Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Entitlements - what's so bad about them?
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 107 of 138 (724299)
04-15-2014 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
04-15-2014 9:33 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
marc9000 writes:
"Free market ideologues" versus "big government ideologues" - as a conservative I think the free market ones pose less of a threat to society than big government ones
But why be an ideologue at all? Pragmatism suggests that the most successful modern economies are ones where the right balance is found rather than where dogmatic ideology reigns.
Because no one person or group has a superior knowledge of what is pragmatic and right.
marc9000 writes:
because they don't seek the same level of political power and coercion.
Big business and wealthy individuals don't seek political power and coercion....?
Not through the creation of new laws (political power) that lessen the liberty of the public at large. That's the big difference between them and big government advocates.
Can you see why some might be cynical of that assertion?
Yes, and there are multiple reasons. Some don't like the truth, while some others are ignorant of it.
At least in a genuine democracy the people can rid themselves of a corrupt or power grabbing government by voting them out.
That's the way it's supposed to be, and it still works somewhat. But it's slipping away in the U.S., party from corruption, and partly from a tyrannical majority that is getting more and more used to free stuff, at the expense of others.
So you are advocating the strengthening of unions and progressive taxation as a method of getting back to a 1960s style economy.....?
Unions (which I have little issue with) and taxation are only a small part of the overall picture in liberty lost over the past 60 years. Corruption and increasing government bureaucracies (heavily involved in redistribution of wealth) are the main problems IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2014 9:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2014 7:43 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 108 of 138 (724300)
04-15-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Diomedes
04-15-2014 12:41 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
I find it ironic that conservatives often talk about how wonderful the country was in the 1950s.
There was no EPA, and the scientific community with all it's global warming scares didn't have near the political power it does today. The news media did a pretty good job of reporting facts, people then wouldn't have stood for all the news politicizing that goes on today. We were pretty busy building a new interstate highway system, got it all basically done in about 12 years. Today, it's taking way longer than that to replace ONE interstate bridge. (I-75 linking Ky and Oh.)
Yet during that timeframe, the tax system was heavily progressive, going as high as 90% on top income tax earners. Additionally, there were far more subsidies for things like education. Tuitions were far lower and were actually free for state residents.
quote:
Tax rates were high in the 1950s, we often hear, yet economic growth boomed. So why should we fear higher taxes today?
One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate — that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/...taxes-really-higher-in-the-1950s
So if marc is asserting we should go back to those philosophies, I could not agree more.
ALL of those philosophies of the 50's? You wouldn't like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Diomedes, posted 04-15-2014 12:41 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 04-15-2014 9:22 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 04-16-2014 11:50 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(5)
Message 109 of 138 (724302)
04-15-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by marc9000
04-15-2014 6:59 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
That depends on who's doing the calling, what it's used for and who is paying it.
It is collected by an elected government through the powers given to that elected government by a constitution. It's taxation by every definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2014 6:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 110 of 138 (724309)
04-15-2014 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
04-15-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
It is amazing how figures don't lie but liars can figure.
From your link.
quote:
What matters more is the average marginal tax rate — that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
And from a Wall Street Journal propaganda piece
quote:
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolicvery few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
So how do the wealthy end up paying more with a lower tax rate? By making exponentially more than other taxpayers compared to 1958. All this data proves is that wealth is consolidating in the hands of the extremely wealthy. It is not at all an argument that tax rates on the wealthy are to high. It is an argument that tax rates are too low.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2014 7:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2014 8:15 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 111 of 138 (724334)
04-16-2014 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
04-15-2014 7:19 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You keep talking about redistribution of wealth but in recent decades wealth has become ever more concentrated at the top.
How do you reconcile that fact with your redistribution assertions?
Marc writes:
Because no one person or group has a superior knowledge of what is pragmatic and right.
The way to determine what works and what doesn't is evidence. Much the same conversation was had previously - Message 488 (from which much of the following is borrowed)
In most of the world's richest 30 countries more than 30% of GDP is spent by the government. In other words the sort of government spending levels you are objecting to are most often associated with success and wealth in national terms at least.
U.S. government spending is 38.9 % of GDP. If we look at your neighbours, Canada spends 39.7%, and Mexico a relatively low 23.7%.
Government spending
Do you think that the U.S. and Canada should emulate Mexico?
Wealthy countries in which government spending is less than 30% are generally unusual in their circumstances, like the eastern city-state trading ports Hong Kong and Singapore, or small enclaves with tiny populations swimming in huge oil fields, like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Some very poor countries come out with strangely high percentages on the list above, like 97% and even 114%, but that's because the aid their governments receive from other countries can about equal or even exceed their own GDP! But generally speaking, poor countries have the "small" governments that you seem to think advantageous in wealth making.
Here's a per. capita wealth list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2014 7:19 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 04-16-2014 11:59 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2014 8:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 112 of 138 (724354)
04-16-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
04-15-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
This too. Claiming something is the average tax rate means nothing. What are their workings to come up with an average? Why do you think average means anything?
Do you understand the terms average, mean, median and mode? In order for their argument to have any validity I think they need to look at mean, median and mode.
Also, that the average tax rate has gone up, again shows that there is an extreme concentration of wealth. If there was not an extreme flow of capital to the already wealthy, then the average tax rate would have not risen so much.
Looking at average tax rates does nothing to support or deny your argument. It is just a distraction, an attempt to obfuscate the issue. There is an extreme problem in the USA with concentration of wealth. Ultimately, that concentration makes the economy unsustainable and your argument untenable.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2014 7:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2014 8:30 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(7)
Message 113 of 138 (724355)
04-16-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Straggler
04-16-2014 7:43 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
Straggler writes:
You keep talking about redistribution of wealth but in recent decades wealth has become ever more concentrated at the top.
Apparently it's okay to redistribute the wealth by piracy but not by democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2014 7:43 AM Straggler has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 114 of 138 (724384)
04-16-2014 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Theodoric
04-15-2014 9:22 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
It is amazing how figures don't lie but liars can figure.
It sure is! - we have several here who are trying to use figures to convince themselves that the U.S. government was bigger in the 1950's than it is today! That Eisenhower, a respected former WW2 military general, would somehow be comparable to the arrogance and increases in the size and scope of government of this current joke of an administration.
So how do the wealthy end up paying more with a lower tax rate? By making exponentially more than other taxpayers compared to 1958. All this data proves is that wealth is consolidating in the hands of the extremely wealthy.
Again, who decides what to do about it? If we further soak the top 3%, will 4% thru 10% also not get soaked? 10% thru 20%? How many have we discouraged from innovating and taking risks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 04-15-2014 9:22 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 04-16-2014 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 115 of 138 (724388)
04-16-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Straggler
04-16-2014 7:43 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You keep talking about redistribution of wealth but in recent decades wealth has become ever more concentrated at the top.
That could be because those at the top are far smarter than the Democrat politicians who are constantly trying to tax their wealth away from them. They find ways to turn government meddling to their advantage, sometimes honestly, sometimes through corruption. It costs the poor, it costs the middle class, and it costs the wealthy who are just below them, the innovators and risk takers.
In most of the world's richest 30 countries more than 30% of GDP is spent by the government. In other words the sort of government spending levels you are objecting to are most often associated with success and wealth in national terms at least.
It depends on what it is spent ON. Is it spent giving handouts to the non productive, or on infrastructure? Is it spent on environmental studies and restrictions, or on military, or more prisons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2014 7:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2014 8:11 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 116 of 138 (724389)
04-16-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
04-16-2014 11:50 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
There is an extreme problem in the USA with concentration of wealth. Ultimately, that concentration makes the economy unsustainable and your argument untenable.
My argument's not untenable until I see a solution to the problem, that won't ultimately make things worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 04-16-2014 11:50 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 117 of 138 (724390)
04-16-2014 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
04-16-2014 8:15 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
we have several here who are trying to use figures to convince themselves that the U.S. government was bigger in the 1950's than it is today!
Please show where this was said.
That Eisenhower, a respected former WW2 military general, would somehow be comparable to the arrogance and increases in the size and scope of government of this current joke of an administration
Please explain what was said and why it is not correct.
Again, who decides what to do about it?
The people, through congress. Have you never read the Constitution?
If we further soak the top 3%, will 4% thru 10% also not get soaked? 10% thru 20%?
Strawman much.
How many have we discouraged from innovating and taking risks?
The 1% are not innovators. If you think they are provide some support. The 1% take few risks. The game is rigged heavily in their favor. If they are taking risks than they must fail at some times. Show that some of the 1% take actual risks. If they are getting guaranteed returns it isn't much of a risk, is it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2014 8:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2014 9:34 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(6)
Message 118 of 138 (724441)
04-17-2014 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by marc9000
04-16-2014 8:27 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You keep talking about the rich in glowing terms as the innovators and producers whose fabulously wealthy existence we should all be grateful for and in awe of......
Profits as a share of GDP in almost all western countries are at record highs, along with executive pay while real wages for the majority stagnate or even fall.
What on Earth leads you to conclude that those enjoying these record profits and executive payouts are the most personally productive and innovative? Where do you get this idea from?
This notion that simply being rich makes one a "wealth creator" or is evidence of personal innovation is patently absurd. But it seems to lie at the heart of your argument here.
Marc writes:
It depends on what it is spent ON.
A healthy, educated workforce with a safety net that makes things like losing ones job or getting ill a temporary setback rather than a tragedy from which it is impossible to recover to live a fully productive life - These things benefit the whole economy in the long run. Add in investment in infrastructure and more generally the use of public finds to create an environment in which businesses can thrive, innovation can occur and wealth can be created such that all in society, rather than an elite few, can benefit. That should be the aim....... No?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2014 8:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:55 PM Straggler has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 119 of 138 (724452)
04-17-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Theodoric
04-16-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
Please explain what was said and why it is not correct.
He cannot. He has done the best he is going to do.
Marc9000 is correct when he says that liberals and conservatives talk past each other without understanding each other. But the reason seems partially to be that one side cannot explain their motivations and truisms in anything like rationale terms.
Supposedly big government is bad because it produces bad results. How dare you point out that even more of those 'bad' results were produced during times of small governments. You must be a commie.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 04-16-2014 9:16 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2014 9:48 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 120 of 138 (724454)
04-17-2014 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by NoNukes
04-17-2014 9:34 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You must be a commie.
Actually I support a socialist agenda. I kinda like the VA(Veterans Administration for those not from USA), Social Security, US Military. Oh and that most socialist organization in the USA, the local volunteer fire department.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2014 9:34 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2014 10:29 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 138 (724456)
04-17-2014 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
04-17-2014 9:48 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
"socialist agenda"
I knew it. You just want North Korea and Russia to come here and take our shit. Pinko.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2014 9:48 AM Theodoric 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