The Rich Are Taxed Enough (Debate) - Intelligence Squared U.S.

MistrBurrberry · Nov 16, 2015

GrowUrOwnDank said:
Throwing money around like crazy.

This is a good point, but it supports the problem, not a healthy economy. As Elizabeth Warren has pointed out often, the things people point to as examples of American excess, mainly gadgets, eating out, designer clothing, and individual car prices have all dropped in price immensely since the 70s. Things that no one can go without, healthcare, housing, education, and needing two cars, one for each worker, have increased a huge percentage since the 70s. Combine that with the fact that while productivity has gone up since the 70s, wages have stagnated, and credit has been handed out like candy.

As I've said before, you can point to personal responsibilities the entire time the Titanic is sinking, or you can do something about it. Create a system of rampant consumerism, offer nearly no-strings credit, some of which is non dischargeable like student loans, bombard people with advertisements every waking moment, separate them from real community with distractions, and it's no wonder that you end up with a huge percentage in debt, without personal wealth like housing or savings, and will still feel the need to figure out how to have the latest shoes or iGadgets.

Now personally I don't think this is a sustainable economy. But GDP — which adds up the value of work being done, widgets created, profits made, money spent by consumers and the government, and things invested and exported — was never meant to accurately assess everything happening in the economy. It was created during the New Deal to see whether the programs were really helping. The creator of the GDP measure itself, Simon Kuznets, warned, “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP.”

Far superior would be Social Wealth Economic Indicators. SWEIs measure the environment, health of the population, poverty rates, income inequality, and educational attainment to see where the country currently stands. But they also measure investments in the future, such as the time parents spend doing unpaid housework and childrearing, government and business investment in care work, public spending on education with a focus on early childhood education, paid parental leave policies, and employee flexibility to allow for child care needs.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/09/3565056/gdp-sweis/

ttystikk · Nov 16, 2015

MistrBurrberry said:
First of all, socialism just means the workers owning the means of production, not safety nets. So other than a few co-ops, everyone who is independently employed but without underlings, and partner type businesses, the US has no socialism.

If you meant social democracy, the US is *maybe* a 3. The safety nets available for poor people in the US are abysmal. I live in Iceland and our safety nets are at least 10x as good, and they still aren't good enough to prevent a pseudo caste based system, and I'd put us at a 7 or 8.

Thank you for that. Too many people sucking the Faux Spews teat, believing whatever lies Rupert Murdoch wants them to hear.

ttystikk · Nov 16, 2015

GrowUrOwnDank said:
Thanks for the feedback guys. Imbecile. LMAO! Anyway there are certain subjects that people will never agree on. In a way right or wrong, what we ourselves perceive is different and unique to the objectivity of each person. Suppose I should have started something more on the lines of social policies or whatever. Thanks again.

I'll stop calling you names that imply stupidity when you do some homework.

I noticed that you didn't attempt to answer the question.

ttystikk · Nov 16, 2015

MistrBurrberry said:
This is a good point, but it supports the problem, not a healthy economy. As Elizabeth Warren has pointed out often, the things people point to as examples of American excess, mainly gadgets, eating out, and designer clothing, and individual car prices have all dropped in price immensely since the 70s. Things that no one can go without, healthcare, housing, education, and needing two cars, one for each worker, have increased a huge percentage since the 70s. Combine that with the fact that while productivity has gone up since the 70s, wages have stagnated, and credit has been handed out like candy.

As I've said before, you can point to personal responsibilities the entire time the Titanic is sinking, or you can do something about it. Create a system of rampant consumerism, offer nearly no-strings credit, some of which is non dischargeable like student loans, bombard people with advertisements every waking moment, separate them from real community with distractions, and it's no wonder that you end up with a huge percentage in debt, without personal wealth like housing or savings, and will still feel the need to figure out how to have the latest shoes or iGadgets.

Now personally I don't think this is a sustainable economy. But GDP — which adds up the value of work being done, widgets created, profits made, money spent by consumers and the government, and things invested and exported — was never meant to accurately assess everything happening in the economy. It was created during the New Deal to see whether the programs were really helping. The creator of the GDP measure itself, Simon Kuznets, warned, “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP.”

Far superior would be Social Wealth Economic Indicators. SWEIs measure the environment, health of the population, poverty rates, income inequality, and educational attainment to see where the country currently stands. But they also measure investments in the future, such as the time parents spend doing unpaid housework and childrearing, government and business investment in care work, public spending on education with a focus on early childhood education, paid parental leave policies, and employee flexibility to allow for child care needs.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/09/3565056/gdp-sweis/

You may have hit upon the core of the problem of perception; purple thinking that GDP is the most important indicator instead of the broader SWEI. In fact, I've never heard of the US government publishing an SWEI number for the American economy. Republicans might find it embarrassing.

schuylaar · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
If you pay taxes on property your effective tax rate goes even lower.

Last year I had a -11% effective tax rate.

Nice

property owner on Medicaid, SNAP ..<boasts negative ETR>

You sure you don't have balls under that skirt? :lol:

MistrBurrberry · Nov 16, 2015

GrowUrOwnDank said:
Thanks for the feedback guys. Imbecile. LMAO! Anyway there are certain subjects that people will never agree on. In a way right or wrong, what we ourselves perceive is different and unique to the objectivity of each person. Suppose I should have started something more on the lines of social policies or whatever. Thanks again.

That's alright, the narrative stateside is such that a lot of alternate ideas don't get enough airtime for everyone to be knowledgeable about.

Even if you meant social policies, drill down further. No one wants social policies "just because", instead, they are designed to mitigate problems, encourage/discourage behaviors, or prevent injustices. So in order to put country's policies on a scale of 1-10, you'd need to see how effective those social policies are. My personal metric is social mobility, the likelihood someone will grow up to belong to a different socio-economic class than that they were born. To me this is a good society, because even if your parents make bad choices, you still have the ability to rise above and accomplish something. And conversely, even if your parents did well, if you are a lazy lay-about, you could squander it all rather than living perpetually in a spoiled bubble.

This graph shows social mobility per country. Those with stronger safety nets have higher social mobility, and those with weaker have less. If you want a scale of 1-10, this is how I would rank nations. This also disproves the idea that safety nets encourage laziness, and that the lack of them encourages work ethic.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

schuylaar said:
Niceproperty owner on Medicaid, SNAP ..<boasts negative ETR>

You sure you don't have balls under that skirt?

I don't get full benefits. I get like 25% food stamps for a 3 person house and 25% medical for me, which doesnt even do shit for me if I doont spend more than 1k a month in medical.

My daughter gets full medicaid. Me and my husband don't. He pays for work insurance and I pay out of pocket to see the doctor.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

anzohaze said:
Yes I pay taxes on a house, a shop, cars etc. I get credit as they say but no like % difference

Do you use turbo tax? It lists taxes paid in, your return or owed and effective tax rate.

Before we had our daughter we were at 3.5% effective tax rate I believe. Before getting our mortgage we were at 6% effective tax rate.

I just went and checked my records lol.

Turbo tax FTW!

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

GrowUrOwnDank said:
I mean I get it. Disparity between the classes and all that. Not saying that I completely disagree with your view either. It's just that I see most people out and about getting ready for the holidays and buying up all kind of stuff for gifts and what not. Throwing money around like crazy. My thoughts are that we all want more more more yet, we already have all this stuff. I think the economy is fine. I wish I made more money too but, I think time is better spent realizing what we do have and not to dwell on what others may have we perhaps can't afford.

Question. Socialist nation on a scale of 1-10. Where do you think the US is on that scale? I'm thinking at least a 7 with all the programs available for poorer people.

Credit Cards.

I don't think social programs makes us a socialist nation. I think it makes us a compassionate nation.

My aunt has MS and my mom handles her medicare, food stamps, and social security. It is a complicated mess and makes mistakes often (we should definitely streamline these programs as it would save money and create less stress for the sick) but without that money my aunt would be homeless and hungry.

There is no reason why we cannot examine our programs and make them more efficient. There is no reason why government employees should be neglecting their job and STILL HAVE A JOB.

The economy is where we need to focus as well. If the economy is growing then there is more money. If there is more money to be had, the employers will see profit in expanding their business. Employers don't expand when the profit margins aren't there.

Right now (in some of the worse areas) you can put a HIRING sign out and get 100 applications. If an employer has 100 potential employees they have no incentive to KEEP the good employees or give them raises.

If less people are looking for a job, the employer has to work to keep their employees by offering rewards for good work and offering pay raises.

If you find a better paying job and the boss wants to keep you, he will offer you more money. If he has a pool of qualified (mostly OVERqualified) people to draw from, then he will say "Ok, nice knowing ya."

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

ttystikk · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
Credit Cards.

I don't think social programs makes us a socialist nation. I think it makes us a compassionate nation.

My aunt has MS and my mom handles her medicare, food stamps, and social security. It is a complicated mess and makes mistakes often (we should definitely streamline these programs as it would save money and create less stress for the sick) but without that money my aunt would be homeless and hungry.

There is no reason why we cannot examine our programs and make them more efficient. There is no reason why government employees should be neglecting their job and STILL HAVE A JOB.

The economy is where we need to focus as well. If the economy is growing then there is more money. If there is more money to be had, the employers will see profit in expanding their business. Employers don't expand when the profit margins aren't there.

Right now (in some of the worse areas) you can put a HIRING sign out and get 100 applications. If an employer has 100 potential employees they have no incentive to KEEP the good employees or give them raises.

If less people are looking for a job, the employer has to work to keep their employees by offering rewards for good work and offering pay raises.

If you find a better paying job and the boss wants to keep you, he will offer you more money. If he has a pool of qualified (mostly OVERqualified) people to draw from, then he will say "Ok, nice knowing ya."

That boss of yours may be thinking he's saving money by letting good employees go, buy both you and he are forgetting about replacement costs and the risk the the new hire won't be anywhere near as good, even with training.

I find ways to keep good people around, whether there's a line at the hiring office or not.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

ttystikk said:
That boss of yours may be thinking he's saving money by letting good employees go, buy both you and he are forgetting about replacement costs and the risk the the new hire won't be anywhere near as good, even with training.

I find ways to keep good people around, whether there's a line at the hiring office or not.

That is definitely true. I agree with you. Keeping their employees happy would increase productivity.

I have seen many employers not care about that tho. They cut hours and make employees pick up the slack with no reward.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

What do you do @ttystikk ?

I don't remember.

Rob Roy · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
Credit Cards.

I don't think social programs makes us a socialist nation. I think it makes us a compassionate nation.

My aunt has MS and my mom handles her medicare, food stamps, and social security. It is a complicated mess and makes mistakes often (we should definitely streamline these programs as it would save money and create less stress for the sick) but without that money my aunt would be homeless and hungry.

There is no reason why we cannot examine our programs and make them more efficient. There is no reason why government employees should be neglecting their job and STILL HAVE A JOB.

The economy is where we need to focus as well. If the economy is growing then there is more money. If there is more money to be had, the employers will see profit in expanding their business. Employers don't expand when the profit margins aren't there.

Right now (in some of the worse areas) you can put a HIRING sign out and get 100 applications. If an employer has 100 potential employees they have no incentive to KEEP the good employees or give them raises.

If less people are looking for a job, the employer has to work to keep their employees by offering rewards for good work and offering pay raises.

If you find a better paying job and the boss wants to keep you, he will offer you more money. If he has a pool of qualified (mostly OVERqualified) people to draw from, then he will say "Ok, nice knowing ya."

"I don't think social programs makes us a socialist nation. I think it makes us a compassionate nation." Aaaarghhh.

I appreciate your sentiment, but compassion is never about forcing others to involuntarily fund programs we might happen to like.

Charity is when an individual or group of individuals act in a VOLUNTARY and compassionate way, not when they are forced to fund someone else great idea on an involuntary basis.

Charity to BE compassionate, must be voluntary.... Forcible redistribution of others time, labor and property is theft, which removes any compassion, regardless of how the loot is spent.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

Rob Roy said:
"I don't think social programs makes us a socialist nation. I think it makes us a compassionate nation." Aaaarghhh.

I appreciate your sentiment, but compassion is never about forcing others to involuntarily fund programs we might happen to like.

Charity is when an individual or group of individuals act in a VOLUNTARY and compassionate way, not when they are forced to fund someone else great idea on an involuntary basis.

Charity to BE compassionate, must be voluntary.... Forcible redistribution of others time, labor and property is theft, which removes any compassion, regardless of how the loot is spent.

It would be a great world to live in if 100% of the population was compassionate.

Unfortunately, people very easily slide back into the position of only caring about what they can get instead of what they can give. It is very easy to think of your small world as the only world that matters. Even when presented with evidence that your actions affect others and then comes back to you, people will often choose the easy path of being selfish vs the right path.

The world has never been 100% guided by morals. It will never be that way either.

Rob Roy · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
It would be a great world to live in if 100% of the population was compassionate.

Unfortunately, people very easily slide back into the position of only caring about what they can get instead of what they can give. It is very easy to think of your small world as the only world that matters. Even when presented with evidence that your actions affect others and then comes back to you, people will often choose the easy path of being selfish vs the right path.

The world has never been 100% guided by morals. It will never be that way either.

All we can do (and should do) is be compassionate with our own individual time, labor and resources. When we attempt to forcibly "be compassionate" with another persons labor etc. we've lost sight of the means used to achieve the end result we'd like to see.

Separating the means used from the desired end result is a form of rationalization and has been historically the refuge of slave traders and governments, but I repeat myself.

Compassion is voluntary, not something derived by an involuntary means.

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

We need our government to take RESPONSIBILITY for the irresponsible handling of the taxes they receive.

How is it that we can believe that everything in the universe is governed by the same laws of physics, from the atoms to the stars, yet these idiots can't figure out how to balance a budget? One of the most basic things the average american knows is that they can't spend more money than they have without going into debt. Go into too much debt and you can lose EVERYTHING. Do we want to become the next Greece?

What are WE doing to demand accountability from our representatives?

Flaming Pie · Nov 16, 2015

Rob Roy said:
All we can do (and should do) is be compassionate with our own individual time, labor and resources. When we attempt to forcibly "be compassionate" with another persons labor etc. we've lost sight of the means used to achieve the end result we'd like to see.

Separating the means used from the desired end result is a form of rationalization and has been historically the refuge of slave traders and governments, but I repeat myself.

Compassion is voluntary, not something derived by an involuntary means.

It wasn't involuntary. We elected representatives and they represented what their voter base wanted.

anzohaze · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
Do you use turbo tax? It lists taxes paid in, your return or owed and effective tax rate.

Before we had our daughter we were at 3.5% effective tax rate I believe. Before getting our mortgage we were at 6% effective tax rate.

I just went and checked my records lol.

Turbo tax FTW!

No I use to use turbo tax before marriage business etc. But now my accountant does it so I truly don't no or can't give you a honest answer

ttystikk · Nov 16, 2015

Flaming Pie said:
It wasn't involuntary. We elected representatives and they represented what their DONOR base wanted.

Fixed it for ya!

The Rich Are Taxed Enough (Debate) - Intelligence Squared U.S.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member