A New Direction For America

[trumptman]

Well, it appearst the Democratic Contact for America is here and it is labeled "A New Direction for America." We can't really call it a contract I guess because while there is support for these items, there are no promises of action.

Still.. here it is...



MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE
Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.


LOWER GAS PRICES AND ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.


HELP WORKING FAMILIES
Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that encourage companies to move jobs overseas.



CUT COLLEGE COSTS
Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.



ENSURE DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT
Prevent the privatization of Social Security; expand savings incentives; ensure pension fairness.



REQUIRE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Content of your own?

[BRussell]

Nothing about Iraq or national security, or anything but nice-sounding domestic stuff. I think that's a mistake. Sure, Iraq is a hard one with no easy solution. But there are plenty of national security plans that would be easy for all Democrats to agree on.

In general, they sound kind of small, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. One thing about the Republican control of government since 2001, it's been bold. Bad, IMO, but bold. Cut taxes to the max and raise spending to the max. Invade Iraq. Challenge restrictions on executive and intelligence powers every step of the way. There's not much subtlety or modesty there. I think we could use a more modest government for a while.

[Placebo]

How about "raise gas prices through taxation and let the free market and consumers figure out how to use less, while delegating taxes to fund alternative energy".

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by BRussell
Nothing about Iraq or national security, or anything but nice-sounding domestic stuff. I think that's a mistake. Sure, Iraq is a hard one with no easy solution. But there are plenty of national security plans that would be easy for all Democrats to agree on. Well, we don't really know since no link was provided. Could just be a case of someone "forgetting" to include anything on national security. :???:

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Well, we don't really know since no link was provided. Could just be a case of someone "forgetting" to include anything on national security. :???:

I don't think he forgot anything.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67657

[hardeeharhar]

New direction on national security?

How exactly would that work???

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by ronaldo
I don't think he forgot anything.
Just curious...but who is "he"?

[southside grabowski]

Same old leftist jaber.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Well, we don't really know since no link was provided. Could just be a case of someone "forgetting" to include anything on national security. :???: It's pretty easy to find. I just typed in democrats.house.gov.

[trumptman]

I've sat back and thought about these a bit, and the first thing that popped into my head is that there wasn't a single item that wasn't related to income redistribution.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by trumptman
[B]MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE
Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs,

Sufficiently vague to be utterly meaningless.

Originally posted by trumptman
negotiating lower drug prices

Is this because they don't want new drugs being developed in the future?

Originally posted by trumptman
LOWER GAS PRICES

Is this because they don't want real incentives for alternative fuels?

Originally posted by trumptman
Crack down on price gouging;

How? Price controls? Will they actually seek to prove price gouging or just assume it and whine about it?

Originally posted by trumptman
promote energy efficient technology.

By lowering gas prices? Are they dumb or simply pandering?

Originally posted by trumptman
Raise the minimum wage;

Is this because they don't like poor people very much?

Originally posted by trumptman
cut student loan costs.

How will they do this exactly? Lower interest rates?

Originally posted by trumptman
expand savings incentives;

How will they do this exactly? Raise interest rates? Increase consumption taxes?

Originally posted by trumptman
ensure pension fairness.

Sufficiently vague to be utterly meaningless.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I've sat back and thought about these a bit, and the first thing that popped into my head is that there wasn't a single item that wasn't related to income redistribution.

Nick Hmm? I don't see a single one that is income redistribution, unless you define it so broadly that anything is. Fiscal responsibility certainly would mean an end to deficit-expading tax cuts for the wealthy, so therefore it means "income redistribution." Making tuition tax-deductible isn't a give-away to the rich only, and therefore it's "income redistribution." Am I on the right track?

[Chris Cuilla]

Well, really, any tax-deduction, credit, etc. is an indirect form of income re-distribution.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Placebo
How about "raise gas prices through taxation and let the free market and consumers figure out how to use less, while delegating taxes to fund alternative energy".

Better yet?

Use the money gained on those increased taxes on:
1) finally giving the US proper public transportation. Sheesh!
2) alternative energy research. Specifically, improved hybrid engines for the short term, and fuel cells for the long run.

European countries have been successfully doing this. Why can't the US?

Oh, I know. There will be those who say "But I lovez my carz! Gas expensive! Gas evil! Cheap gaz for meeez!" Well, sucks to be them.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, really, any tax-deduction, credit, etc. is an indirect form of income re-distribution.

Since income redistribution is apparently bad, I guess giving to charities is bad.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Since income redistribution is apparently bad, I guess giving to charities is bad.

That is volentary redistribution - taxes are forced redistribution at the point of a gun.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
That is volentary redistribution - taxes are forced redistribution at the point of a gun.

Since when has the 1040 ever held a gun to your head?

[SDW2001]

I cannot believe this is actually what they have come out with. I actually thought trumpy was joking when I read it. Then I saw the link.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: Focusing on a national strategy as opposed to a local strategy is not going to work in my opinion.

But the platform itself? I don't know. It seems incedibly vague, moreso than the CWA was. But point by point:


MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE
Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.

OK, fair enough. I just don't think this is the kind of issue people are going to go to the polls for. It's not going to win over moderated conservatives who aren't thrilled about the Medicare plan anyway.

LOWER GAS PRICES AND ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.

Umm...price gouging? No one can even agree what that means. Secondly, it's not happening. Eliminating subsidies? Why? Consumer tax releif? A few billion dollars is not going to mean jack shit to the average person in the end. Biofuels? Great..we're already funding that. Energy efficient technology? We're already doing that too. It takes decades to develop.


HELP WORKING FAMILIES
Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that encourage companies to move jobs overseas.

Raising the minimum wage will just drive labor costs even higher, causing MORE outsourcing, not less. No one works for minimum wage anyway. Mcdonald's often starts at like $7.00+ an hour.

CUT COLLEGE COSTS
Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

The first item is going to cost big dollars. I don't know what the last one means.



ENSURE DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT
Prevent the privatization of Social Security; expand savings incentives; ensure pension fairness.

I just disagree with this entirely. I won't say more.


REQUIRE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.


Where to begin. First, we already are experiencing strong economic growth. Secondly, the budget discipline they are talking about came from...wait for it...Republicans. Third, Dems have no credibility on this issue. They're even bigger spenders than Republicans.

I like how they chose to utterly ignore national security in its entirey. That's incredibly stupid. My feeling is that the Dems are going to blow the best chance they've had to retake Congress since they lost power to begin with. If they can't win this time, it is the end of the party on a national scale.

[hardeeharhar]

When the facts get in the way, just make shit up.

[Northgate]

Yeah, because you know...paying for roads, highways, electrical grid infrastructure, dams, bridges and city planning are BAD BAD BAD and I don't want to pay for any of that.

And while we're at it, I don't think my "income re-distribution at the end of a gun" should pay for the courts either. I mean most of the Supreme Court is spent on business and commerce related issues. Why should I pay for that, I'm a Democrat?

Why don't I want to pay for any of this?

Because a small percentage of those funds stolen out of my pocket MIGHT actually be used by a black mother putting new shoes on her children's feet. FUCK THAT!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Northgate
Yeah, because you know...paying for roads, highways, electrical grid infrastructure, dams, bridges and city planning are BAD BAD BAD and I don't want to pay for any of that.

And while we're at it, I don't think my "income re-distribution at the end of a gun" should pay for the courts either. I mean most of the Supreme Court is spent on business and commerce related issues. Why should I pay for that, I'm a Democrat?

Why don't I want to pay for any of this?

Because a small percentage of those funds stolen out of my pocket MIGHT actually be used by a black mother putting new shoes on her children's feet. FUCK THAT!

I was just pointing out the differences between charity and taxes - no value judgements. If you fail to pay your taxes you go to jail.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Umm...price gouging? No one can even agree what that means. Secondly, it's not happening.

I guess I shall introduce you to OPEC (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC). OPEC effectively controls the bulk of oil exports. OPEC is a cartel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel). A cartel is…
a group of formally independent producers whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition.

Ah yes. So, I guess "price gouging" and "fixing prices" isn't the same?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Northgate
Yeah, because you know...paying for roads, highways, electrical grid infrastructure, dams, bridges and city planning are BAD BAD BAD and I don't want to pay for any of that.

Actually those are good, good good, but I don't see anything that resembles that in the plan presented. If they had included that they probably would get my vote.

And while we're at it, I don't think my "income re-distribution at the end of a gun" should pay for the courts either. I mean most of the Supreme Court is spent on business and commerce related issues. Why should I pay for that, I'm a Democrat?

Government services would be a nice thing as well. That could probably get my vote as well.

Why don't I want to pay for any of this?

Umm... I don't know. Because you are heartless and cruel? That seems to be the consensus when anyone else tosses out an argument against income redistribution.

ecause a small percentage of those funds stolen out of my pocket MIGHT actually be used by a black mother putting new shoes on her children's feet. FUCK THAT!

First you assume that the poor mother would be black. I think that says something interesting about you, or at least about how you caricature since no one here has mentioned race.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Hmm? I don't see a single one that is income redistribution, unless you define it so broadly that anything is. Fiscal responsibility certainly would mean an end to deficit-expading tax cuts for the wealthy, so therefore it means "income redistribution." Making tuition tax-deductible isn't a give-away to the rich only, and therefore it's "income redistribution." Am I on the right track?

I don't define it to broadly but receiving a service that doesn't pay for itself and thus must be paid for by others is income redistribution. Lets take the first item. You are a well-reasoned person BRussell and hopefully can see the policy discussing instead of just a parsing discussion.

MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE
Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.

How does one put people ahead of drug companies? If they limit profits, they limit the development of new medicines. If medicines are going to be developed in conjunction with with the government to justify the limiting of the profit motive that will likely require subsidizing research and apparently that happens, but is wasteful.

I've not heard of the government negotiating high drug prices but I'm open to reading something that claims the government desires to be ripped off on prescription drugs.

Ensuring the program works for all sounds at a minimum like a one size fits all solution and at a maximum like a claim that it does not work for the poorest. Investing in stem cell and other medical research again sounds like a subsidy. What makes us believe the subsidies will somehow not be wasteful this time?

Now this sounds like income redistribution in a number of ways. Profit limitations are forms of income redistribution because they make the market inefficient in a quest to deliver dollars back to the consumer who would have spent them. Insuring they work for ALL again means that it works for 75-80% of people but that some folks, reasons not given do not seek the program, cannot afford the program, who knows but the program doesn't "work" for them. This is often solved by charging those for who it does work more to insure that those for whom it does not work can now afford to have it work for them as well.

That is a decent start, if you think I'm reading this wrong, you are welcome to comment.

Nick

[rufusswan]

"caricature" rather than "character"? what a 'subtle' joke on your part.

This pretty much shoulds like typical do-gooder, liberal, Democratice drivel. In the process of being world/social saviours {ignore the man behind the blue curtain} we will reduce all costs and spend more. If this is the direction of the Democrats, then it is the same direction the water twirls in my toilet.

Paz

[Northgate]

Because "Doing Good" is BAD BAD BAD.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Since when has the 1040 ever held a gun to your head?

Well. maybe not a gun (metaphorical there)...but try not paying and see what happens.

[Placebo]

Hey, have I told you all about how we're going to have diminishing oil production after 2015 or so, and increasing demand as well?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well. maybe not a gun (metaphorical there)...but try not paying and see what happens.

Why should you get anything the government provides for free?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Why should you get anything the government provides for free?

You are changing the argument. The point was that taxes are forced not voluntary.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are changing the argument. The point was that taxes are forced not voluntary.

No, they are not forced. You can choose to live without the services they provide in some sort of native state elsewhere.

You pay taxes for the privilege of living in the country, proportionally to your income because of the value this country is to the lining of your pocket.

You have the choice to leave at any point and fend for yourself in nature.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, they are not forced. You can choose to live without the services they provide in some sort of native state elsewhere.

You pay taxes for the privilege of living in the country, proportionally to your income because of the value this country is to the lining of your pocket.

You have the choice to leave at any point and fend for yourself in nature.

Now you are just being silly. Of course what you say is true. But within the context a city, county, state, nation you cannot simply choose to not use services and not pay the taxes. Stop being ridiculous.

P.S. All of this is somewhat beside the point anyway. The real point was whether or not taxes are a form of income redistribution. The fact is that they certainly can be. Whether this is good not...well you were the first one to chime in with "Since income redistribution is apparently bad" (despite the fact that no one had even said such a thing).

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now you are just being silly. Of course what you say is true. But within the context a city, county, state, nation you cannot simply choose to not use services and not pay the taxes. Stop being ridiculous.

P.S. All of this is somewhat beside the point anyway. The real point was whether or not taxes are a form of income redistribution. The fact is that they certainly can be. Whether this is good not...well you were the first one to chime in with "Since income redistribution is apparently bad" (despite the fact that no one had even said such a thing).

I don't know what rock you have been living under but the Republican mantra since FDR has been income redistribution is bad (aka, gimme gimme gimme).

You can go off the grid, people do.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Just curious...but who is "he"?

Trumptman

[midwinter]

Jesus. The Democrats can't do anything right. Six points?!?! Good lord. AMERICAN MANIFESTOS COME IN GROUPS OF TEN POINTS YOU MORONS.

SDW says:

CUT COLLEGE COSTS
Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

The first item is going to cost big dollars. I don't know what the last one means.

Pell grants have been drastically cut under the Bush admin and student loan interest rates are rising.

[spindler]

I think about the only solid thing Democrats have is pushing the minimum wage. I read somewhere that 80% of Americans favored raising it. Americans don't hate poor people that ARE willing to work. Democrats, if they executed well, could make the Republicans look mean spirited and greedy. They could use this issue to extend the image that Republicans are in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else, while Democrats are looking out for everyday people. If they played it well, it could be a solid win, but of course they won't.

[ronaldo]

I definitly believe believe the United States is in need of a strong third political party.

If the Republicans stay in power for another 4 years, the middle class [blue collar workers] will become the working poor.

If the Democrats win we will become more of a socialist country. [More welfare and more Governmental control of our lives].

Where will this third party come from? I haven't a clue.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Jesus. The Democrats can't do anything right. Six points?!?! Good lord. AMERICAN MANIFESTOS COME IN GROUPS OF TEN POINTS YOU MORONS.

They did ponder putting forward a plan with ten points, but then remembered that this is the party whose voters cannot use a ballot without becoming confused. They figured they would see the number ten and accidently vote for the wrong candidate.

Pell grants have been drastically cut under the Bush admin and student loan interest rates are rising.

Have you got a source for that? This pdf (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget07/summary/appendix1.pdf) shows the pell grants starting at 8.7 billion and rising to 13 billion under Bush. The requested allocation for this year is 12.7 billion a cut but still an increase of 45% in actual dollars in six years.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
and student loan interest rates are rising.

All interest rates seem to be rising.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by spindler
I think about the only solid thing Democrats have is pushing the minimum wage. I read somewhere that 80% of Americans favored raising it. Americans don't hate poor people that ARE willing to work.

If they favor raising the minimum wage...well...they must...or they are ignorant (most likely) of the effect it will have on the working (at current minimum wage) poor. This may be a good election idea. Bad economic one though.

Originally posted by spindler
Democrats, if they executed well, could make the Republicans look mean spirited and greedy. They could use this issue to extend the image that Republicans are in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else, while Democrats are looking out for everyday people.

Now that's the spirit!

[Aurora]

Bush talks out of the side of his mouth on every subjecthttp://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/pellgrantsummary.html Look at little closer for the Rovian Spin. History shows this president misleads or spins or twists true meaning.
(edit) in response to trumpetman

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Same old leftist jaber.

Same old Moe jabber.;)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aurora
Bush talks out of the side of his mouth on every subjecthttp://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/pellgrantsummary.html Look at little closer for the Rovian Spin. History shows this president misleads or spins or twists true meaning.
(edit) in response to trumpetman

That doesn't show that spending on pell grants has been cut. It shows that the maximum award amount has not been increased. Considering the funding has been going up, this likely means that more students are receiving those grants.

Also what does the maximum award amount say? Better figures would be the average grant award, the number of students served and total funding.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
They did ponder putting forward a plan with ten points, but then remembered that this is the party whose voters cannot use a ballot without becoming confused. They figured they would see the number ten and accidently vote for the wrong candidate.

That made me laugh out loud.



Have you got a source for that? This pdf (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget07/summary/appendix1.pdf) shows the pell grants starting at 8.7 billion and rising to 13 billion under Bush. The requested allocation for this year is 12.7 billion a cut but still an increase of 45% in actual dollars in six years.

Sure (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/pellgrantsummary.html). Seems I had some of it wrong, but the gist is the same.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
That made me laugh out loud.





Sure (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/pellgrantsummary.html). Seems I had some of it wrong, but the gist is the same.

Not to be a big pooh head, but when looking at this point...

CUT COLLEGE COSTS
Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

I don't see anything about increasing the buying power or maximum award for the pell grant. The language of it, expanding pell grants, suggests to me exactly what has happened under Bush. There is more money, it is awarded to more students, even the average award has gone up, but the maximum award has not. You are welcome to help me understand if there is anything in that statement that would suggest raising purchasing power or maximum award.

Also tuition is already deductable up to $4000. (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch06.html) I suppose they can raise that limit, but from my view, it has the possibility of being viewed as a tax cut for the rich. Should we really be giving folks who can afford to spending $20-30k a year on their childs education a tax break by allowing them to deduct all that money from their income?

It may benefit someone, but it doesn't sound like it would benefit the poor or even most of the middle class. If anything it sounds like it would encourage the rich to send their children to the most expensive school possible to gain the tax advantage.

Just something to consider.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman

Also tuition is already deductable up to $4000. (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch06.html) I suppose they can raise that limit, but from my view, it has the possibility of being viewed as a tax cut for the rich. Should we really be giving folks who can afford to spending $20-30k a year on their childs education a tax break by allowing them to deduct all that money from their income?

It may benefit someone, but it doesn't sound like it would benefit the poor or even most of the middle class. If anything it sounds like it would encourage the rich to send their children to the most expensive school possible to gain the tax advantage.

Just something to consider.

Nick

Pell grants are for "poor" people, not rich. I have no idea how poor you have to be to qualify, but I know this: when I started college in the early 90s, my family made barely too much money to qualify for a Pell grant and not enough to afford to pay for me to go to college.

Lots of folks are trapped in that situation.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, they are not forced. You can choose to live without the services they provide in some sort of native state elsewhere.


Actually, I can't. Once your net worth is over $500K, you are no longer allowed to renounce your US citizenship, and they tax you no matter where you move.

Originally posted by spindler
I think about the only solid thing Democrats have is pushing the minimum wage. I read somewhere that 80% of Americans favored raising it. Americans don't hate poor people that ARE willing to work. Democrats, if they executed well, could make the Republicans look mean spirited and greedy. They could use this issue to extend the image that Republicans are in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else, while Democrats are looking out for everyday people. If they played it well, it could be a solid win, but of course they won't.

Raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment to rise. This is sort of like the effect unions have - fewer people working, but they are paid better.

You end up with an "old boys network", where the good jobs are passed around in networks of friends.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
Actually, I can't. Once your net worth is over $500K, you are no longer allowed to renounce your US citizenship, and they tax you no matter where you move.

Wow. Seriously? I didn't know that.

BTW...that net worth value likely covers a lot more people than some might realize.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Wow. Seriously? I didn't know that.

BTW...that net worth value likely covers a lot more people than some might realize.

The republican congress passed it in 1995. Clinton wanted a less nasty bill - like you have to pay unrealised capital gains when you leave, but the republicans were on a nationalistic tear.

It is like we are slaves.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
The republican congress passed it in 1995. Clinton wanted a less nasty bill - like you have to pay unrealised capital gains when you leave, but the republicans were on a nationalistic tear.

Very interesting. Didn't know about that.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Very interesting. Didn't know about that.

They also block your re-entry to the country if you are suspected of renouncing your citizenship for tax avoidance, and everyone who has over $500K (or paid $100K in taxes over 5 years) is automatically suspected.

The ability of rich people to leave the country when taxes get too high is an important safety valve. Since the people tend to want taxes on "those guys", the natural tendency is for the taxes on the rich to skyrocket, and it is held in check by the fear that the rich will leave.

Actually - I may be able to get an exemption, since I have been a dual citizen since birth. Yay me! But my wife would not be exempt.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
They also block your re-entry to the country if you are suspected of renouncing your citizenship for tax avoidance, and everyone who has over $500K (or paid $100K in taxes over 5 years) is automatically suspected.

The ability of rich people to leave the country when taxes get too high is an important safety valve. Since the people tend to want taxes on "those guys", the natural tendency is for the taxes on the rich to skyrocket, and it is held in check by the fear that the rich will leave.

Actually - I may be able to get an exemption, since I have been a dual citizen since birth. Yay me! But my wife would not be exempt.

Interesting that this came from the R's and not the D's. Makes one wonder about some deeper thinking or motive behind it. Anyway...interesting.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Actually, I can't. Once your net worth is over $500K, you are no longer allowed to renounce your US citizenship, and they tax you no matter where you move.

There are a few corners of Yellowstone park that the IRS hasn't infiltrated...

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Yeah, because you know...paying for roads, highways, electrical grid infrastructure, dams, bridges and city planning are BAD BAD BAD and I don't want to pay for any of that.

And while we're at it, I don't think my "income re-distribution at the end of a gun" should pay for the courts either. I mean most of the Supreme Court is spent on business and commerce related issues. Why should I pay for that, I'm a Democrat?

Why don't I want to pay for any of this?

Because a small percentage of those funds stolen out of my pocket MIGHT actually be used by a black mother putting new shoes on her children's feet. FUCK THAT!

Whom are you even responding to?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Interesting that this came from the R's and not the D's. Makes one wonder about some deeper thinking or motive behind it. Anyway...interesting.

Well, it's a pretty shitty thing to do: make lots of money in the US and take advantage of the services that are paid for by the rich, but when it comes your turn, you bugger off.

And, um, GO GHANA!!!

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, it's a pretty shitty thing to do: make lots of money in the US and take advantage of the services that are paid for by the rich, but when it comes your turn, you bugger off.

I wasn't making any value judgements. Just surprised a little by who would be motivated to stop it. The way I hear it around here, R's protect their own (the "rich") and D's want to make the rich pay. Broad brush strokes I know...but that is the general tenor.

P.S. I do think we as citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for the common services that we all use, benefit from, enjoy, etc. Of course, our current tax code has made things more gray in that regard.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wasn't making any value judgements. Just surprised a little by who would be motivated to stop it. The way I hear it around here, R's protect their own (the "rich") and D's want to make the rich pay. Broad brush strokes I know...but that is the general tenor.

Oh, sure. I wasn't suggesting anything. Although, frankly, this sounds like something the 1995 Rs would have done, since they were busy cleaning up corruption and being tough on crime and all that.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chucker
I guess I shall introduce you to OPEC (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC). OPEC effectively controls the bulk of oil exports. OPEC is a cartel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel). A cartel is…


Ah yes. So, I guess "price gouging" and "fixing prices" isn't the same?

No, it's not the same at all.

Price Gouging means collusion between oil companies to artificially inflate prices. It can also mean individual stations raising prices unreasonably and for no good market reason, such as some did immediately aftr 9/11.

OPEC is a provider of oil to those companies. When OPEC countries limit supply, the raw price goes up. This is passed on to the companies who then pass it on to stations who then pass it on to consumers. The oil companies make big money when the price is going up only because they can sell what they've purchased at a higher price than they paid just recently. It's the opposite when prices are going down...they make far less because they're always behind the curve.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by spindler
I think about the only solid thing Democrats have is pushing the minimum wage. I read somewhere that 80% of Americans favored raising it. Americans don't hate poor people that ARE willing to work. Democrats, if they executed well, could make the Republicans look mean spirited and greedy. They could use this issue to extend the image that Republicans are in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else, while Democrats are looking out for everyday people. If they played it well, it could be a solid win, but of course they won't.

Maybe it could be a win, but is it the right thing to do? Answer: No.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, it's a pretty shitty thing to do: make lots of money in the US and take advantage of the services that are paid for by the rich, but when it comes your turn, you bugger off.

The key here is "paid for by the rich". By the time the rich think of leaving, they have paid plenty of taxes. The rich pay almost all the taxes.

If the rich can't leave, then what it preventing the voters from lifting the marginal rates back to 90%? We live in a society where the poor and middle class are a bunch of vampires feasting on the rich.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
P.S. I do think we as citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for the common services that we all use, benefit from, enjoy, etc. Of course, our current tax code has made things more gray in that regard.

But if you leave the country for good, you are no longer using any government services.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
But if you leave the country for good, you are no longer using any government services.

I agree. I'm not trying to make this a debate. To me it is relatively simple, if you benefit, you should pay. You've made some good points about who pays and how much. We also have somewhat of a social contract in which some people pay, but do not (directly) benefit, but others do. This is where things get much more gray IMHO.

In regards to being able to leave the country and change citizenship...I agree. This seems like a silly limitation.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I agree. I'm not trying to make this a debate. To me it is relatively simple, if you benefit, you should pay. You've made some good points about who pays and how much. We also have somewhat of a social contract in which some people pay, but do not (directly) benefit, but others do. This is where things get much more gray IMHO.

In regards to being able to leave the country and change citizenship...I agree. This seems like a silly limitation.

Canada has a more rational tax system - you are not taxed on foreign income, and if you leave the country (with no real estate, bank accounts, credit cards, etc), then you no longer have to pay income tax.

Of course, Canada is such a desirable place to live that most people stay there - they don't need to put barriers in place to stop people from leaving.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
We live in a society where the poor and middle class are a bunch of vampires feasting on the rich. No doubt. The top 1% have only, what, 2/3 of the wealth in the US? If it weren't for those leeches in the middle class, they'd rightfully have at least 3/4 of it.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
No doubt. The top 1% have only, what, 2/3 of the wealth in the US? If it weren't for those leeches in the middle class, they'd rightfully have at least 3/4 of it.

It just works out that way. The more freedom of action that you have, the greater the differentiation between rich and poor. If you have perfect freedom, you have freedom to fail and to spectacularly succeed. In order to redistribute wealth to the failures, you have to limit the freedom of action of the successes.

Anyway, this law passed in 1995, and the masses have not yet realised that they can arbitrarily raise income tax on the rich. I don't think that today's taxes are too high, but I am worried about the future now that the 1995 law has locked the rich in a room where they can be slaughtered.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Anyway, this law passed in 1995, and the masses have not yet realised that they can arbitrarily raise income tax on the rich. I don't think that today's taxes are too high, but I am worried about the future now that the 1995 law has locked the rich in a room where they can be slaughtered.

Do you have a source for that '95 law? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm sitting here with a congressional scholar next to me who says she's never heard of it.

GO USA!!!!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
The more freedom of action that you have, the greater the differentiation between rich and poor. And why is that? Is it not because the wealthy gain power with their wealth and therefore the means to further their wealth? And if so, isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim that the poor and middle class are vampires feeding on the wealthy, when a much better case could be made that the reverse is actually true?

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
It just works out that way. The more freedom of action that you have, the greater the differentiation between rich and poor. If you have perfect freedom, you have freedom to fail and to spectacularly succeed.
"Perfect" freedom is anarchy, which of course isn't sustainable because very quickly someone will use their complete freedom to limit someone else's freedom.

The best you can do is to attempt to maximize freedom, to permit and protect the greatest freedom which allows everyone the same degree of freedom. Feudalistic disparities in the distribution of wealth endanger that kind of freedom.

And as for "failing spectacularly"... yes, it happens, but the fattest of the fat cats benefit from the limited liability of incorporation. They feast enormously on the upside of the risks they take, but escape much of the pain of the downside by distributing losses socially. Society as a whole does gain some from the laws of incorporation as they now exist, by encouraging new enterprises and business growth, but when the public as a whole shares in much of the risk of business, the public as a whole has every right to strike a better deal for itself and the cut it gets for taking part in corporate risk taking.

Besides, there's nothing "spectacular" about being in the top 1%. One in a million is spectacular. One in one hundred is nice, it's nothing to sneeze at, but in a world with a population in the billions, being one out of one hundred in drive and talent isn't much to set you apart from the crowd.

Yet somehow, some way, such a minor distinction as being in the top 1% is laudable enough to be worth such outsize allocations of wealth? I think it's more like "only" 1/3 (not 2/3 as said before) of all wealth in the US being owned by the top 1%, but that's more than bad enough. A top 1%-er has 50, FIFTY times the wealth of the average lower 99%-er. I get one car. He gets a fleet of cars. I get a house. He gets a handful of mansions, or perhaps his own subdivision. If a hundred random people get together in a restaurant, only one is worth receiving a full meal while everyone else makes do on some fraction of a breadstick?

Such people get 50 times what everyone else gets for what? For their amazing talents? Their business derring-do? But for the 1%-ers' oh-so-rare abilities and business acumen (there are only 3 million of them in this country to go around, after all) we'd all be starving and living in mud huts? Their contributions to society are that great, and that irreplaceable by anyone among the 99% riff-raff?

I don't see how anyone can look at wealth distributions like that and chalk it up to "freedom" -- and especially bemoan that there's isn't enough such "freedom" to create even greater disparities in wealth. I can't look at wealth distribution like that and not see the corrupting influence of money on political power, a lot of inherited privilege and power which has nothing to do with individual achievement and risk-taking, and unchecked economic distortions which can vastly amplify small differences of all sorts (in bargaining power, market exposure, risk taking, talent, social contacts, consumer perceptions, flexibility in reallocation of resources, etc., etc.) well beyond meaningful importance.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Do you have a source for that '95 law? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm sitting here with a congressional scholar next to me who says she's never heard of it.

GO USA!!!!

Looking into it further - you are allowed to renounce your citizenship, but if you do while having over $500K, then you are banished for all time from ever setting foot on US soil, and still have to pay US taxes for 10 years. It amounts to the same thing for most people.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/129807.html

http://www.frissell.com/taxpat/Renounce.htm

[midwinter]

Congressional scholar still sitting next to me says that if she remembers correctly, that is a law about people coming to the US, making a bajillion dollars, and then expatriating and therefore skipping out on paying any of the tax. The law is about skipping the tax, not about being wealthy.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Congressional scholar still sitting next to me says that if she remembers correctly, that is a law about people coming to the US, making a bajillion dollars, and then expatriating and therefore skipping out on paying any of the tax. The law is about skipping the tax, not about being wealthy.

Read the links, she is wrong. It does not matter where in the world you earn the money, and the only purpose of the law is to punish rich people who try to renounce their citizenship, regardless of weather they have paid taxes on all gains/income or not.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Read the links, she is wrong. It does not matter where in the world you earn the money, and the only purpose of the law is to punish rich people who try to renounce their citizenship, regardless of weather they have paid taxes on all gains/income or not.

So they tax you on gains from US based investments you acquired during your citizenship.

Big deal.

This law punishes people who flee the country to avoid taxation on capital gains, nothing more nothing less...

[hardeeharhar]

First double post.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by trumptman
CUT COLLEGE COSTS
Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

BTW...the best way to do this...now this is simple, but hard (which should scare off most politicians) and is long-term thinking (which should appeal to liberals more than conservatives...or so we were told by poster in another thread)...build more universities (or expand existing ones). This is the best way to "cut college costs" to students entering college. Fact is...the proposed solutions will actually make things worse (i.e., more expensive, or at least wipe out any gains made by the tax deductions and lower loan costs) in the long (and possibly short) run.

In fact, the D's are the "education party" (or so I am told)...why not lay out a bold "Moon landing" initiative like: "Double the number of universities by 2025."

[BRussell]

This is what a post (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/17/193442/428) at liberal blog DailyKos had to say about it: The "New Direction" plan is, indeed, a "truckload" of policies. They are policies that resonate with the heart of our party, such as raising the minimum wage, improving student financial aid, and protecting seniors.

But where are the ideas?

Where is the common unifying theme born out of a honest and raw debate about what exactly should be the "New Direction" for America? The need for a party philosophy has resulted some good discussion here in the blogosphere. But as demonstrated by the latest Democratic policies unveiled this week, we still haven't engaged the Republicans in a debate of ideas.

Democrats propose a new direction. Towards what? Toward a bland and technical world of percentage increases in the minimum wage, or a 20% reduction in foreign oil consumption, or the repealing of giveaway taxes to corporations. Toward a world of policies, devoid of true ideas.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
BTW...the best way to do this...now this is simple, but hard (which should scare off most politicians) and is long-term thinking (which should appeal to liberals more than conservatives...or so we were told by poster in another thread)...build more universities (or expand existing ones). This is the best way to "cut college costs" to students entering college. Fact is...the proposed solutions will actually make things worse (i.e., more expensive, or at least wipe out any gains made by the tax deductions and lower loan costs) in the long (and possibly short) run.

In fact, the D's are the "education party" (or so I am told)...why not lay out a bold "Moon landing" initiative like: "Double the number of universities by 2025."

Why do you need to double the number of administrative entities?

Why not double the number of buildings, and double the number of professors?

Education, while a nice ideal, doesn't keep our economy afloat in and of itself.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by e1618978

Anyway, this law passed in 1995, and the masses have not yet realised that they can arbitrarily raise income tax on the rich. I don't think that today's taxes are too high, but I am worried about the future now that the 1995 law has locked the rich in a room where they can be slaughtered. [/B]

Give me a break. Why would the "masses" do that, since most of them pay taxes too :???:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Why do you need to double the number of administrative entities?

Why not double the number of buildings, and double the number of professors?

Education, while a nice ideal, doesn't keep our economy afloat in and of itself.

Fine, then double the size of every university. Whatever. The point still stands...the best way to lower the cost of college (for students entering) is to create more capacity (either more or bigger or both).

NOTE: In some places additional universities will be the best option, and sometimes bigger will not work as well. The overall point still stands though...increase capacity.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Why would the "masses" do that, since most of them pay taxes too :???:

Maybe you need to read his post more carefully:

Originally posted by e1618978
...the masses have not yet realised that they can arbitrarily raise income tax on the rich...

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Maybe you need to read his post more carefully:

Ok. So how can the masses arbitrarily raise taxes for the rich? I thought Congress could only do that.
Besides Congress very seldom does what the masses want, because all the rich lobbyists are in their pockets most of the time anyway.

www.citizen.org/documents/BankrollersFinal.pdf

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So they tax you on gains from US based investments you acquired during your citizenship.

Big deal.

This law punishes people who flee the country to avoid taxation on capital gains, nothing more nothing less...

No - even if you pay all capital gains taxes and exit the country on Janruary 1st with cash only, you are still screwed.

Hypothetically, a millionaire (with all money made outside the US) could become a citizen, lose half of his money in the US, get fed up and leave and still get punished for leaving.

Originally posted by ronaldo
Give me a break. Why would the "masses" do that, since most of them pay taxes too :???:

Most taxes are paid by the rich, and the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all. In any case, we have progressive tax rates that can be maniuplated to make the rich pay even more of the tax than they do now.

Congress does what the masses want, because it is repaid in votes.

In every argument about weather or not to raise taxes on the rich, the counter argument is made that the rich will go to other countries if the US tax rates go to high. Now that argument is much less compelling, and the tax rates are bound to go up as a result.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Ok. So how can the masses arbitrarily raise taxes for the rich? I thought Congress could only do that.

By voting for people who will raise taxes on the rich...and voting out people that don't.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Why do you need to double the number of administrative entities?

Why not double the number of buildings, and double the number of professors?

Education, while a nice ideal, doesn't keep our economy afloat in and of itself.

I agree with you here. The problem is not in the number of universities. If anything, I think too many people go to college now, people that shouldn't go to a traditional 4 year institution. Americans have a white collar obessesion, or so it would seem.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]Most taxes are paid by the rich, and the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all. [B] This idea that the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all is absolutely wrong, and worse, it's one of those little deceptions that some people pull in order to argue for deficit-increasing tax cuts for the wealthy. Most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. There are also plenty of other types of taxes that those lucky poor people pay, sales taxes being one example.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Read the links, she is wrong. It does not matter where in the world you earn the money, and the only purpose of the law is to punish rich people who try to renounce their citizenship, regardless of weather they have paid taxes on all gains/income or not.

Originally posted by my constitutional scholar friend
Okay, if you expatriate to avoid taxes you will not be allowed back on U.S. soil. So, the point is, you can make a million dollars and move, you just can't avoid paying 33% of that to income tax the year you pay it. This law very specifically states that it was passed in order to prevent people from surrendering citizenship to avoid paying taxes. It does not say if you are wealthy you can't surrender citizenship. So for example, Madonna wants to live in London. She wants to become an English citizen ( U.S. does not allow dual citizenship, allow with some Mexican immigrants it is different for different reasons). She surrenders her U.S. citizenship. The year she surrenders she pays taxes, she can still come back to the U.S. and she can reapply for citizenship at a later date. She then doesn't pay taxes the next year unless she resides in the U.S. for at least 183 days. But that applies to all foreign residents. Visas or no. If you reside in the U.S. for at least half the year, you pay income taxes in the U.S. The law is not about not allowing wealthy people to leave, the law is about not allowing wealthy people avoid taxes. The law is not different, in fact, from what was in place where the U.S. had to prove that someone had expatriated for tax avoidance purposes. Basically this law just says, if you've made this much, we don't have to prove why you are expatriating. You need to pay your taxes. Again, wealthy people can leave, they just need to pay taxes on the year they earned money in the U.S.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
This idea that the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all is absolutely wrong, and worse, it's one of those little deceptions that some people pull in order to argue for deficit-increasing tax cuts for the wealthy. Most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. There are also plenty of other types of taxes that those lucky poor people pay, sales taxes being one example.

Don't forget ivory tower intellectuals like us, BRussell! We don't pay taxes, gas is cheaper for us, and we never run out of toilet paper.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter


Actually the law is written in regards to income from US based investments that were purchased during your citizenship and sold after you have changed citizenships...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter


Your friend is just simply wrong on this. Even before this law was passed, my father-in-law had to pay US taxes on Australian income for 10 years after he renounced his US citizenship to become Australian (that was 1965).

The new law adds banishment if you renounce your citizenship while having more than 500K, in addition to the 10 years of taxes. Madonna would have to file taxes for 10 years if she moved to England (to renounce her US citizenship in favor of English citizenship), but no tax would be due because the higher english tax is deductable. She would also get added to a list of people banished from the US. Read the findlaw link.

Here is another link -
http://www.frissell.com/taxpat/taxpats.html

Madonna (Louise Ciccone or Louise Ritchie) is not on the banishment list, so she must not have renounced her citizenship:

http://www.frissell.com/taxpat/taxpats.csv

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Most taxes are paid by the rich, and the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all.
BRussell addressed the lowest 30%. As for "Most taxes are paid by the rich"...

First of all, I think that would depend on exactly what group of people you consider "the rich". Starting at what percentile? By income or wealth? With what effort to take into account the many ways the very wealthy have of shielding income and wealth from consideration under tax laws?

According to this Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_Nature_o f_Income_Tax), "[a]s of 2004, the top 1% of individual taxpayers paid approximately 32% of all federal taxes." Yes, that's a large share of all taxes for 1% to pay, but it's not "most" taxes, and when you consider the disproportionate wealth of the top 1%, I hardly see any sings of a greatly disproportionate tax burden here.

If we take this 1% to be the same 1% which others statistics say own 1/3 of all of the wealth in this country (that will have to do for now for rough comparision), the taxes paid are almost exactly flatly proportionate to the wealth of those paying the taxes. I strongly suspect that better, more applicable numbers would show anti-progressive taxation for the wealthiest people, as much of their wealth and income is shielded from being taxed as individual income.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
According to this Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_Nature_o f_Income_Tax), "[a]s of 2004, the top 1% of individual taxpayers paid approximately 32% of all federal taxes." Yes, that's a large share of all taxes for 1% to pay, but it's not "most" taxes, and when you consider the disproportionate wealth of the top 1%, I hardly see any sings of a greatly disproportionate tax burden here. I don't think that wiki is accurate - I think that's income taxes; focusing on that and calling them "all taxes" is the little game some people play. I notice that it is flagged as disputed on the wikipedia page too.

According to this link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=447), which I trust more, the top 1% paid 1/3 of all income taxes, but 1/5 of all federal taxes. And it's important to remember that that's only federal taxes - state taxes tend to be less progressive, because they include more sales taxes and fees and the like.

And you're right, if it's correct that they have 1/3 of the wealth, and they pay only 1/5 of the federal taxes, they're getting away with murder. I'd even go so far as to say they're vampires leeching off the poor and middle class. ;)

(I think I screwed that up earlier in this thread - I said the top 1% have 2/3 of the money. According to this (http://www.cipa-apex.org/toomuch/inequality.html), the top 1% have 1/3 of the wealth as you said, the top 10% have 2/3 of the wealth, and the other 90% have 1/3.)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think that wiki is accurate - I think that's income taxes; focusing on that and calling them "all taxes" is the little game some people play. I notice that it is flagged as disputed on the wikipedia page too.

According to this link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=447), which I trust more, the top 1% paid 1/3 of all income taxes, but 1/5 of all federal taxes. And it's important to remember that that's only federal taxes - state taxes tend to be less progressive, because they include more sales taxes and fees and the like.

And you're right, if it's correct that they have 1/3 of the wealth, and they pay only 1/5 of the federal taxes, they're getting away with murder. I'd even go so far as to say they're vampires leeching off the poor and middle class. ;)

(I think I screwed that up earlier in this thread - I said the top 1% have 2/3 of the money. According to this (http://www.cipa-apex.org/toomuch/inequality.html), the top 1% have 1/3 of the wealth as you said, the top 10% have 2/3 of the wealth, and the other 90% have 1/3.)

Payroll taxes don't count - social security pays you back based on how much you paid in, so it is not even really a tax, more like poverty insurance.

Sales taxes are progressive, because they exclude rent and food, which make up the bulk of the expenses of poor people.

Excise taxes are primarily taxes on gasoline, and it makes sense that this is non-progressive. It is a flat tax per gallon - and you don't want it lowered, because that would encourage gas consumption.

As I said, I am not worried about today's tax rates, which seem about right, but the tax rates that will result from the banishment law - once the rich cannot flee, taxes can rise arbitrarily high.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
Payroll taxes don't count - social security pays you back based on how much you paid in, so it is not even really a tax, more like poverty insurance.

Is this true? I mean do I get back what I actually paid in...or is it all paid into a "pool" and I get back what the government think I ought to get based on some formula that spreads it all around?

Originally posted by e1618978
Sales taxes are progressive, because they exclude rent and food, which make up the bulk of the expenses of poor people.

Don't you mean regressive?

Originally posted by e1618978
but the tax rates that will result from the banishment law - once the rich cannot flee, taxes can rise arbitrarily high.

Could some of this be solved and simplified by eliminating (or reducing) dependency on an income tax and moving toward a consumption (sales) tax?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think that wiki is accurate - I think that's income taxes; focusing on that and calling them "all taxes" is the little game some people play. I notice that it is flagged as disputed on the wikipedia page too.

According to this link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=447), which I trust more, the top 1% paid 1/3 of all income taxes, but 1/5 of all federal taxes. And it's important to remember that that's only federal taxes - state taxes tend to be less progressive, because they include more sales taxes and fees and the like.

And you're right, if it's correct that they have 1/3 of the wealth, and they pay only 1/5 of the federal taxes, they're getting away with murder. I'd even go so far as to say they're vampires leeching off the poor and middle class. ;)

(I think I screwed that up earlier in this thread - I said the top 1% have 2/3 of the money. According to this (http://www.cipa-apex.org/toomuch/inequality.html), the top 1% have 1/3 of the wealth as you said, the top 10% have 2/3 of the wealth, and the other 90% have 1/3.)


You guys are playing another little game though. If you only use the top 1%, you're absolutely right. But when you look at the top 20% of income earners, the picture is considerably different.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm

Here's an opinion piece that lays out the facts well:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2004/10/19/13380.html

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is this true? I mean do I get back what I actually paid in...or is it all paid into a "pool" and I get back what the government think I ought to get based on some formula that spreads it all around?



Don't you mean regressive?



Could some of this be solved and simplified by eliminating (or reducing) dependency on an income tax and moving toward a consumption (sales) tax?

Each year I get a statement from social security. They look at my contributions, and my highest 3 years of income to figure out what my social security income will be. There isn't a 1:1 payout, of course, because the baby boomers didn't put in enough to pay for themselves, but income and outgo are related by some formula.

Sales tax is sort of progressive. The poor pay very little sales tax, because most of their money goes towards non-taxible food and rent. The rich and middle class pay much more because they buy more luxury (taxible) goods.

Taxes on cigarettes are regressive, on the other hand, because it is mainly poor people who smoke.

Going from a sales tax to a consumption tax would be a bad idea, because it would be less efficient (require an organisation larger than the IRS) and cause a lot of hassle at border security (where did you buy that perfume? have a receipt?). Also a pure sales tax would end up being regressive, because you really have to charge it on everything, or else politicians will gradually get rid of it via the slippery slope of pork barrel law riders.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
Each year I get a statement from social security. They look at my contributions, and my highest 3 years of income to figure out what my social security income will be. There isn't a 1:1 payout, of course, because the baby boomers didn't put in enough to pay for themselves, but income and outgo are related by some formula.

Sales tax is sort of progressive. The poor pay very little sales tax, because most of their money goes towards non-taxible food and rent. The rich and middle class pay much more because they buy more luxury (taxible) goods.

Taxes on cigarettes are regressive, on the other hand, because it is mainly poor people who smoke.

Going from a sales tax to a consumption tax would be a bad idea, because it would be less efficient (require an organisation larger than the IRS) and cause a lot of hassle at border security (where did you buy that perfume? have a receipt?). Also a pure sales tax would end up being regressive, because you really have to charge it on everything, or else politicians will gradually get rid of it via the slippery slope of pork barrel law riders.



Sales tax is a regressive tax, not progressive. If you argue that it's progressive, then you destroy any meaning the word acutally has. I have no problem with it being regressive mind you...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
The poor pay very little sales tax, because most of their money goes towards non-taxible food and rent.

Unless they live in Utah or Oklahoma (andn I assume others) where food is taxed.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Unless they live in Utah or Oklahoma (andn I assume others) where food is taxed.

I think food is taxed everywhere...but at a much lower rate (1.2% in Colorado). How is it in Utah?

[midwinter]

I'm pretty sure we get a standard sales tax on it. Utah has apparently been trying to do away with it for a while, but the state can't afford to pay for anything if it does; all our other taxes are too low.

[jamac]

Originally posted by e1618978
Most taxes are paid by the rich, and the lowest 30% pay no taxes at all.

Sales tax (especially gasoline tax) is paid by everyone even tourists. So is property tax. These make up a huge percentage of tax revenue.

Indeed the rise of property value and gas prices during this administration is the largest tax increase of all time. Property taxes have brought a windfall to California.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think food is taxed everywhere...but at a much lower rate (1.2% in Colorado). How is it in Utah?

That isn't true -- Pennsylvania does not tax groceries, etc.

Only prepared foods are taxed (as in value added items -- like fried chicken, heh)...

In South Carolina, groceries are taxed at the local/state sales tax rate.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Each year I get a statement from social security. They look at my contributions, and my highest 3 years of income to figure out what my social security income will be. There isn't a 1:1 payout, of course, because the baby boomers didn't put in enough to pay for themselves, but income and outgo are related by some formula.

Yup. I used to think it was a fixed payout, as well, and then I didn't pay SS tax for 8 years while I was in grad school, and when that statement comes you can really tell it.

[shetline]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You guys are playing another little game though. If you only use the top 1%, you're absolutely right. But when you look at the top 20% of income earners, the picture is considerably different.
I already said, "First of all, I think that would depend on exactly what group of people you consider 'the rich'. Starting at what percentile? By income or wealth?", so I made the point that clarification was needed, and then proceeded to make my own comments based on a clearly stated, although rough, top-1% standard.

If you need to expand "the rich" to include the top 20% income earners, you're now including many people who would often be considered upper middle class, but not "rich", at least by US standards.

At any rate, I have no problem accepting that over a certain range of incomes the US tax system does succeed at being progressive, but at some point between the 20% mark and the 1% mark, the system flattens out an then turns regressive.

Since the top 1% is this country hold such a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth (1/3 of all wealth, 50 times more wealth than everyone else on average) compared to everyone else, I think its clear we could go a long way towards balancing the budget, and even reduce taxes to some degree for some people in the lower 99% at the same time, if we could find a way to make sure the top 1% percent actually coughs up a moderately progressive fair share.

Of course, along with one third of all wealth, the top 1% wield a disproportionate amount of political influence and media influence, making such a goal difficult to achieve.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sales tax is a regressive tax, not progressive. If you argue that it's progressive, then you destroy any meaning the word acutally has. I have no problem with it being regressive mind you...

Do you have an actual point or rebuttal? You didn't address my point that food and rent are not taxible. In the places where food is taxible, I agree that sales tax is regressive.

Originally posted by jamac
Sales tax (especially gasoline tax) is paid by everyone even tourists. So is property tax. These make up a huge percentage of tax revenue.

Indeed the rise of property value and gas prices during this administration is the largest tax increase of all time. Property taxes have brought a windfall to California.

Even with proposition 13? I thought that Californians paid almost no property tax at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978 )

(remove space from above link, can't get smiley to go away)

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think food is taxed everywhere...but at a much lower rate (1.2% in Colorado). How is it in Utah?
In NH, there's no general sales tax at all, although there is a narrow-scope 8% sales tax, the "rooms and meals" tax, which covers prepared meals (meals served in restaurants, definitely, and I think this also covers some prepared foods sold in grocery stores), hotel/motel rooms, and perhaps some other vacations accomodations as well. The amusing thing about the rooms and meals tax, especially the "rooms" part, is that I think the idea is to make out-of-staters pay a large share of this tax.

As I'm terribly lazy and unmotivated when it comes to cooking, as is the woman who lives with me, we both help boost NH's revenue greatly. :)

Another targeted sales tax is the gas tax, but that tax is mixed right in with the price at the pump, so I'm not sure what rate the rate is -- I sort of vaguely recall that the state rate is matched to the federal rate.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Payroll taxes don't count - social security pays you back based on how much you paid in, so it is not even really a tax, more like poverty insurance. Tell the majority of people who pay more SS taxes than income taxes that they "don't count." It's still tax money taken out of your pay check.

Furthermore, it all goes into the same pot. In fact, as you know, we are paying more into social security than we are spending - there's a large social security surplus. That extra money all of us workers are paying doesn't go into social security, it simply goes into wars and Bush photo-ops to Iraq and Halliburton. ;)

Sales taxes are progressive, because they exclude rent and food, which make up the bulk of the expenses of poor people.

Excise taxes are primarily taxes on gasoline, and it makes sense that this is non-progressive. It is a flat tax per gallon - and you don't want it lowered, because that would encourage gas consumption. You crazy.

As I said, I am not worried about today's tax rates, which seem about right, but the tax rates that will result from the banishment law - once the rich cannot flee, taxes can rise arbitrarily high. I was referring to your statement that the poor and middle class don't pay any taxes and are therefore vampires leeching off the rich.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You guys are playing another little game though. If you only use the top 1%, you're absolutely right. But when you look at the top 20% of income earners, the picture is considerably different.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm

Here's an opinion piece that lays out the facts well:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2004/10/19/13380.html Can you describe what you see as considerably different? It looks like, from your links (the first one), the top 20% pay about 80% of federal income taxes and 2/3 of all federal taxes. But how much wealth do they have? According to this (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=458), they have about half of all the income, which seems progressive given that they pay 2/3 of federal taxes and 80% of income taxes.

But what shetline and I are saying is that you also should look at wealth - the more money you have, the less important is the paycheck. I don't know how much the top 20% have, but if the top 10% have 2/3 of the wealth, the top 20% certainly have more than that. Therefore, if they pay just 2/3 of the taxes, that seems less than fair. And it definitely doesn't seem like, as e16 put it, everyone else are vampires leeching off them.

To me, this type of graph is important:

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Family_Income_1979-2001.gif

Whenever people talk about the wealthy paying so much in taxes, this has to be remembered. They have done extremely well over the past several decades, while the poor and middle class have not done nearly as well. And if people say it has to be that way, look at this:

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Rising_Together.gif

Apparently, during the middle of the 20th century, all boats rose together. I don't know what happened between the two - maybe it was bringing the top tax rates way down under Reagan - but the first graph just shows that something is wrong, IMO.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
There isn't a 1:1 payout, of course, because the baby boomers didn't put in enough to pay for themselves, but income and outgo are related by some formula. I think what you mean is that when the baby boomers retire, the people who are working at the time won't be paying enough to pay for the baby boomers. Right now, the baby boomers are paying more than necessary to pay for current retirees, hence the social security surplus.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
Tell the majority of people who pay more SS taxes than income taxes that they "don't count." It's still tax money taken out of your pay check.

Furthermore, it all goes into the same pot. In fact, as you know, we are paying more into social security than we are spending - there's a large social security surplus. That extra money all of us workers are paying doesn't go into social security, it simply goes into wars and Bush photo-ops to Iraq and Halliburton. ;)

You crazy.

I was referring to your statement that the poor and middle class don't pay any taxes and are therefore vampires leeching off the rich.

SS is money out of your paycheck that you get back later, forced savings rather than taxes. The fact that it is invested in treasury bonds, and that the national debt is spent on stupid and wasteful things is besides the point (as somebody else would buy those same treasuries if SS didn't).

What exactly is crazy about liking gas taxes and thinking that non-food/rent based sales taxes are progressive?

I'll give you the last point, though - I will change it then to "I anticipate future vampiric leaching, now that the rich are trapped and ripe for the sucking".

Originally posted by BRussell
I think what you mean is that when the baby boomers retire, the people who are working at the time won't be paying enough to pay for the baby boomers. Right now, the baby boomers are paying more than necessary to pay for current retirees, hence the social security surplus.

No - I meant what I said. The baby boomers only paid enough to pay for their parents generation, which is not nearly enough to keep things liquid when they retire. The problem is that they needed to pay more and didn't, choosing cigars and BMWs over SS liquidity.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
SS is money out of your paycheck that you get back later, forced savings rather than taxes. The fact that it is invested in treasury bonds, and that the national debt is spent on stupid and wasteful things is besides the point (as somebody else would buy those same treasuries if SS didn't). It's not savings though. It's just taxes that go to a specific program - retirement for current retirees. Your money isn't "saved" and then you get it back - that's what Bush wanted to do in his changes to social security.

I see your point, but I still think that if it's money taken out of your paycheck, it's a tax, no matter where the money goes. If it comes back to me in the form of highways that I use, does that mean it's not a tax? I have family in the military - since they get the tax money, is it not a tax?What exactly is crazy about liking gas taxes and thinking that non-food/rent based sales taxes are progressive? I didn't mean that your comment about the gas tax was crazy, just the idea that sales taxes are progressive because in some places they exclude some items.

No - I meant what I said. The baby boomers only paid enough to pay for their parents generation, which is not nearly enough to keep things liquid when they retire. The problem is that they needed to pay more and didn't, choosing cigars and BMWs over SS liquidity. Is it not true that people today (including baby boomers) are paying more right now into SS than they need to in order to pay for current retirees, i.e., that we have a SS surplus? The problem isn't that they didn't pay enough, it's that the government spent the money they paid in. We should have kept the surplus we had in 2000 going instead of giving *ahem* tax cuts for the rich.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
Is it not true that people today (including baby boomers) are paying more right now into SS than they need to in order to pay for current retirees, i.e., that we have a SS surplus? The problem isn't that they didn't pay enough, it's that the government spent the money they paid in. We should have kept the surplus we had in 2000 going instead of giving *ahem* tax cuts for the rich.

The surplus is not big enough to handle the baby boomer retirement, because the baby boomers have paid less than they will get back in payments. They were able to do that because they are such a big voting block that they can screw the rest of us with impunity.

SS funds have nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich" - we pay money in, and take money out, and in the mean time they are invested in treasuries. The government spends the money received in exchange for the treasuries, but that has no effect on the size of the SS surplus (a good percentage of the national debt is owed to SS).

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jamac
Sales tax (especially gasoline tax) is paid by everyone even tourists. So is property tax. These make up a huge percentage of tax revenue.

Not at the federal level (except gas tax).

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
I already said, "First of all, I think that would depend on exactly what group of people you consider 'the rich'. Starting at what percentile? By income or wealth?", so I made the point that clarification was needed, and then proceeded to make my own comments based on a clearly stated, although rough, top-1% standard.

If you need to expand "the rich" to include the top 20% income earners, you're now including many people who would often be considered upper middle class, but not "rich", at least by US standards.

Well, to be fair, "rich" is somewhat of a squishy political designation and the line moves depending on who is talking. I'm rich...but I'm not rich...all depends.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, to be fair, "rich" is somewhat of a squishy political designation and the line moves depending on who is talking. I'm rich...but I'm not rich...all depends.

Rich starts at $100 million - because that is when you can afford www.netjets.com

An interesting thing I found out about wealth distribution in the US - there are two bell curves:

- The first one has a median at about $50K, and gets near 0 at $2 million or so

- The second one has a median at about $50 million

So there are more people with $50 million than people with $5 million. I guess that you are rich if you are on the 2nd bell curve (top 0.5%).

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
The surplus is not big enough to handle the baby boomer retirement, because the baby boomers have paid less than they will get back in payments. They were able to do that because they are such a big voting block that they can screw the rest of us with impunity. They paid the same amount as everyone has at any other point in time - actually more due to the SS tax increase in the 1980s. The problem is not that they didn't pay enough, the problem is that when they retire, we are projected to not have as many workers working to pay their retirement. Again, the key is that it's not a savings plan, it's a plan where current workers pay for current retirees, and it's all in one federal budget pot.

SS funds have nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich" - we pay money in, and take money out, and in the mean time they are invested in treasuries. The government spends the money received in exchange for the treasuries, but that has no effect on the size of the SS surplus (a good percentage of the national debt is owed to SS). I strongly disagree. We currently have a SS surplus that is supposed to pay for all those baby boomers. If we had saved that money - put it into a "lock box" - we'd have no SS problem. But we didn't, we had tax cuts and spending increases that deplenished that surplus. So now, rather than drawing on that money, we'll have to raise taxes in the future, or go further into debt to pay for them.

[jamac]

Originally posted by e1618978
Do you have an actual point or rebuttal? You didn't address my point that food and rent are not taxible. In the places where food is taxible, I agree that sales tax is regressive.



Even with proposition 13? I thought that Californians paid almost no property tax at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978 )

(remove space from above link, can't get smiley to go away)

prop 13 only keeps your property tax at the level when you purchased your home. The last few years have increased property values by up to 200% in CA. Anyone who purchased a home at these prices will pay an avg of 1.2%/year. A home which costed 50k (tax = 550/year) in 1970 is now 1,000k (tax = 12,000/year). there were record numbers of property transactions in the 2002-2005 years in CA. All these people will be paying the tax on what they paid. Even if the value might come down in the future.
California avg. home price are at 500,000 (in orange county this will maybe get you a 2bdrm condo)

[Northgate]

It's been nine years since the minimum wage has been increased. Nine years of inflation, of higher gasoline prices, of higher real estate and rent prices.

The minimum wage, $5.15, is just $10,700/year for a full-time worker.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's been nine years since the minimum wage has been increased. Nine years of inflation, of higher gasoline prices, of higher real estate and rent prices.

The minimum wage, $5.15, is just $10,700/year for a full-time worker. Meanwhile Congress who gets free healthcare has given themself how many raises? Come on U.S. wake up.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's been nine years since the minimum wage has been increased.

And that is actually a good thing. Raising the minimum wage will be a mistake (if they raise it above the lowest wage being paid now).

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And that is actually a good thing. Raising the minimum wage will be a mistake (if they raise it above the lowest wage being paid now). Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do, screw the greedy, and the ones employing the illegal mexican and moving all our factories to communist China.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aurora
Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do

Only if you want to create unemployment at the lowest end (minimum wage level) of the pay scale.

It would be a mistake.

This isn't about "greedy corporations".

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Only if you want to create unemployment at the lowest end (minimum wage level) of the pay scale.

It would be a mistake.

This isn't about "greedy corporations". Sure, just as others have said ,inflation,fuel increases, greedy corporations, millions of illegals working for below minimum wage and a republican congress who has done almost nothing but given plenty of talk. You are wrong chris. Raise the minimum and iam sure all those jobs only mexicans would do you will find home grown english speaking Americans doing and growing our economy not China's Mexico's or the UAE.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aurora
You are wrong chris.

No I am not.

Originally posted by Aurora
Raise the minimum and iam sure all those jobs only mexicans would do you will find home grown english speaking Americans doing and growing our economy not China's Mexico's or the UAE.

Actually...what will happen is that fewer people (whatever nationality) will be employed. It would be a mistake. A better move would be to lower or eliminate the minimum wage altogether.

P.S. The fact that there are "millions of illegal immigrants" working for less than minimum wage (a misconception BTW) should tell you something.

[Aurora]

You can feed that Sh.. to someone else the corporations who worship the $$$ have allready shown they are willing to employ the chinaman for under a buck a day. In fact they skipped Mexico and went right to China hence our Mexican invasion.8)

[Placebo]

The concept of "creating jobs" is the most profound bullshit I've ever heard. It's just an artificial way of spreading money around.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aurora
You can feed that Sh.. to someone else the corporations who worship the $$$ have allready shown they are willing to employ the chinaman for under a buck a day. In fact they skipped Mexico and went right to China hence our Mexican invasion.8)

Well, you can ignore the fundamental economic realities if you want. They won't go away.

[Aurora]

If the Congress of Millionaires and Mega Corporations can vote a pay raise at every chance im sure real working Americans can get a occasional raise.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aurora
If the Congress of Millionaires and Mega Corporations can vote a pay raise at every chance im sure real working Americans can get a occasional raise.

You aren't getting it. Try to think about this rationally, not emotionally.

If the minimum wage is increased above what is currently actually being paid (I say it that way because, in some areas or occupations, the actual wages paid are well above minimum wage), then unemployment at this level will increase. Some (perhaps many) people will lose their jobs. In some cases, more illegal immigrants will be hired (at wages below the new minimum...even possibly below the old minimum) in place of legal workers. In rare cases, businesses will simply raise prices to their customers (this is least likely simply because they will run the risk of losing customers to the competitors that chose to simply lay people off rather than raise prices).

In the end, raising the minimum wage will hurt (some, maybe many of) those currently working for minimum wage (some will likely lose just their jobs...driving their wage to $0/hour!), not help.

P.S. The least likely scenario is the company that simply choses to accept less profit.

[Aurora]

The rich have allways expoited the poor,and our nation seems hell bent on it now that republicans run the show. This same crap was said the last time they raised the minimum and no it didnt happen. CEO's making millions while shutting our factories down. We are being sold out by the rich thats plain as day. Every chance they get. The brakes have to be put on the greedy rich every so often because if anything the greedy want to become richer,more powerful more influential. Human nature. Its why the millions and millions of mexicans are here and our own govt still wants to do little to nothing. Our Govt is owned byt the rich, not the people except for a brief moment.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aurora
This same crap was said the last time they raised the minimum and no it didnt happen.

It isn't crap and, actually, it did happen. In both 1990-1991 (don't have a nominal number here...but employment in that wage range decreased anywhere from 2-7% depending on the particular category of employee) and 1996-1997 (est. of 100,000 to 650,000 jobs lost) employment went down after the minimum wage rate increases in those years.

P.S. Though I cannot find a comprehensive study (if there even is one), I suspect you'd find that employment has actually gone down every time the minimum wage has been increased. It certainly did from at the very first minimum wage in 1938.

[hardeeharhar]

And the first time I started my self-built engine it stalled. I guess that means that it will stall every time.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
And the first time I started my self-built engine it stalled. I guess that means that it will stall every time.

:???:

Is that some sort of attempt at a witty retort? Are you suggesting that the minimum wage didn't work correctly the first time simply because we need to tweak and tune it a bit here and there until it does? If it is an attempt at an analogy...it is an extremely poor analogy.

NOTE: It didn't just cause unemployment the first but also the last two times. I suspect in the other times it has been raised as well.

We're talking about some basic economic principles here.

If you (arbitrarily, by fiat) raise the price of something (labor) buyers of that thing (employers) will buy less of it (lay people off or simply not hire them) or try to find a cheaper source of it (China, Indis, illegal immigrants).

Simple example:

1. Acme Diversified has 100 employees that they currently pay the minimum wage ($5.15/hour...total of $515/hour).

2. Uncle Same decides to raise the minimum wage to $7.25/hour.

3. Acme Diversified can now afford to employ only 71 ($515 per hour / $7.25 hourly wage rate) of those employees, so it decides to layoff some of them (perhaps as many as 29, perhaps fewer, but most certainly some).

P.S. If the minimum wage is increased to a level that is lower than the actual, prevailing, market-based hourly wage then none of this applies...but then the legally mandated minimum wage is also meaningless.

[hardeeharhar]

I don't buy that increases in minimum wage caused unemployment the last two times -- because you certainly cannot prove it did.

Whether it occurred in the 1930s is irrelevant.

And personally, this may be offensive but I don't give a shit, the biggest hit population pool when you increase the minimum wage are teenagers, and teenagers shouldn't be working for a livelihood -- they should be focusing on their studies...

Edit: Your example assumes that the owners of the company are prevented from increasing revenue, which is utter bullshit.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I don't buy that increases in minimum wage caused unemployment the last two times -- because you certainly cannot prove it did.

OK. Fine. Don't buy it. I don't need you to believe it. Belief does not confer truth onto something.

- The Employment Policies Institute figures that the first 50 cents out of the $1.00 hike in the minimum wage in 1996 through 1997 cost 645,000 jobs.

- Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs.


Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Whether it occurred in the 1930s is irrelevant.

( of course it is relevant )

Be sure you don't let facts get in the way.

P.S. You don't have to believe the historical facts...just look at the equation I gave you. It is so plainly obvious it is impossible to ignore.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

- The Employment Policies Institute figures that the first 50 cents out of the $1.00 hike in the minimum wage in 1996 through 1997 cost 645,000 jobs.

- Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs.

And during the first years of Bush's presidency we lost 2.1 million jobs.

The 1930 increase in unemployment is completely irrelevant because you are going from an economic system that has no minimum wage to one that does. That radically alters the economic dynamic of low wage earners. Everything after that point is dealing with the system already in place -- hence my reference to the first time I started my hand built engine...

But some people are just daft.

Btw... the only official evidence i have seen that supports your conclusion is on unemployment percentage... And wouldn't you be more likely to be looking for a job if the pay is better and hence go onto the unemployment roles???

[hardeeharhar]

Equation?

heh.

obvious.

heh.

Nothing obvious is true when humans are involved.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
And during the first years of Bush's presidency we lost 2.1 million jobs.

So?

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The 1930 increase in unemployment is completely irrelevant because you are going from an economic system that has no minimum wage to one that does.

Incorrect. You went from a legally mandated minimum wage of $0 to something higher than $0.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That radically alters the economic dynamic of low wage earners.

Raising at any time has the same exact effect. Which explains 90-91 and 96-97.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But some people are just daft.

On this issue, apparently you are.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Btw... the only official evidence i have seen that supports your conclusion is on unemployment percentage... And wouldn't you be more likely to be looking for a job if the pay is better and hence go onto the unemployment roles???

Look at the scenario I spelled out. Tell how it will work out differently.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

Look at the scenario I spelled out. Tell how it will work out differently.

First, you are an idiot. Reread everything I wrote until you understand it, then come back to me.

Second, Johnny, the owner of Acme diversified, can't keep his store functioning with less employees because like most american businesses he has been squeezing efficiency out of them far beyond anything he could have reasonably expected. In order to keep open he has to take in less profit or increase prices. He does both, keeping all of his employees and decreasing the number of new motorcycles he will buy himself this year.

[spindler]

Unfortunately, it appears that Chris Culia is correct about this. While I usually dismiss conservative theories of economics as made up and self serving, the data seems to be with him. All the states that have made minimum wages above the regular $5.15 are higher up in the level of unemployement.

In the following links, remember that if one state has 4% unemployment and the other has 6%, that is 2% difference. BUT, if most of that is falling on the poor because the minimum wage went up, then 2% of the 20% of all people who are poor means that 10% of poor people lost jobs because of the higher minimum wage.

Here are the state by state minimum wage levels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages

and here are the rates of unemployment by state:
http://www.dol.state.nm.us/dol_surr.html

All of the states with high minimum wages ($6.95-$7.50) Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Alaska, and Michigan are near the top. Vermont is the only state with a high minimum wage that is towards the bottom.

I would love to believe that employers were ripping people off when they only pay them $5.15. But if it turns out that they let them go because their salary goes up by a measly $2.00, obviously they weren't making much money on the employee. If you were making even a 10 cent profit per hour on an employee, you would keep them rather than letting them go.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's been nine years since the minimum wage has been increased. Nine years of inflation, of higher gasoline prices, of higher real estate and rent prices.

The minimum wage, $5.15, is just $10,700/year for a full-time worker.

Not trying to derail the thread, but Katrina exposed the fact that huge numbers of Americans have an annual income of $8000, or so.

The minimum wage, it would seem, is a mirage.

[spindler]

(Sorry, the tabs to space things out disappeared below)

Here are the wages per state and how they rank from 1 to 50 in terms of unemployment. Lower is worse: 1 means the very highest unemployment rate of all states, 50 means the lowest unemployment rate.

Washington $7.63 22
Oregon $7.50 6
Connecticut $7.40 21
Vermont $7.25 44
Alaska $7.15 2
Rhode Island $7.10 9
D.C. $7.00 7
Michigan $6.95 3
Connecticut $6.75 21
Hawaii $6.75 51 (but prices are much higher in Hawaii so it's like $5.15)
Massachusetts $6.75 14
New York $6.75 19
Maine $6.50 30
Illinois $6.50 8
Wisconsin $6.50 20
Florida $6.40 48 (old people provide lots of jobs)
New Jersey $6.15 25
Delaware $6.15 37
Maryland $6.15 38
Minnesota $6.15 31

$5.15
Arkansas 15
Colorado 28
Georgia 23
Idaho 45
Indiana 13
Iowa 35
Kentucky 5
Missouri 24
Montana 39
Nebraska 46
Nevada 36
New Hampshire 40
New Mexico 32
North Carolina 26
North Dakota 47
Ohio 11
Oklahoma 33
Pennsylvania 27
South Dakota 43
Texas 12
Utah 41
Virginia 49
West Virginia 34
Wyoming 50

$2.65
Kansas 18



No minimum wage
Alabama 42
Arizona 29
Louisiana 17
Mississippi 1
South Carolina 4
Tennessee 10

[spindler]