Economy is getting better for who?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Anyone who makes more than 92,000 is in the top 10%. That's like a household with two teacher's incomes, folks.



    Not my household with two teacher's incomes.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 22 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I don't think it's that hard to figure out what you do to reduce poverty. Obviously there's some debate about what works, but there are some basic things on which I think everyone agrees.



    Keep on expanding the earned income tax credit. It's basically welfare contingent upon working. So even if you get a crummy job, you'll have access to benefits that will effectively increase your wages. Simply giving money in the form of traditional welfare, except of course in cases of disability and such, is probably not a good idea because it discourages work.



    But if there are incentives to work, we should make sure they don't provide disincentives to get education. People make more money when they get more educated. Maybe have grants that replace income for X amount of time to get a degree, contingent upon grades etc.



    I think trumptman is right that not being married is a cause of poverty; so policies that discourage marriage should be changed. But I also think child care programs like Head Start that permit a single parent or even both parents to work before a child starts school would provide more incentive to work.



    Health insurance is probably a big problem especially with borderline cases - maybe families making $20,000 with no health insurance from work. Universal health care coverage would improve that situation.



    I'm sure there are lots of other things that could be done.




    I agree with the thoughts you add to the table here BRussell. I do believe divorce is a negative influence leading towards greater poverty as trumptman points out. I am impressed with this post of yours as it is full of ideas which happen to be very well thought out and presented in a direct and applicable way. You are right that welfare must be arranged in such a manner as to keep people tethered to work and / or education. You are also correct to point out issues of health care as doctor and drug bills can be crippling to a poor mother or any poor person for this matter. When people are empowered or enabled to "do" and feel as if they have means for momentum they are more likely to advance and contribute in greater and greater measure to society and to their own well being. If they can not see the light at the end of the tunnel poor people live less than optimally and if they have children it is more likely the children will have this model of despair as instruction in their own life.



    Thank you for your specific ideas and thoughts.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 23 of 30
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You are right that the government has no right to redistribute wealth.



    Can I play devil's advocate for a moment, and say that government exists to redistribute wealth? My favorite college professor drilled into us that politics is deciding who gets what, how. And so it's been from earliest written history. Governement could only come into existence once there was wealth, in the form of farm surpluses, that could be transfered and stored. Governments used to exist to transfer wealth from the peasantry to the ruling elites, for things like maintanence of a religious class, momument building and military adventures. After the enlightenment, the trend in the West started to slowly move the other way, that government should transfer wealth from the rich to the poor so that there's a limit on how poor and miserable the poor can be be. But no matter how it works and who it favors, a government that doesn't redistribute wealth is no government at all.
  • Reply 24 of 30
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Can I play devil's advocate for a moment, and say that government exists to redistribute wealth? My favorite college professor drilled into us that politics is deciding who gets what, how. And so it's been from earliest written history. Governement could only come into existence once there was wealth, in the form of farm surpluses, that could be transfered and stored. Governments used to exist to transfer wealth from the peasantry to the ruling elites, for things like maintanence of a religious class, momument building and military adventures. After the enlightenment, the trend in the West started to slowly move the other way, that government should transfer wealth from the rich to the poor so that there's a limit on how poor and miserable the poor can be be. But no matter how it works and who it favors, a government that doesn't redistribute wealth is no government at all.



    Very well put.



    You should also note that prior to Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries in England, care for the poor was largely the province of the church. After the monasteries disappeared, the local governments had to pick up the slack.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 25 of 30
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Can I play devil's advocate for a moment, and say that government exists to redistribute wealth?

    ...

    But no matter how it works and who it favors, a government that doesn't redistribute wealth is no government at all.




    I couldn't disagree with you more. Our country was founded on a tax revolt. For a very long time our country existed to, provide for a common defense, regulate trade (mint money etc), and guarantee certain rights to the individual. Got along just fine for quite a while without getting into the messy business of deciding who won and loss and trying to even things out. I wouldn't call that no government.
  • Reply 26 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    .... Our country was founded on a tax revolt.



    That was only one of many reasons ... take a gander at the Declaration of Independence ... It outlines several reasons for the formation of the United States of America .... taxes were only one of many.





    and back to the beginning... as for the "average paycheck to paycheck person"... Most seem to try to live above thier means ... credit cards, consumer debt, home equity loans... If they would spend LESS than they make, they would find themselves wealthy in a few years.



    By wealthy, I don't necessarilly mean "Bill Gates", but they will find that money is no longer a problem for them.
  • Reply 27 of 30
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The average paycheck person has been living beyond their means? Well tell me something I don't know.



    I disagree with a lot of what trumptman has to say regarding fairness of the tax system and distribution of wealth and such... but I've got to say I loved his scathing picture of the stupidity that American consumerism often reaches.



    I often wonder if people even really enjoy all the expensive stuff they buy -- the SUVs, the McMansions, etc. -- very much, or how much sinking up to their eyeballs in debt they do motivated by some misguided need to maintain an appearance they imagine they must maintain.
  • Reply 28 of 30
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    I couldn't disagree with you more. Our country was founded on a tax revolt.



    Not really. Our country was founded through the theft of British property.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 29 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    It is not the government's job to resdistribute wealth....no matter how much some of you want it to be.



    But the thing some blind conservatives don't understand is that it's not the government's job to foster a free market economy either.



    Democracy /= Free Market Economy.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Everyone talks about people living beyond their means... as if most americans are driving Mercedes and Living in mansions.



    But no one wants to talk about how the bottom half of wage earners are making comparitvely less and less...



    CEOs are making 100 to 400 TIMES the average worker.



    The middleclass is getting smaller... NOT bigger.



    They're working MORE hours... getting fewer benefits... pay more in taxes as percentage of income-because of income and sales taxes-compared to the richest americans.



    People are living beyond their means because they're not making enough...



    meanwhile in the senate:



    Frist was born rich, and got richer ? thanks to massive criminal fraud by the family business. The basis of the Frist family fortune is HCA Inc. (Hospital Corporation of America), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country, which was founded by Frist?s father and brother. And, just as Karl Rove was engineering the scuttling of Trent Lott and the elevation of Frist, the Bush Justice Department suddenly ended a near-decadelong federal investigation into how HCA for years had defrauded Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare (the federal program that covers the military and their families), giving the greedy health-care behemoth?s executives a sweetheart settlement that kept them out of the can.



    The government?s case was that HCA kept two sets of books and fraudulently overbilled the government. The deal meant that HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million for its lucrative scams ? which, on top of previous fines, brought the total government penalties against the health-care conglomerate to a whopping $1.7 billion, the largest fraud settlement in history, breaking the old record set by Drexel Burnham.



    The deal also meant that HCA can continue to participate in Medicare. And, as part of the Bushies? deal shutting down what Deputy Assistant FBI Director Thomas Kubic called "one of the FBI?s highest-priority white-collar crime investigations," no criminal charges were brought against the top HCA execs who presided over the illegal bilking of federal programs designed to aid the poor ? and that includes Senator Frist?s brother, Thomas, HCA?s former CEO (and current director), who?s been described by Forbes magazine as "one of the richest men in America," with a personal fortune estimated at close to $2 billion.
Sign In or Register to comment.