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.
So again, Krugman is arguing for more programs that have to be paid for. Well, granted Krugman might argue that we can just continue deficit spending but in the end the result will be the same.
This isn't about you but rather Krugman. We can not do the things he argues for unless the working classes get hit and most of his argument have been a big benefit for the the upper income earners.
It's not really about more programs. We already have pre-kindergarten, but I think it should be expanded for all children if parents want to send them. We already have Medicare, but I think it should be expanded to cover everyone if they want to be a part of it.
I think that those using the programs should obviously pay.
WhyTF should poor people have to pay for it if they don't use it?
Really? You ask WhyTF should poor pay for it if they don't use it??? The middle class and the rich pay for the food on the poor persons table but they don't get to eat it so why should they pay for it?
Those include starting to phase out the Bush tax cuts, which show no correlation with job growth and yet are the single largest driver of annual deficits;
Forward!
LOL I warned them, I heard Obama say that he would not raise taxes on the middle class for ONE year but when I posted it liberals and dems bounced off walls defending their messiah.
You were warned.
You wanted higher taxes as long as it's the other guy of course? Never ever vote for higher taxes on the other guy because it will never be enough and they will come after you.
To your first point, no you're wrong. Top earners saw a greater amount of cash back from the Bush tax cuts than those lower end earners.
It is not my opinion. The CBO conducted the analysis and wrote the report. If you don't like their findings you need to take it up with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
To your second point, you're also wrong. We already pay taxes and we have pay taken to cover health insurance or we ourselves buy health insurance. Countries with single payer systems control costs better for individuals, families, and businesses, which means they have more money left over to cover other expenses or to save.
Countries that have a single payer system spend less on healthcare by delaying and denying service., but the system isn't "free" compare taxes between the USA and any European country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
To your third point, you're wrong again. Every one dollar invested on per-kindergarten generates 8 dollars in economic activity because workers are smarter and dropout rates decline.
We aren't discussing economic activity and as I already stated I think we can spend more on education. The issue was the results of the Georgia study. IIRC, the study found the improvements were gone by the third grade.
Not necessarily; I would say that the total dollar amount was irrelevant and misleading.
I would say that what matters most is the changes in effective tax rate (including FICA and all types of income tax) between classes.
I would also say that it matters how you define "classes." Income is not how you define classes, net worth is how you define classes.
Seeing as how we tax income instead of wealth, there is a layer of abstraction that makes this difficult to measure, which is why most of these studies are based on bullsh*t. There is a huge difference between the people who are rich, and the people who earn the most income. That is to say, someone who earns in the top 1%, but is loaded with debt, is not rich. Someone whose AGI is $100k but has a net worth of $500 million is rich, even though they aren't in the highest tax bracket.
Fair points. But from a cost standpoint, regardless of the twisting and playing games with percentages, the Bush tax cuts benefited the poor and middle class the most - that's where the money went. Last December we had confirmation from all parties - including Obama, Congress , CBO, about the impact and cost of letting the tax cuts expire on the poor and middle class.
He's calling for an end to those cuts, which is the same as calling for a tax increase.
I didn't say that either. I think everyone should have skin in the game, but the tax code should still be progressive.
I'm not saying simply raise taxes on the rich to fund more programs.
It can't be and work. Even old Keynes recognized that the only way to equality was through inequality - at least from a tax rate standpoint. The rates have to be regressive to make it work. It's math.
Of course the the middle class and poor compromised 80% of those affected by the Bush tax cuts, that's because those two groups are a lot larger than the wealthy in this country. The wealthy were a smaller group getting tax cuts, yet they saw the biggest tax cut.
That's only natural. If you're going to use common sense in saying of course the poor and middle class comprised most of those affected, then use the same common sense in the cuts. If you're going to cut across the board then of course the people paying the most will get the biggest cuts. That's just how across the board cuts work - more people at the lower end will be affected, but there will be more affect on those at the higher end. There is a higher population at the lower end, and more taxes at the upper end.
Quote:
Going to single payer would make sure that people don't go broke from medical bills, people are healthier and more productive, and businesses don't have the overhead of paying health care costs. That means workers can then take home more take home pay.
The problem with going to single payer is that it isn't constitutional, so it really makes no difference how good an idea it is. It is illegal. You're going to need a constitutional amendment giving the federal government authority to run a national single payer healthcare system before such a system can be implemented. The one and only thing the Supreme Court found constitutional last year was the government charging a tax on people who did not have health insurance. That's a far cry from them operating the entire healthcare system themselves.
Quote:
Investing in per-kindergarten is great way at boosting education performance. Georgia just conducted a study on the subject and it showed the investment pays off very well.
The studies I've seen say that while Pre-K programs do give a notable boost to students, that boost is only temporary. Past 3rd grade the effects of that boost are negligible. The boost is at such a basic level that kids quickly move past the point covered by that boost. It's like getting a ton of prep in algebra, and doing great in algebra, but then once you hit geometry you're in the same boat as everyone else.
So you disagree that on an absolute basis (total dollars) that the poor and middle class benefitted the most from Bush/Obama tax cuts?
No one benefits from tax cuts for long. When workers get more disposable income they bid against each other until they enter the credit arms race. The arms dealer always wins.
If in fact these two things are true:
* taxes are lowered on the middle class
* the middle class has gotten poorer.
I am almost alone in its explanation.
Has no one added water to the radiator to no avail? Look for leaks.
Raising taxes and da guberment spending in this environment is better because poorly planned da guberment idiotic spending is better than none. da idiot, da guberment may have inefficient products and services, but the FIRE sector has none at all, and in fact destroys economies.
Surely the conservatives must be comfortable with the prospect da guberment spending and taxation will soon begin to shine ever so brightly, all because they were too stupid to differentiate free lunches and fictitious capital from real industry.
Time is running out. People will turn to simple solutions. Big bubba da gubermet is coming thanks to conservatives and their zombie ,socialist creations. Like Sauroman's tortured elves become Uruk-hai, the middle class worker will become corrupted socialists.
The problem with taxes is that the poor quite often pay them....sales taxes and property taxes make of the bulk of this but they are either paid indirectly via rent or in tiny little add-on amounts.
As a result, I think a lot of poorer people don't understand the impact of taxation as much as someone that get's thier W-2 at the end of the year and sees they paid 10k or 20k etc. in federal income tax.
As a % of income when you roll ALL taxes together and not just federal income tax the % paid get's a lot closer.
I think it would serve many people well to recognize that the poor do indeed pay taxes and it would serve the poor well to understand that the govt. isn't just reaching in the pocket of the rich man.
"If we could somehow do that, then there would be plenty of gradual steps that could be taken right now — steps that deal with the debt in measured ways that do the least harm to the overall economy. Those include starting to phase out the Bush tax cuts, which show no correlation with job growth and yet are the single largest driver of annual deficits; starting to reduce defense and war spending, which, job-creation-wise, is one of the least effective ways for the government to spend money; starting to move the United States toward the least costly, more efficient, and more effective single-payer healthcare system that most industrialized countries have, and that lowers overhead for employers; and starting to spend more money on social programs that fight economic inequality, with the understanding that driving down such inequality tends to boost macroeconomic growth and consequently boost public revenues (this is the Reagan-esque idea of growing one’s way out of debt)."
Forward!
The big problem I have with this is an assumption I see in it that the money belongs to the government. The line "Those include starting to phase out the Bush tax cuts, which show no correlation with job growth and yet are the single largest driver of annual deficits" seem to betray an underlying assumption that this somehow indicates those cuts should expire. It doesn't.
The reasoning there is "is there any reason the government shouldn't get rid of those cuts" instead of what it should be, which is "is there any reason the government shouldn't retain those cuts". The first assumes that that the money is the government's money and they are letting the people have it in order to grow jobs. The second assumes the money is the peoples' and the government needs a compelling reason to take it.
While the constitution gives the government the authority to levy taxes, it also says that government shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". The operative word there is "necessary". This means the money belongs to the people and it must be necessary for the government to take it. Needing more revenue to cover expenses is not "necessary". It's only necessary if none of those expenses can be eliminated. And this is demonstrably not the case.
Krugman's illegitimate philosophy appears to be that the money belongs to the government and the government simply allows the people to keep a portion of it. That's fine if you lived in the Soviet Union. But that is entirely backwards for the USA. It's entirely irrelevant whether the tax cuts produced some beneficial effect on the economy as to making a decision whether or not to keep them. What's relevant is that the money belongs to the people, not the government. The government needs a necessary and proper reason for taxing that money. "Letting them keep more of their money didn't increase employment much" isn't a necessary and proper reason.
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.
