Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,567 Year: 4,824/9,624 Month: 172/427 Week: 85/85 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wealth Distribution in the USA
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 496 of 531 (701610)
06-22-2013 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Jon
06-22-2013 12:32 AM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
Look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Jon, posted 06-22-2013 12:32 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by xongsmith, posted 06-23-2013 12:20 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9530
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 497 of 531 (701612)
06-22-2013 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Coyote
06-21-2013 10:16 PM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
Coyote writes:
Not just taking, but taking by force--at the barrel of a gun.
Do you think society could exist without taxation?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2013 10:16 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 498 of 531 (701613)
06-22-2013 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Coyote
06-21-2013 11:28 PM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
And so you continue to lie and misrepresent the truth.
Taxes are a voluntary, mutually agreed upon commitment. We, the US citizens, have elected representatives and charged them to perform tasks and to fund those tasks by levying taxes which we agree to pay.
It really is that simple.
Taxes are not stealing.
Taxes do not hurt the economy.
Taxes are not imposed by force or taken at the point of a gun.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2013 11:28 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by foreveryoung, posted 06-23-2013 9:24 PM jar has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 499 of 531 (701625)
06-22-2013 1:33 PM


Coyote was at the debates a couple years ago:
Just study it out
(skip to :35)
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 500 of 531 (701655)
06-23-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Coyote
06-21-2013 9:25 PM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
Coyote writes:
Why Government Spending Does Nothing for Jobs
While most economists and policy makers are focusing on the International Monetary Fund’s epiphany on the perils of austerity, some researchers at the IMF have offered another take on the fiscal-policy debate. They found that less is more, even when it comes to the size and scope of government.
More.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
That's an opinion piece you've linked to, which is why it says "opinion" in the bar at the top. Here's a list of countries in order of the percentage of employees who are in the public sector, highest at the top, from the OECD in 2008.. I've put their current or most recent recorded unemployment rates in, from here.
Norway 3.0
Denmark 7.7
Sweden 8.4
Finland 8.2
France 11
Hungary 10.9
Estonia 10.8
Luxembourg 5.1
United Kingdom 7.9
Belgium 7.4
Canada 7.1
Israel 6.7
Australia 5.5
Ireland 13.7
Slovenia 10.2
United States 7.5
Italy 12.0
Czech Republic 7.3
Spain 27.2
Portugal 17.7
Netherlands 8.3
Austria 3.9
Turkey 8.1
Slovak Republic 14.5
New Zealand 7.3
Poland 10.6
Switzerland 3.1
Germany 5.4
Chile 6.2
Mexico 5.12
Greece 27.4
Japan 4.2
S. Korea 2.9
Those figures don't mean that there isn't any crowding out (public employment keeping people out of private employment) effect at all, but they do indicate that it isn't a major factor in causing unemployment.
When you read articles on economics, they're often coloured by ideology, whether right, left or centre. It's always worth doing your own research because of this. Looking at the OECD chart, there's nothing to support the following hypotheses:
Having many public employees makes a country rich/poor.
Having few public employees makes a country rich/poor.
Having many public employees means high/low unemployment.
Having few public employees means high/low unemployment.
Public employment isn't the same as public spending, which is what my last post was about. Some wealthy countries have very high public spending but a low level of public employment (Austria, for example) and others relatively low public spending but high public employment (Luxembourg).
As you seem to consider all or most public spending to be socialism, then we can certainly say that all wealthy successful countries are socialist (by your definition, not most people's ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2013 9:25 PM Coyote has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 501 of 531 (701661)
06-23-2013 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Coyote
06-22-2013 12:41 AM


Re: Enforcing taxation at the barrel of a gun
Coyote clings desperately onto his world view with:
Look it up.
Well, it was the way they got Al Capone. Are you now siding with Al Capone?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2013 12:41 AM Coyote has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 502 of 531 (701680)
06-23-2013 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by jar
06-22-2013 7:53 AM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
But, if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. This may not be at the point of a gun but that is metaphor anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by jar, posted 06-22-2013 7:53 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by jar, posted 06-23-2013 9:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 503 of 531 (701681)
06-23-2013 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by jar
06-20-2013 10:25 PM


Re: minimum annual income.
I did read what you wrote. What you intended to communicate and what was actually understood are two different things. My understanding from what you wrote is that spending is what stimulates an economy and that corporate profits siphon off money and direct it away from the economy in an unproductive manner. I realize that you didn't say government but that is the source of spending if you don't want to include evil corporations or the evil monied class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by jar, posted 06-20-2013 10:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by jar, posted 06-23-2013 10:01 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 504 of 531 (701682)
06-23-2013 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by foreveryoung
06-23-2013 9:24 PM


Re: Let's look at the reality of "big" government.
It is certainly not at the point of a gun, but that is irrelevant.
When you break any contractual agreement you are subject to sanction and as I pointed out, paying taxes is a commitment we make as citizens. We elect representatives and charge them to preform tasks and to use taxes to fund those tasks.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by foreveryoung, posted 06-23-2013 9:24 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 505 of 531 (701683)
06-23-2013 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by foreveryoung
06-23-2013 9:29 PM


Re: minimum annual income.
I did read what you wrote. What you intended to communicate and what was actually understood are two different things. My understanding from what you wrote is that spending is what stimulates an economy and that corporate profits siphon off money and direct it away from the economy in an unproductive manner. I realize that you didn't say government but that is the source of spending if you don't want to include evil corporations or the evil monied class.
What you understand is solely up to you. What I actually wrote though is there for all to read.
No where will you find me saying that spending stimulates the economy and I would be shocked at anyone making such a sophomoric assertion.
Nor did I say profits only siphon off money and direct it away from the economy.
Go back again and actually read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by foreveryoung, posted 06-23-2013 9:29 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 506 of 531 (712560)
12-05-2013 8:31 AM


Fast Food Strikes and the Minimum Wage
The fast food strikes in the US that have recently been in the news reminded me of this thread, here's a sample news item: Fast Food Strikes Planned.
Minimum wage was one of the issues that came up in this thread. Some thought the minimum wage should be a living wage, and that increasing it to a living wage (i.e., enough to support an average familiy) would address the income problems of many people. Others thought minimum wage jobs should be an entry point into the work force and not provide a living wage, and that increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would cause inflation and cost jobs.
An industry expert interviewed today on NPR (sorry, didn't catch the name) said that a doubling of the minimum wage could be absorbed by the fast food industry by increasing food prices by about 1/3, or by the industry reducing franchise costs by around 3%, or by reducing costs through through increased automation, such as automated order taking and payment systems and more cooking automation.
It seems that the US economy has declined to the point where there are now many, many people who can no longer find jobs that pay a living wage. While they were earning a living wage they came to have families and mortgages and other expenses, but now they must accept minimum wage jobs. Even worse, it might be the case that this is not a transient situation caused by a temporarily weak economy, but is rather the new normal, that even when the economy does recover that the jobs those people lost will not be coming back. Whatever are we to do?
Those behind the fast food strikes propose doubling the minimum wage, but the effects might ripple through the economy, causing lost jobs and increased inflation. On the other hand, if the current situation really is the new normal, we can't allow it to split the country into nearly permanent classes of haves and have-nots
This means we must accept the inflation (it won't be permanent), and we must make provision to take care of those who do lose their jobs, which means government programs. The economy will adjust structurally, but it will take time. Those who have more will have to accept less, and conservatives will fight what they view as socialism each step of the way.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Jon, posted 12-05-2013 9:16 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 508 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2013 10:50 AM Percy has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 507 of 531 (712568)
12-05-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Percy
12-05-2013 8:31 AM


Re: Fast Food Strikes and the Minimum Wage
Whatever are we to do?
Cut CEO pay and stop pretending like the cost burden of running a society must always fall on the backs of the lowest-paid, hardest-working citizens.
Unless we actually address the real problem with the economy, nothing will get better in the end.
Those who have more will have to accept less,
Of course not, because what they rape from the American people in terms of low wages they will simply rape from the American people in terms of high prices.
As long as raping is legal, raping will continue to happen.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:31 AM Percy has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 508 of 531 (712584)
12-05-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Percy
12-05-2013 8:31 AM


Re: Fast Food Strikes and the Minimum Wage
If the market rate for certain types of labour doesn't supply a living wage should the state effectively subsidise those industries which rely on that labour by providing their employees with the shortfall?
Should our taxes subsidise the employment costs of McDonalds Corp or Walmart or whoever because 'the market rate' they pay the employees on which their business depends is too low for those employees to actually live on?
This situation is increasingly prevalent. It's an example of what effectively amounts to 'trickle-up' economics. The poorest get poorer. The middle get tax squeezed. The richest minimise costs, maximise profits and 'avoid' taxation. Thus wealth becomes more and more concentrated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:31 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 11:23 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 510 by Jon, posted 12-05-2013 11:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 509 of 531 (712599)
12-05-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by Straggler
12-05-2013 10:50 AM


the 50-50-50 plan again - trickle up!
A big question for me is how do you most effectively help small businesses? Big businesses do not need help (or they would not be in business).
When small businesses become successful and expand they create jobs. Job growth numbers show small businesses create more jobs overall than big businesses.
Small businesses are local so money spent there stays local, boosting the local economy.
Small businesses employ local people, so local unemployment decreases as they grow.
Thus my 50-50-50 plan:
  • the first $50,000 annual income (including dividends and any other sources of money) is tax free,
  • after subtracting $50,000 annual income from total income (from all sources) the rest is taxed at 50%,
  • everybody that files a tax return gets a $50.00 per day economy dividend -- your return on investing in the economy.
This amounts to base income of $18250.00(365x50) per year, and replaces social security, unemployment and welfare, etc. Everybody gets this, and they can select on their tax return whether they want it weekly, monthly or annually (taken off next years taxes). The whole program is run by IRS, so the other programs can be shut down and the people can engage in productive jobs or retire.
People at the bottom of the economic spectrum will be spending 100% of their income, so it returns to the economy virtually instantly, thus boosting the economy.
Small businesses now do not need to provide a living wage, they can provide extra pocket money.
People can afford to not work at shit jobs to live, so businesses that have unattractive work will need to pay to attract workers. They will need to respect workers rather than treat them like slaves.
Money would trickle up to lenders, banks, etc. thus benefiting them.
Simple. Effective. Responsible.
Feed the bottom and the whole pyramid grows.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 508 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2013 10:50 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 510 of 531 (712604)
12-05-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by Straggler
12-05-2013 10:50 AM


Re: Fast Food Strikes and the Minimum Wage
If the market rate for certain types of labour doesn't supply a living wage should the state effectively subsidise those industries which rely on that labour by providing their employees with the shortfall?
That's how it works now. But it could be different.
Should our taxes subsidise the employment costs of McDonalds Corp or Walmart or whoever because 'the market rate' they pay the employees on which their business depends is too low for those employees to actually live on?
The present system is something like this. But it could be different.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2013 10:50 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2013 12:20 PM Jon has seen this message but 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