breaking the law when the government has monopolized the market.
Right, but only the government's incentives are actually working against lawbreaking. That's why the government is able to deliver certain services more efficiently, like Social Security.
If the premiums were twice what the payout could possibly be, of course there would be profit. There couldn't conceivably not be profit.
Sure, there could not be profit, if nobody was able to buy the insurance. How can you make profits off of something nobody will buy? (Don't answer; you've already admitted that you can't.)
I'm actually Crash, by the way, not Taq.
The issue isn't that the people can't be profitably insured, its that the people can't pay.
Right. So, how are insurance companies going to make a profit off of people who can't afford to buy their insurance? (Don't answer; you've already admitted that they can't.)
I don't support your desire to steal from people who earned their wealth fairly
I have no desire to steal from people who earned their wealth fairly. My desire is to return wealth to the people who fairly earned it.
The money is being taken against people's will and the benefits given to those who haven't earned it.
Doctors who perform life-saving medical interventions certainly deserve to be paid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 8:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 350 (605978)
02-22-2011 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 10:46 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
Here's the relevant information again:
That graph shows a reduction relative to if the 1979 distribution had prevailed. The bottom fifth was $6,900 lower than would be expected if the distribution had remained the same, showing a widening gap of distribution. The top pulled dramatically further away from the bottom.
However that doesn't mean that real income went down. It just means that the distribution widened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 11:14 PM Phage0070 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 115 of 350 (605979)
02-22-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
02-22-2011 10:59 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Just how much of the income of those who are productive do you think you and those who think like you can steal?
Who said anything about stealing? Not me, I have no desire to steal from anyone. In fact what I would like to do is force thieves to return what they stole, or, barring that, pay restitution for what they stole and can't now return.
Does the term, "Who is John Galt" mean anything to you?
Sure. It's a joke. Everybody knows that.
Oh. Oh. Did you take it seriously? Um, wow. Do you want to think a little harder before you spin me a fable about Galt's Gultch? Right, like Wall Street bond traders and corporate CEO's are going to "withhold their productivity" and take up farming. As if the rest of us would even notice. Do you think there's ever going to be a shortage of flim-flam artists to convince Bear Sterns they need to be paid millions to destroy the corporations that pay them?
The truth is, Coyote, I wish people like you would "withhold your productivity." Every day a libertarian goes to work, the world is worse off as a result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 10:59 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 11:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 350 (605981)
02-22-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 8:49 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
There is a reason once someone becomes an adult they are allowed to leave their family unit and become financially independent.
Sure, and that reason is that they can now contribute to the family in a greater way by being employed and independent.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is socialism, and it's precisely the reason that when I was 14, my dad and I got to eat the same amount at dinner, but he had to teach students for 8-9 hours a day and all I had to do was clean my room and mow the lawn.
Like I said, socialism, the "economic system that has never worked" is at work in every single American family. It's capitalism that you never see in American households - not even the houses of capitalists!
And I was talking about large-scale economics, not "small village" units.
Oh, I see. When an argument is made you can't respond to, you just move the goalposts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 8:49 PM Phage0070 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1441 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 350 (605982)
02-22-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
However that doesn't mean that real income went down. It just means that the distribution widened.
Right. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer because, after 1979, wealth was distributed from the poor to the rich.
Like I said - do you just have problems reading graphs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 350 (605984)
02-22-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 11:01 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
We've agreed, after all, that perfect efficiency doesn't make anybody any money.
Not so; it makes all the employees their paychecks and the investors their expected return on their investments. Thats making money.
crashfrog writes:
The exact same thing that would happen to an inefficiency - somebody pockets it.
You don't seem to be using the term "inefficiency" in a way I am familiar with. If you have a wheat field and instead of planting in regular rows to maximize space you haphazardly dot the plants around resulting in less overall wheat production from the plot, thats an inefficiency. Nobody pockets that, it never existed, it was a waste.
If aggregate spending equals aggregate income then all the resources spent toward producing a product are offset by the sale of the product. That includes paying off investors, maintenance on equipment and property, materials and labor costs. There is no profit to be reinvested in expansion of the business, research, or dividends. For the consumer the company's profit is a waste; making that purchase doesn't require profit to happen. But the company isn't going to waste that profit. Sure, someone could pocked it.. but in economic terms that isn't a waste because they will reinvest it. Even if they just burned the money it would result in slight deflation causing everyone's money to become slightly more valuable, exactly offsetting the burned money.
crashfrog writes:
Right, but only the government's incentives are actually working against lawbreaking. That's why the government is able to deliver certain services more efficiently, like Social Security.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!! Gosh, you had me going there for a second. 'tear' Thats a good one...
crashfrog writes:
Sure, there could not be profit, if nobody was able to buy the insurance.
But thats not a criticism of public sector insurance companies, or capitalism in general. Its just a general whine about how limited resources sometimes means people can't afford important things.
crashfrog writes:
I have no desire to steal from people who earned their wealth fairly. My desire is to return wealth to the people who fairly earned it.
And how exactly did these people who can't afford healthcare have their wealth pilfered exactly?
crashfrog writes:
Doctors who perform life-saving medical interventions certainly deserve to be paid.
And thats completely irrelevant to the point. You can't just perform economically unsustainable actions and expect to be paid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 11:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 2:41 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 350 (605985)
02-22-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 11:14 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
Right. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer because, after 1979, wealth was distributed from the poor to the rich.
Like I said - do you just have problems reading graphs?
Thats simply not what the graph says. If you think that when a graph talks about the "1979 Distribution" its talking about the transfer of wealth you need to go back to school.
If one person has 3 crackers, a second person has 5 crackers, and a third has 2 crackers then I have described how the crackers are "distributed" among the people. A year later the total number of crackers has doubled and if the original "distribution" had been maintained then person one would have 6 crackers, person two would have 10 crackers, and person three would have 4 crackers. If instead we find out that person two has only 8 crackers then the chart would show a -2 change relative to if the original distribution had prevailed. Person two still has more crackers than at the start however.
The graph you posted describes a similar circumstance, and the fact that you completely failed to understand what it was saying puts significant doubt on your ability to judge such matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 11:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2080 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 120 of 350 (605987)
02-22-2011 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
The truth is, Coyote, I wish people like you would "withhold your productivity." Every day a libertarian goes to work, the world is worse off as a result.
With every post like this your credibility just sinks lower and lower.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 11:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024