What American "think" the distribution is vs..

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Yet you have folks lining up to buy the oil company product. When is the last time you heard someone say they wanted to give more of their own money to the Federal Government?

Also, much of what you talk about is the role of states. Roads, police, fire, education is really a state and local function, not a federal function.

There are few if any federal police, federal firemen, and so forth. So all the doom and gloom about not having police, firemen and teachers if sequestration continues is really a smoke screen. The majority of that stuff is funded at the state and local level.


Well if the Federal government laid claim to the oil reserves, you'd still have people lining up to buy it lol. So what does that prove? The post office could raise its postage a few cents or make other changes to balance its budget and I'd still use them over UPS and FedEx.

States get something like half their budget from the Fed. Anway it's all a complicated topic, and at this point it's like throwing things against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I don't think everyone gives Apple, MS, AT&T etc a pass. Bill Gates has been one of the wealthiest men in the US. Lot's of people felt that MS software was overpriced junk for a long time. But what alternative did customers have really? And probably people in the software industry felt that MS strong armed them out of the industry. People say Iphones could be manufactured in the US. I made a post complaining about AT&T's billing the other day.


That's why we need to fix our broken patent and trade mark system. So many bogus patents prevent people from developing a compatible version of software and hardware that land these extremely overpriced "technology". This is 2013, an operating system charging $200 is ridiculous when a whole computer is only $300-400. At least in 2013 we have choices of running everything web based instead of having to install a software on "Microsoft compatible" OS to get things working.

Same for iOS vs Android, we have choices so we are at least buying because we "want" rather than "have to".

Quote:
Quote:
Yet the same folks who look at the big numbers in profit by their select corporations don't blink when faced with a $3.8 Trillion dollar US Federal Budget, a $900 Billion budget deficit or relatively small cuts of ONLY $85 Billion that has DC in a panic.

So if the "obscene" profits of your favorite target corporation concern you, where is the scaled up concern regarding the (you pick) selfish and/or inept federal stewards?


Not that public sector isn't wasteful and inefficient, but it's not exactly the same thing. Roads, infastructure, services etc are not exactly the same thing as individuals making personal profits. Also a lot of public spending goes to private businesses, suppliers, contractors etc. Maybe they are a big part of the Federal budget. I love it when someone compares gas tax to the net profit of an oil company. As if the oil company is using its net profit to build, maintain and improve roadways lol.

Let's see what happen when everything is run with "efficiency" and in "private's hand".

Take a public road for example, toll road are typically only 2 lanes and will not be expanded to increase capacity for traffic gridlock. Free public highway are designed and expanded for high utilization so people and goods can move around fast. But now, the high profit margin minimal investment toll roads are labeled as "efficient" while the more expensive, everyone can use public highways are labeled as "wasteful".

So what happen when everything is moved into the private sector? Many infrastructure will be shut down and priced for profit, and we will be living in a slightly more 3rd worldish environment because either you pay up or wait for a longer commute, in a more crowded home (so more people can be closer together with less road and infrastructure), getting our degrees in University of Phoenix instead of our state universities with excessive tuition and a questionable degree, and pay for every book we want to read instead of going to a public library near by.

But our tax dollar is more efficient, and we pay less to use less services in the private sectors.

 

[javacontour]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we privatize the roads. My point has been all along that DC is not the right place to do things.

Nothing wrong with states and local municipalities raising the money and building their own roads without federal dollars.

Ditto for health care, or whatever program you decide you should or shouldn't have.

No one is saying those things shouldn't be done. The argument in my mind is why do we think that DC, is the place where this is decided?

Things like foreign policy, national defense and defense of The Constitution are federal roles. Healthcare is best handled by state and/or local governments, as well as individual and/or charitable organizations.

Ditto for roads. Too many strings with federal money, not to mention the shifting of money from states that don't seem to support those in power to those who do, or vice versa if they are trying to buy more votes.

Our waste, fraud and abuse is too centralized. We need some of it back in the states

 

[P20565R16]

Originally Posted By: Turk
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Agreed. The definition of "poor" seems to be evolving. Some of today's poorest run around with smartphones and iPads.



+ 16,500,000,000,000 !!!




Progress............

 

[mechanicx]

If something like a cell phone makes one wealthy or not so poor, then how many cell phones could a wealthy person have before being considered wealthy

.

The standard of living has increased for the poor, rich and everything in between in many ways vs the past. But real wealth is financial security, autonomy, free time, being respected, etc. Oh yeah, a nice house in an nice neighborhood that's payed for, fast cars, motorcycles, fine dining, a beautiful young woman, traveling, quality tools

.

They can keep their cell phones and electronics. I use computers a lot but I wouldn't miss them if they were gone or hadn't existed. It'd kind of suck to not have EFI, but carburetors and mechanical injection is kind of neat and work good if it wasn't for emission controls lol.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: GMFan
Explain to me how it is greed to want to keep your own hard earned money but not greed to want to take other people's money which you didn't earn.

Also, since you live in the United States you can reasonably assume you are a in the top 1% earner in the world. So why not give away all your wealth and possessions to redistribute it? Or are you only for redistribution when people have more money than you?


The silence was deafening!

And as an employer who does NOT pay his folks the lowest wages and milk them like cows, I deeply resent the equally "broad brush" that is tarring and feathering all employers.

My guys get an hourly minimum, a bonus structure, commissions, etc. My top guy made well over 45k NET PAY this last year in a very poor environment. Many times I took NO PAY AT ALL while I wrote checks out of my pocket for my men!

Calling all employers evil is the mark of a beaten man. Get out there and become an entrepreneur and compete/create/innovate instead of squatting there and griping.

There are two distinct camps here. One has 'employee' mentality and one has 'employer' mentality. The difference is clear...


Depends what the "taking money" is for. Is it for the greater good for core functions that should be supported by a governing body, or is it for handouts and waste?

One is inherently necessary, and one is inherently bad. The one that is labeled as "bad" is sticky because someone might disagree with some aspect of where money is flowing (like parks, environmental studies, science, education, etc.), but it doesnt mean that it is so.

We pay enough in taxes to buy an E-class Mercedes each year, new. It is disgusting. But how many people would be dying in the streets (including many who like to talk tough) if all the stuff that I'm (we/53% of us) taxed on went away? How many peoples' businesses would see substantially reduced revenue and profit? Its not all so easy.

As someone who has visibility to compare to costs of doing certain work (research) between the public and private sector, I can say with certainty that the private sector has far higher burdened costs of doing business and performing equivalent work. Is that bad? No, Im not saying that. But like other aspects, its not so easy to paint with a broad brush. Maybe a secretary in the public sector is paid more, but it is EXTREMELY job dependent. A recent job offer in the private sector that I got was an easy $50k more. I wasnt interested for other reasons related to personal development, family, location (the other location had a lower cost of living and more money), etc.

And then take my wife, she is a public (school) employee, and an evil entrepreneur with her own businesses that she runs in the summer. The difference in wages is staggering. And when she worked for a private company, the difference in what they charged per burdened hour (which is the basis of what she charges her patients) was STAGGERING versus what she was paid. So right now she is that evil business owner, heck, when busy, she has employees, so she is one of those evil employers too...

And again, she donates hours for less money in her school job, but believe it or not, she loves it so much she will surely do it forever. She just gets joy out of it. But again, less money than in the private sector, less money that she as an evil business makes.

I am not interested in handing out undeserved charity, though we do volunteer and take part in what we deem as worthy causes. Im not interested in people not making a profit, profit is a good thing when assumed in a reasonable manner. Im not one to complain about XOM or anyone else on this stuff.

But given that my wife and myself are examples of people who get brushed with the "broad brush" in a completely inaccurate way, I get sick of it always being the case.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


First of all our tax code DOES redistribute income by paying out refunds to many who paid zero taxes. There is also an outrageous amount of fraud in the tax system involving filing false returns to collect EIC monies. In my area alone it is estimated at 8 figures per year!!!

My response about bad employers was to Mechanicx post you may read it at your leisure.

I also am in complete agreement about more competition and limiting lobbyists access. That should be a priority, but is unlikely due to the money involved.

As I stated earlier this type of data gets publicized to promote an agenda. It is unlikely to be as altruistic as your intent. With only two parties we get worse or worser as our choices...


+1 to all that!

 

[GMFan]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Even oil companies have relatively small profit margins. Take a look in the tech sector for "obscene" profits. (No, I don't really think profits are obscene, if you do, don't buy the obscenely profitable product.)

So I tend to agree, Wal*Mart who makes like 3% or oil companies who fall into the 5-10% profit are greedy, but Apple, MS, AT&T with margins double, triple or even higher than those are given a pass because the total number is so small.

Yet the same folks who look at the big numbers in profit by their select corporations don't blink when faced with a $3.8 Trillion dollar US Federal Budget, a $900 Billion budget deficit or relatively small cuts of ONLY $85 Billion that has DC in a panic.

So if the "obscene" profits of your favorite target corporation concern you, where is the scaled up concern regarding the (you pick) selfish and/or inept federal stewards?


Oil companies make less than 10cents/gallon of gasoline if I recall. Here in NY state they tax gasoline 50cents/gallon. Yet oil companies are the ones who explore for and extract the oil. Who are the real greedy ones in this situation?

 

[daves87rs]

Save for a few comments, this has been one of the best threads I have read in quite a while.

There is quite a bit o truth here on both sides on the coin.

One thing that I would like to add here-

In order to see things improve throughout the classes, a better carrot needs to be dangled in front of the masses to do better and try to move up the chain, because it is sure not working now.

And leaders (and companies) need to take a great responsibility in both leading by better example, and caring for our nation as a whole. Because nothing destroys something faster than from the inside....

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Depends what the "taking money" is for. Is it for the greater good for core functions that should be supported by a governing body, or is it for handouts and waste?

How many peoples' businesses would see substantially reduced revenue and profit? Its not all so easy.

I can say with certainty that the private sector has far higher burdened costs of doing business and performing equivalent work.

But given that my wife and myself are examples of people who get brushed with the "broad brush" in a completely inaccurate way, I get sick of it always being the case.



Stunningly accurate and representative of most of my thoughts as well.

I have never minded my gargantuan amount of taxes every year as I feel EVERY one of us has a civic duty to support the country. I only resent the extreme amounts of waste and fraud in our Nanny State federal govt. Depending on who you ask the amounts vary but even the smallest amounts published are staggering.

As far as biz dependent on government money that's a mixed bag. Some are merely milking a fat cow and should have their teat cut off!

There is also no doubt that it is getting harder and harder to run a private biz profitably. Many who are an employee think differently. This is a fundamental difference from those who must go out and find their money in the economy independently.

I've heard more class warfare talk in the last few years than ever in my life. The constant stream of propaganda in the media is twisting malleable minds 24 hours a day. Many are drinking the kool aid.

 

[rjundi]

I am unclear of Welfare at the local level however at federal level only account for about 12% of US federal budget. Many folks who are bothered with taxes seem to leave these folks as the problem and source of your tax problems.

 

[javacontour]

The federal budget is broken down in these rough figures:

30% Defense
30% Social Security
30% Medicare/Medicaid
10% Everything Else.

All of them must be tackled to address the growth of deficit spending, and 60% of it is on auto-pilot and will grow beyond our ability to pay if something is not done soon.

The problem is our leadership is too scared to address that 60%, so they try to cut in the other 40% to resolve the issue, which does nothing about the rapid growth in the "untouchable" 60%.

Again, these are rough figures, so please don't come back and say that's not right. My goal is to give the scope of the issue, not figures accurate enough to land on the moon. Defense may be on 25% and so forth.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^And good luck ever getting any accurate figures. It all depends who you ask!

 

[d00df00d]

Well, whatever the exact figures really are, hopefully we can come together on the essential point: that the roughly 60% that is "on autopilot" is really the biggest threat, and that we desperately need to overcome the political barriers to addressing that problem.

On the topic of bringing partisans together on common threats:

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

The problem is our leadership is too scared to address that 60%, so they try to cut in the other 40% to resolve the issue, which does nothing about the rapid growth in the "untouchable" 60%.


I'd say what's the problem cutting the 30% of the 40%? Why is that a sacred cow vs the other 60%?

Yes, it is a huge amount and autopilot would crash them, but if you look at the "wealth distribution" point of view, SS and Medicare are paid with money from salary income, not capital gain, so that's not even a related discussion. It has nothing to do with that huge lopsided income the 0.00001% make (although the 99% of population see it as a problem).

Eliminate some of the waste, you leave that from federal level to the state level or even individual person's level, but the fact is, the cost is still high for retirement and healthcare for the aging. This will still take a chunk out of the overall economy, still increase the labor cost, unless you tax the higher income bracket, soverign resources (i.e. wireless frequency licenses, import tariff, natural resource tax, etc) or from other property type tax.

The problem is why health care cost so much, and why do we have an aging population that couldn't afford retirement? I think looking at the "paycheck to paycheck" crowd and you'll see the answer.

 

[javacontour]

If you go back to the history of Social Security, it was specifically sold as NOT being a transfer of wealth. That's why there is a cap on wages that are taxed for Social Security. Those who are expected to not meet the requirements to collect because of income do not pay above a set level of wage income.

Other types of income are not taxed for the same reasons.

Talk of taxing additional sources of income for Social Security would go against the principles upon which the program was founded and might put the entire program in jeopardy.

No one might make a case for health care depending on your political bent. But based on how Social Security was set up, it's hard to justify taxing those who are unlikely to collect it due to their wealth.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: javacontour

The problem is our leadership is too scared to address that 60%, so they try to cut in the other 40% to resolve the issue, which does nothing about the rapid growth in the "untouchable" 60%.


I'd say what's the problem cutting the 30% of the 40%? Why is that a sacred cow vs the other 60%?

Yes, it is a huge amount and autopilot would crash them, but if you look at the "wealth distribution" point of view, SS and Medicare are paid with money from salary income, not capital gain, so that's not even a related discussion. It has nothing to do with that huge lopsided income the 0.00001% make (although the 99% of population see it as a problem).

Eliminate some of the waste, you leave that from federal level to the state level or even individual person's level, but the fact is, the cost is still high for retirement and healthcare for the aging. This will still take a chunk out of the overall economy, still increase the labor cost, unless you tax the higher income bracket, soverign resources (i.e. wireless frequency licenses, import tariff, natural resource tax, etc) or from other property type tax.

The problem is why health care cost so much, and why do we have an aging population that couldn't afford retirement? I think looking at the "paycheck to paycheck" crowd and you'll see the answer.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
If you go back to the history of Social Security, it was specifically sold as NOT being a transfer of wealth. That's why there is a cap on wages that are taxed for Social Security. Those who are expected to not meet the requirements to collect because of income do not pay above a set level of wage income.

Other types of income are not taxed for the same reasons.

Talk of taxing additional sources of income for Social Security would go against the principles upon which the program was founded and might put the entire program in jeopardy.

No one might make a case for health care depending on your political bent. But based on how Social Security was set up, it's hard to justify taxing those who are unlikely to collect it due to their wealth.



In that case, why isn't Social Security and Medicare separate from budget discussion and "have to be rolled into" the discussion of government waste while not "tax"? I do see double standard here, people who pay them are not "paying taxes" while people who collect them are "wasting" government resources.

So if you remove this 30%, then let's say you remove another 15% for medicare and that means the original 30% military, 10% others, and 15% medicaid are left. The military spending is now the biggest waste of government resources, that doesn't sound too well to those who want to spin the political discussion.

Still, I do not see how this has anything to do with how lopsided the distribution is between different groups of people.

 

[javacontour]

It applies in so much as what are the reasons for the disparity. I don't think there is any one factor. But one factor is many folks at the bottom want someone else to pay for things.

I suspect many at the top have made their fortunes providing the "baubles and beads" some at the bottom want, often paid for with Federal funds.

Or the folks at the top have been bailed out by some Federal program.

A largely centralized government benefits those at the top. They have one place to go to grease the skids (lobby) for things to go their way.

Devolve the decisions and the funding back to the states and it's much harder for the titans of industry to lobby every state and local government to get their way.

So while it's bread and circuses, free cell phones and condoms for the masses, more power is concentrated in DC and people have less say in their day to day governance.

One part of the solution is to dilute the concentration of power in DC.

Can't do it all at once, but there should be plan to make it smaller so more things are decided and funded at the state and local levels.

 

[javacontour]

Oh, and Social Security and Medicare are taxes. Specifically they are called payroll taxes. I think the total is around 7.65 percent. The SS portion is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%

I don't believe there is a cap on the Medicare portion. So if your wages are high enough, the 6.2% you pay in SS taxes goes away, but there is no ceiling on the Medicare portion.

The problem, as I see it, is that the program was designed to fail. The only place "excess" SS funds could be invested was in government backed securities. So they loaned themselves the money and became addicted to spending those funds.

Now (or soon) they will need to pay back those IOUs to fund all the new retirees collecting Social Security.

Can't borrow from that source any more, so we borrow from China and the rest of the world to pay for our government.

How long until we are borrowing to pay for Social Security?

Even the Affordable Healthcare Act, which was sold as not a tax, was argued in the Supreme Court as being a tax, so it was considered Constitutional.

This is why I don't trust DC to address any so-called issue of the distribution of wealth. They have demonstrated time and time again they are not an honest broker in the game.

The problem is solved when people stop giving away and/or allow to be taken from them the fruits of their labor.

I can choose who I work for and who I buy from, but I can't stop Uncle Sam from reaching deeply in my pocket.

From my perspective, Uncle Sam is a bigger barrier to me becoming wealthy than any titan of industry may dream to be.

 

[d00df00d]

Here's how I understand why income distribution has become so insane recently. Recent economic conditions have driven production down, thus dragging down wages and employment. Meanwhile, slim production and low wages help keep profits high for companies and shareholders who were already big and wealthy enough to shift their assets around and weather the storm. Meanwhile, the banking fiasco and other factors have prompted lots of new regulation and lowered interest rates, which softened some of the trauma but now make credit more difficult to get and savings less rewarding. Couple that with several recent trends -- childish political partisanship, rising out-of-wedlock birth rates, budget cuts to education, diminishing values of advanced degrees, increasing competitiveness of other nations, and so on -- and you have a scenario that the super-wealthy can work with but that hurts or cripples almost everyone else.

Getting our debts under control would provide a huge measure of economic stability and sustainability, allowing us to fix those other problems with intelligent national investments and more reasonable and responsible regulation. It would enable us to put a floor under people who would otherwise not be able to reach the bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity, and improve the ability of our companies to find competent talent without going overseas. It would also help to avert the prospect of a spiral of economic nightmares, as some of our friends in Europe are going through right now; fending off that prospect would bolster economic confidence even further. In other words, it would give us enough cushion and breathing room to do what we have to do to fix income distribution. On the other hand, letting our debt go out of control would have the opposite effect.

If we have to fix our debt problem, it makes sense to go after the biggest driver of debt. Doing so sensibly is of course a very complex topic, but as the saying goes, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one...