Underground econmy

[javacontour]

Yet the argument that we have always done it that way, or that so and so is doing it doesn't make it any more fair.

What is given to one has to be taken from another. If I want to donate, that's one thing. To just take from the fruits of my labor to transfer to those who would vote for those in favor of more transfers does nothing for anyone except those running for office.

Sure, it might feed someone for a day. But it doesn't address the circumstances of why they are unwilling or unable to earn enough to support themselves or their family.

We've had the "war on poverty" my entire life and we have more poverty now than we've had before.

Just as we are considering pulling out of Afghanistan, I suggest we consider pulling out of the war on poverty. Because what we are doing is not working.


Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Except it's not fair to charge one group one tax rate, and another group a higher (or lower) rate.


Why not? This is what every nation on earth has been practicing for a very good reason: cost of living is relatively fix and consume the majority of income at the lower bracket income group. Go read an economic textbook and it will tell you that the higher income group has a lot more disposable income after subtracting living expense, and lower income group lives paycheck to paycheck. It also is agreed upon that any economic stimulus would work much better by focusing on the lower income group. This is in economic text book, based on historic data and proven data, not just he say or she say.

Of course, it is much easier to tax someone with 70% disposable income after food, housing, healthcare, fuel, and utility than to tax someone with 5% disposable income after food, housing, healthcare, fuel, and utility.

 

[javacontour]

I was just shy of a minor in economics, FWIW. Anything you subsidize, you have more of.

Guess what, we've subsidized poverty via the war on poverty and the economic rule has proven true, we now have more poverty than when we started.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Yet the argument that we have always done it that way, or that so and so is doing it doesn't make it any more fair.

What is given to one has to be taken from another. If I want to donate, that's one thing. To just take from the fruits of my labor to transfer to those who would vote for those in favor of more transfers does nothing for anyone except those running for office.

Sure, it might feed someone for a day. But it doesn't address the circumstances of why they are unwilling or unable to earn enough to support themselves or their family.

We've had the "war on poverty" my entire life and we have more poverty now than we've had before.

Just as we are considering pulling out of Afghanistan, I suggest we consider pulling out of the war on poverty. Because what we are doing is not working.

A lot of folks are ready to join you in this cause.

Nothing wrong with helping the truly needy, but even the park rangers have learned that when you feed the bears all you get is dependency.

We have whole legions of folks growing up in entire families that have never seen anyone go to work! Visit any large inner city to see the results of the war...

 

[javacontour]

My wife, oilBabe is a school social worker and she sees that very thing. Children who grow up learning how to work the system for benefits because they see their parents doing the very same thing.

As I said before, I'm not against helping folks. I simply want to see it done locally, where your neighbor, the one providing the resources actually knows if you are truly needy, or just gaming the system.

With the massive social services army, there is no incentive to win the war, because if they win the war on poverty, then what will they do as their job?

I'm not saying that these folks don't want others to succeed. What I'm saying is the system is set up to provide an issue at election time.

Those who favor changing how we help the unfortunate are falsely painted as being uncaring. When the reality is I think many who see things the way I see them actually care more, because we see how the cycle of dependency destroys human dignity and how raising someone up to become self sufficient helps them reach the pinnacle of Mazlo's hierarchy of needs.

The war on poverty only addresses the base level, while encouraging folks to get off assistance moves them on to higher and higher levels, possibly reaching their full potential!

 

[Clevy]

Ontario had what was called workfare for a while. Anyone who was able bodied had to work a few hours a day to collect their welfare benefits. I though that was a great idea. Once they got tired of working for the peanuts a welfare cheque is they might go get a real job. I don't know why the program got axed but I for one was all for it.
And drug testing welfare recipients. If you collect welfare then as far as I'm concerned you are a government employee,subject to the same rules and regulations a government employee is subject to.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Yet the argument that we have always done it that way, or that so and so is doing it doesn't make it any more fair.

What is given to one has to be taken from another. If I want to donate, that's one thing. To just take from the fruits of my labor to transfer to those who would vote for those in favor of more transfers does nothing for anyone except those running for office.

Sure, it might feed someone for a day. But it doesn't address the circumstances of why they are unwilling or unable to earn enough to support themselves or their family.

We've had the "war on poverty" my entire life and we have more poverty now than we've had before.

Just as we are considering pulling out of Afghanistan, I suggest we consider pulling out of the war on poverty. Because what we are doing is not working.



Originally Posted By: javacontour
My wife, oilBabe is a school social worker and she sees that very thing. Children who grow up learning how to work the system for benefits because they see their parents doing the very same thing.

As I said before, I'm not against helping folks. I simply want to see it done locally, where your neighbor, the one providing the resources actually knows if you are truly needy, or just gaming the system.

With the massive social services army, there is no incentive to win the war, because if they win the war on poverty, then what will they do as their job?

I'm not saying that these folks don't want others to succeed. What I'm saying is the system is set up to provide an issue at election time.

Those who favor changing how we help the unfortunate are falsely painted as being uncaring. When the reality is I think many who see things the way I see them actually care more, because we see how the cycle of dependency destroys human dignity and how raising someone up to become self sufficient helps them reach the pinnacle of Mazlo's hierarchy of needs.

The war on poverty only addresses the base level, while encouraging folks to get off assistance moves them on to higher and higher levels, possibly reaching their full potential!


Handing out welfare to people vs charging a "flat" tax are 2 very different things. While I do agree that you cannot just feed people as they grow depending on the feeding, charging 20% tax rate on minimum wage earner who lives pay check to pay check is very different than charging 20% to people who make $10B a year after hiding $30B in accounting loop holes.

Unless you blame minimum wage workers for not making more money, but when they all work upward and no longer making minimum wage or people refuse to work these minimum wage jobs because the pay is too low, there'll be arguments like "American are too lazy to work in the field or do janitorial work [for minimum wage]" and businesses demand imported labors or outsourcing to foreign nations to get cheaper cost.

Things are not as simple as "them lazy 'Mericans don't want to work hard for more money" when you look at the macro economic picture. However I do agree, that having a flat tax rate is a good start coming from the capital gain tax (15%) being below real salary based tax (30+%).

 

[javacontour]

But you also run out of rich to tax at 100% if you are not going to charge 20% effective tax rates counting all taxes (payroll, income, excise) to all, including those who receive significant transfer payments.

I would like to think I'm pretty consistent as I think the corporate welfare needs to end as well.

Cap federal spending at 18-20% GDP, no one pays more than that rate in total federal tax liability. If folks can't afford it, then they need to have the size of government cut to one they can afford to pay for in their personal tax responsibility.

Otherwise, you have more of the same we have now, which is a political class that stay elected (employed) by transferring wealth from a minority at the top to a majority in the bottom who get to vote themselves access to other people's money.

Also, those with political power (I.E. the wealthy) also successfully lobby to have more of other peoples money.

Things are not so simple because the political leaders from both ends of the spectrum have made it that way. It was simple before they learned they can use money taken from taxpayers to buy votes.

Why can't it be as simple as, if you don't work, you don't eat? If your business is too big to fail, then you, not society needs to make sure it doesn't fail? If banks don't trust one another, why should "we the people" trust you to do the right thing with bailout money? If your neighbors won't help you in your time of need, why should some program run from DC be created to help you when the folks who know you best won't help?

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Yet the argument that we have always done it that way, or that so and so is doing it doesn't make it any more fair.

What is given to one has to be taken from another. If I want to donate, that's one thing. To just take from the fruits of my labor to transfer to those who would vote for those in favor of more transfers does nothing for anyone except those running for office.

Sure, it might feed someone for a day. But it doesn't address the circumstances of why they are unwilling or unable to earn enough to support themselves or their family.

We've had the "war on poverty" my entire life and we have more poverty now than we've had before.

Just as we are considering pulling out of Afghanistan, I suggest we consider pulling out of the war on poverty. Because what we are doing is not working.



Originally Posted By: javacontour
My wife, oilBabe is a school social worker and she sees that very thing. Children who grow up learning how to work the system for benefits because they see their parents doing the very same thing.

As I said before, I'm not against helping folks. I simply want to see it done locally, where your neighbor, the one providing the resources actually knows if you are truly needy, or just gaming the system.

With the massive social services army, there is no incentive to win the war, because if they win the war on poverty, then what will they do as their job?

I'm not saying that these folks don't want others to succeed. What I'm saying is the system is set up to provide an issue at election time.

Those who favor changing how we help the unfortunate are falsely painted as being uncaring. When the reality is I think many who see things the way I see them actually care more, because we see how the cycle of dependency destroys human dignity and how raising someone up to become self sufficient helps them reach the pinnacle of Mazlo's hierarchy of needs.

The war on poverty only addresses the base level, while encouraging folks to get off assistance moves them on to higher and higher levels, possibly reaching their full potential!


Handing out welfare to people vs charging a "flat" tax are 2 very different things. While I do agree that you cannot just feed people as they grow depending on the feeding, charging 20% tax rate on minimum wage earner who lives pay check to pay check is very different than charging 20% to people who make $10B a year after hiding $30B in accounting loop holes.

Unless you blame minimum wage workers for not making more money, but when they all work upward and no longer making minimum wage or people refuse to work these minimum wage jobs because the pay is too low, there'll be arguments like "American are too lazy to work in the field or do janitorial work [for minimum wage]" and businesses demand imported labors or outsourcing to foreign nations to get cheaper cost.

Things are not as simple as "them lazy 'Mericans don't want to work hard for more money" when you look at the macro economic picture. However I do agree, that having a flat tax rate is a good start coming from the capital gain tax (15%) being below real salary based tax (30+%).