Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's ironic. Sarah Palin's Alaska is actually the most socialist state in the U.S. The population collectively owns the oil companies and receives a check from them every year.
It's ironic. Sarah Palin's Alaska is actually the most socialist state in the U.S. The population collectively owns the oil companies and receives a check from them every year.
I don't think it's accurate to say that the State of Alaska *owns* any oil companies. We know from news reports last year, about BP messing up some of the pipelines used to move around some of the extracted North Slope oil, that there are private oil companies involved in getting at Alaska oil reserves. Check into who/what owns the land below which the oil companies drilled and found oil.
It might be that under the drilling agreement(s), the oil companies "own" the oil that they find but must pay royalty to the State of Alaska when it is extracted, *or* the State of Alaska might "own" the oil and allows the oil companies to gain possession of it after extracting it when they pay the state a royalty.
I don't know whether either of these notions accurately describes the arrangement in Alaska.
4) Regardless of policy or ideology, you will always have poor because you have people who don't want to be helped. Think of the 1000 people who drowned in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. They were warned and warned to leave. You can't make people want to succeed.
Faulty example! There were plenty of folks who chose to stay in N.O. through the hurricane who (1) believed they had nowhere to go that was cost-effective (which might have been poor reasoning on their part), (2) felt safe enough in their own homes, (3) were physically handicapped or in the hospital and therefore were unable to leave the city, etc.
All that said, those who were able to leave but chose not to also factored into that decision the information from local authorities about the safety of the levee system. There were warnings from the authorities that the levee system was vulnerable to storm surge, but there was probably little information for how a levee breach would impact one neighborhood or another. The lowest-lying portions of the city, such as the 9th Ward, were obviously very vulnerable to receiving major flooding and damage from a levee breach in any of its surrounding communities.
[quote=ovcatto;8033750]From my point of view, the only thing that blows about socialism is that we as humans haven't evolved to a point whereby we can work as contributor to society just for the sake of doing so.
\quote]
This is like saying "the only unfortunate thing about a turtle is it isn't a parakeet".
You're holding your breath for the day human nature changes. Man will never "work as a contributor just for the sake of doing so" because man has the inherent desire to acquire to excel and to achieve beyond his peers. That's what make capitalism so rip-roaring successful. Man can be his best most innovative most energetic self. Yah, being a do-gooder one-for-all-and-all-for-one sounds great, but it rarely elicits a full response in many men. The best you'll get is people going through the motions. The worst you'll get is apathy and boredom, and non-production.
Eeee, you still haven't answered my question about how those countries under socialism are doing so horribly. And also why socialism, according to you, is evil.
There are several ways to look at redistribution of wealth. One would be the classical redistribution of land, breaking up large land tracts and either selling or giving smaller tracts to the landless. Other ways of achieving wealth redistribution would be through collective bargaining agreements whereby workers can demand a larger share of a companies profits, or direct transfer of income to another segment of society. Neither of these are embodied under any proposal that Obama campaigned under. The idea that a progressive tax is a redistribution of wealth is a misnomer since with the exception of the Earned Income Tax Credit, there is no direct redistribution of income from one segment of society to another, all that it does is reduce the tax burden of one group towards to overall support of the Federal government which allows one group to retain more of their income.
"He made it too obvious that he wanted to take money from those who have more than a certain amount and give it to those who don't have that amount."
Again, with the exception of the EITC there is no taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Increased tax payment from the wealthier sector goes to government expenses to fund its normal operation. Of course one would argue that this includes "welfare" payments to those who we have deemed incapable of contributing to the overall cost of government but that redistribution comes from the society as a whole. The EITC by the way was a proposal by Richard Nixon and endorsed by every Republican administration because it was seen as an incentive for low income workers to remain in the workforce.
"Obama talked about keeping your insurance if you really like it but he failed to mention that as time goes by people who are laboring to keep above water but paying for their own insurance will look at their neighbors who are getting it all for free,"
Your neighbors would only receive free healthcare if they could not afford to purchase insurance. Now if you want to reduce your income so that you can qualify for such a program, be my guest. Using your argument we would expect to see large numbers of workers voluntarily dropping out of the workforce so that they could qualify for Medicaid, yet I haven't seen a stampede to do so.
After the "wealthy" people pay their raised income tax and the other 95% get their tax break I wonder if the group that doesn't have to pay taxes but does collect EITC won't be larger than before they got the new breaks. It is that very kind of redistribution that I don't like to think about. What reason is there for the wealthy to try to make more? They won't and soon there won't be any of them left.
Does it make any difference who suggested the EITC in the first place? I think that the gift was created by Congress but I may not be well informed thinking that only the Congress passes laws.
Perhaps you can explain why that hasn't happened?
I would think that the reason that hasn't happened yet is that The Man hasn't got his plan installed yet. I wonder if he will make it before his first term ends. I don't think there will be a second one.
One more comment. You say that the increased taxes for the wealthy goes to the government to continue their normal operations. Well yes, that would seem to be the plan but wouldn't some sharing with the poor be one of those operations? Sure it would.
After the "wealthy" people pay their raised income tax and the other 95% get their tax break I wonder if the group that doesn't have to pay taxes but does collect EITC won't be larger than before they got the new breaks. It is that very kind of redistribution that I don't like to think about. What reason is there for the wealthy to try to make more? They won't and soon there won't be any of them left.
One more comment. You say that the increased taxes for the wealthy goes to the government to continue their normal operations. Well yes, that would seem to be the plan but wouldn't some sharing with the poor be one of those operations? Sure it would.[/quote]
The poll of workers eligible for EITC doesn't change because the EITC is based upon earned income. The only way for that pool to grow is if the annual wage of EITC eligible workers decreases, it has nothing to do with their personal tax liability.
As for the disincentive for the "wealthy" to earn less due to increase tax burden let's look at a couple of factors. The basic economic argument is based upon utility, utility being what mix of goods holds a higher personal preference. The assumption is that we all make judgments a mix of preferable goods, in this case work vs leisure. We further assume that individuals will sacrifice their desire for leisure in favor of work up to a certain point so to increase the amount of time spent at work requires an x percentage change in income that would make work more attractive x amount of leisure. From theoretical economic point of view, this is a logical assumption. But, this model assumes that hours worked translate directly into income earned.
I would argue however, that outside of economic textbooks, this model only applies to hourly workers. For example to increase their income an hourly worker might have to take on overtime or a second job. In this case, the amount of taxes paid per hour work may reduce the benefit of taking on the extra hours to such a point that the desire for income isn't greater than the desire for leisure. But for workers whose income is not directly connected to hours worked the argument to some extent falls apart. As this argument applies to those whose in income isn't directly apportioned to the hours spent working but rather, as is the case with business owners and other categories of the "wealthy", their ability to increase profits. As an example, a widget manufacture who owns a plant running an assembly line 24/7 obviously can not be at work 168 hours a week. If they are in the plant 40 hours or even 60 hours a week, they aren't going to increase their profit by spending an additional 10-20 hours at the plant. The only way that they are going to increase their income is by producing at lower costs, producing new products, or increasing their market share. That being the case, I find it hard to believe that even if the tax rate were raised to 90% that they would choose to work less (something that they can't do to begin with since they are already maximizing their hours) rather than enjoy a 10% after tax increase in income.
Now, I would be the first to admit that there are individuals who earn over $250,000 per year who might choose less hours because they don't deem the percentage increase in income due to higher taxes makes such a prospect not as attractive as spending their time with friends and family; private practice physicians and other personal service providers come readily to mind. But the question that needs to be demonstrated is at what is the percentage decrease in possible earnings due to increased taxes that would trigger such a choice. Personally, I would think that increased rate of taxation would have to be far higher than 35% to act as such a disincentive.
Quote:
Does it make any difference who suggested the EITC in the first place? I think that the gift was created by Congress but I may not be well informed thinking that only the Congress passes laws
.
Of course it does because it demonstrates that the EITC has been widely recognized (until very recently) as one of the most constructive programs to keep people off of the public dole.
Eeee, you still haven't answered my question about how those countries under socialism are doing so horribly. And also why socialism, according to you, is evil.
Socialism does not bring out the best in people, doesn't bring out their creativity, and doesn't provide incentive. That's why socialist societies are in constant economic stagnation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrongo
