Democratic Economics Made Simple

FD Kahn: you're not being controversial enough. Throw in a few "Democrats and France are socialist" comments and you'll get a response.

You are right on the money on economics. It's funny people complain America doesn't have enough entitlements and social programs. They should consider that maybe that's why our economy is so darn good.

 

90% tax rate ? what country has that? I know Sweden is prolly the worse with around 50%..of course they have the highest Quality of Life, Free College, Free Healthcare....

 

You'll never hear me complain about lack of entitlements and social programs, I just think they go to the wrong people. The vast majority of government handouts these days go to rich people at the expense of middle and lower class Americans. Tax shelters, deductions, write offs, offshore incorporation, and even publicly funded sports buildings are taking money away from people who truly NEED to be helped.

Don't give me any crap about welfare, either, because I don't support the idea of welfare. I agree that giving people money for not working is as bad an idea as paying a farmer not to grow crops (subsidies are another handout to already wealthy corporations). Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout. Make someone work for the state while they complete a job training program or degree and we might have a system that could teach people to fish, so to speak. Go a bit further and use the extra labor as a way to screen people for government service and we might actually be able to find some hard workers to place in government jobs.

Does anyone here actually have any numbers as to the number of people actually on welfare along with information about how long they generally stay on it? My guess is that it is a miniscule number of people and that they consume a VERY small percentage of our tax dollars compared to, say, all the pork barrel projects like the yearly stipend for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

The argument about the grasshopper presented in the fiction that started this thread is specious at best as it presents one of the extreme cases of how welfare could fail. The federal welfare system has a time limit and some states cut people off even sooner, so trying to argue that people just live their lives off of the system is silly. I don't want to give people a "free ride" on my tax dollars any more than the next guy, but you try to make every person on welfare out to be a bloodsucking leech bent on milking the system for everything it is worth.

What about the young, high school educated mother whose husband walks out on her? Should she just starve in the street with her children?

What about the people whose unemployment has run out during the recent record jobless rate? Should they go live under a bridge and stand on the side of the road with a sign?

There are plenty of reasons that welfare should be limited and there are just as many reasons that it should not be eliminated. There are also plenty of ways that welfare could be changed to make better use of the resources that we dedicate to it, it is just a matter of identifying the ways to improve it. Finding those ways are difficult for supporters when they have to fight the right tooth and nail just to keep it in the budget.

 

I also disagree with corporate welfare. However, lots of these are also supported by community activists because they get kickbacks. As for closing. tax loopholes, our tax code is only getting bigger and more confusing. There isn't anythign wrong with deductions and writeoffs, those are just part of doing business. To gauge income accurately, you have to be able to deduct ceratin things.

It may be a small percentage, but when a small percentage of the population is trapped in poverty and crime, it can have a huge effect on our society. Pork barrel is also bad, and I want to cut it (seems impossible) but it's not nearly as bad as the culture of poverty social programs cna promote.

Why does a high school mother have a child? It's a problem that this occurs in the first place, and that they don't have a 2 parent home to help take care of the unwanted child.

It was the other way around. To institute welfare reform with it's work requirements and time limits took incredible amount of work and luck. People just do not believe that the poor can take care of themselves. They refuse to blame the culture, and instead blame corporations, the economy, Republicans, etc. We are headed in the right direction. Now, the statistics are showing dramatic reductions in welfare rolls and a slight increase in 2 parent homes in the African American community. It's time the liberals admitted they were wrong on welfare reform.

 

Anyone who's interested should check the tax history of the US. In the "good ole days" of the 1950s, our top tax bracket was also quite high -- about 50% if I'm not mistaken. Carry on.

 

Roosevelt raised them to over 90%. I think they were around 70% as recently as the 1970's.

 

An our income tax didn't exist not that long ago. When was it instated, like in the 1920s or 30s?

 

This is a pet peeve of mine. They do not offer FREE college and heathcare in Sweden (or substitute any socialist country here). It is paid for many times over through these higher tax burdens.

 

Good point, bigtaxxx. I should take my own advice and look into the history. I really undersold the top rates in the US.



This from the Century Foundation. I think the data is legit.

 

you know exactly what I meant, of course the money to run the university, pay the teachers, etc etc is coming from the government...

I should of said STATE-PAID FOR COLLEGE, STATE-PAID FOR HEALTHCARE..

Attending university in Sweden is NOT depentant on your ability to pay for it...


do you consider Canada Socialist? of course they have higher quality of life than the USA also...

 

Bigtaxxx- very funny B-bob.


What your data lacks is what wage earners are inthe top marginal rate. Also- effective tax rates are much more important that just what is the top marginal rate. A graph of the effective tax rates and a weighted average across all tax brackets would be something much more useful. With the graduated tax scale in this country, people don't pay all their taxes based solely on their marginal rate. For example, sombody whose marginal rate is around 30% only pays around 20% of his salary in taxes.

 

thanks. maybe it will catch on. At least it beats "bigtesss."

Anyway, you make good points about that graph. It was just a bit of data I found. But remember the title of the thread and be kind: you have to make economics really simple for us democrats.

 

I agree that our tax code is too big to be useful. It costs an inordinate amount of time and money to implement and enforce the tax code but it isn't going to change as long as corporations and rich people can purchase their own exemption, deduction, or IRS agent.

Personally, I would prefer a consumption tax, but I could be convinced to accept a flat income tax with no loopholes, deductions, shelters, or corporate exemptions.

Pork barrel could be cut once we publicly fund elections and reduce the impact that big money contributions have on legislation. Behind every pork barrel project is a campaign contribution.

High school educated, not high school aged. I am talking about the woman who decides to be a stay at home mom and is left high and dry. Yes, one parent homes are a problem, one that is easily dealt with by helping the woman get on her feet, get an education, and get into the workforce where she can pay taxes. We can make a system that works if we find common ground rather than just demonizing the evil "social programs."

I am not a liberal, I supported welfare reform. I believe we can make it even leaner and more efficient if we make use of the resources we have more efficiently. If the right would put as much effort toward refining the system as they do trying to kill it, they would have a dramatic impact.

 

Then go live in Sweden.

I'd rather keep the money I work for.

You can't just look at income tax. Everything is taxed. Gas, alcohol, cigarettes, car rentals, air ports and that's NOT sales tax. There are also MUD taxes, property taxes, some states have state income taxes. A good chunk of what you buy costs more because prices are raised to cover taxes.

Your capital gains are taxed, your hotel is taxed, your freakin everything is taxed. If you were to say that most Americans gave 25% in income tax, that does not include the other huge amounts of money they do spend in taxes.

Are those taxes necessary in most cases. Yes. Should I pay more than I do now? No. Shoud I get a break because I work hard and pay so much...I think so.

The argument that your government should take care of you is ridiculous. Everybody has to earn their keep if they are physically and mentally possible.

Everybody.

 

Absolutely agreed. The government should not be in the business of supporting lazy people who just don't want to work. That is why we need to use the system to reward the people who actually WANT to make better of themselves and become productive taxpayers. Let those lazy SOBs rot under a bridge for all I care.

 

first of all, I never said that I thought Sweden's system was favorable. I simply supplied the facs...Quality of Life...

Why is it that when talking about social programs, some people (mostly Republicans) automatically assume that the majority of people that would or are using these programs are lazy and unwilling to work or contribute to society?

 

I have to agree with you.

The poor don't remain poor because they feel like being lazy and leech off the system(yes there are people that do so and yes there are holes in the system that need to be closed). Most of the time, you need money to make money. Assets just don't pop out of your butt. Some people remain homeless or poor because 1.they are mentally ill, 2.they can't get a job with the economy like it is, 3.no education(is this really their fault?), 4.alcoholism/drug problems(not always caused by the environment they are put in.. some of these problems are hereditary), or 5.just bad freakin luck.

Now, which party is most likely going to fix these problems in the social systems? I would have to say voting Democrat is the best way to go.

F.D. Khan.. I think you mix up the terms Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Socialists, Capitalists.

If you vote democrat.. that doesn't make you an ultraliberal socialist.

It's all economics baby. Democrats look out for the little guy first. Thats how their system works. If the little guy has money, he's going to spend it somewhere else.

The Republican theory or "The trickle down effect" is making sure that big fat cats don't get taxed to death and can afford to hire more people putting money into the pockets of the little guy.


Now should the little guy be able to leech money out of the gov't? Hell freakin no. The american dream is to be one of the elite. To strive to be the best of the best. Lets fix the damn system and make it flexible for changing.

 

Khanny boy.. the word of the day for you

empathy - Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.

obviously you lack it