"What's also silly is that we expect the market to magically assign the correct value to every job."
What's silly about it? If there are 500 people who can do the same single job, the value of that job is dramatically reduced.
"I see 0 economic value in restoring ancient artifacts. I see HUGE social and cultural significance."
I agree with you 100%. But there are far more art history majors than there are positions to fill -- so the job goes to the lowest bidder. This should not be unexpected.
"Similarly I don't hear jack shit about some accountant in the 16th century's contribution to culture and society today. I would say the Mona Lisa has some cultural significance."
That's probably because you don't read much of history or economics, but like to look at pretty pictures. Sorry -- that was a bit rude, but I'll leave it in. I'd say Jean Colbert or Adam Smith (two very differed views on economy) which had HUGE impacts on our culture and society. While not SPECIFICALLY 16th century, I feel my point is made.
"Just because something isn't economically rewarded doesn't mean we shouldn't support 'unproductive' occupations."
I would agree with you somewhat. However, when there is a GLUT of --- Art History major's (to continue my analogy), why should we pay for more?
Having the public: Pay for museums? yes. Pay for "the arts"? -- to a limited extent, yes. Pay for people to acquire skills already possessed in numbers that vastly outstrip need? No.
"You did implicitly, when you said It appears that somewhere along the line something flipped to where we have "Representation without taxation" for a hell of a chunk of our population. "
No I didn't. You are reading in to my statement information that isn't there. They are getting FEDERAL representation without FEDERAL taxation. The article is about FEDERAL taxes...
"Anyways, the argument that you are making is that it isn't fair for the lower class to receive more money than they pay from the federal government"
No, I'm arguing that they either pay nothing or get more back than they pay. It translates as they have no "stake" in the game such that they can say "give me more" without it impacting their federal tax burden.
SSI is not a federal income tax. The idea of FICA is that you pay in to it now so you can pull out of it later (when OTHERS are paying in to it). It's supposed to be zero-sum.
That "congress has been robbing the trust fund" (and I agree with you whole heatedly how WRONG that is) doesn't magically make it something it is not. It isn't the same as the funds aren't SUPPOSED to go in to the general fund.
And if you get rid of the 110k limit on SSI, I'm there with you in full agreement -- if you likewise raise the payout upon retirement -- to be fair.
"I wonder if after this round of budget cuts they would still be able to help out people like you." This was circa 1990. As far as now, yes they would -- and still do.
"I don't know anything about lesions on the larynx...if you had gone untreated, would you have been able to work? would it have been life-threatening?" Was found early. Could have turned cancerous in 10-20 years.
"To me it sounds like there are many ways in which you came very close to not making it as far as you have, and I wouldn't want to make it any harder."
What made it harder was the cheap availability of student loans pushing up the costs of private college curriculum -- and to a far lesser degree, public as well. This is due because people don't pay back their loans -- so banks get their money no matter what.
WTF? What do you think "tax avoidance" is? And it's not "illegal". If you've a mortgage and you declare it on your 1040 -- it's called a "tax avoidance".
I can't live with that.. If they aren't paying federal taxes, they aren't helping pay our federal expenses. And to say they are paying "SOME" taxes is nothing but a cheap cop-out.
Their $600/year sales tax burden does NOTHING to reduce our 14 trillion dollar deficit. And if they pay nothing, they have no problems asking for "more" stuff.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
"What would have happened if you got a major illness during this time?"
I had a lesion on my larynx. LA County picked up the tab.
"Or your parents did and you had to drop out of college to support the family?" Father died when I was 17. I didn't go to college right away to help my mother pay the mortgage. I did that for 4 years.
What I *DIDNT* do was blow off high school, get someone pregnant or get involved with drugs/alcohol. I also didn't pick a major with virtually no chance of an economic payout. (Well, I did at first... Philosophy -- but switched that when I realized that I'd most likely be unable to repay any loans I would assume).
What's silly is someone with a degree in 16th century literature and a $100,000-$200,000 debt is upset that they cant find a job that will help pay their student loans... Sounds to me that they would have been better off picking a different major/career path. A little "expected income" research when planning a major would have helped.
"Have you looked at the actual table [wikipedia.org]? For a single person, the Earned Income Tax Credit isn't available if (s)he earns more than $13,460. "
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
"If you're not swayed by arguments such as "don't kill people with taxes""
Silly rhetoric. It's not "killing" when asking them to get invested in the system. If a person pays SOMETHING, they are more likely willing to make responsible voting choices if they know that asking/getting MORE stuff from the fed will mean they will pay MORE in taxes. It's far too easy for someone who pays NOTHING to ask for more.
Who claimed it was? However, this entire story is about FEDERAL taxes and FEDERAL spending.
That person X pays $600 a year in local/state sales tax has virtually no impact on the fact that they may be getting $1000 more back from the feds than they paid via an EIC with regards to our FEDERAL DEBT.
If someone pays ZERO FEDERAL taxes -- and in fact may get MORE back than they pay, how is that fair? They have NO incentive to ask the government to curb spending. It's NOT punitive to ask them to pay SOMETHING -- and to pay MORE when they want MORE. It's getting them invested in society. When they realize that if they want their kids to have a special federal food program might mean they pay an extra $5 or $10 a year in federal taxes, they may reconsider that choice...
Hah. Me rich? Of my grandparents, 3 came to this country as children -- penniless. I'm the first one in my family to not only go to college, but to FINISH HIGH SCHOOL. I was effectively homeless for part of my 2nd term at the local community college -- living out of lockers and getting a $25 hotel 2 or 3 times a week until I got a better job and could afford a real room. I finished school with no debt and on my own blood/sweat. How about you?
My wife came to this country when she was 19 only slightly better off than my grandparents. All 3 of her siblings and herself all host post graduate degrees and there's one doctor. All with no debt (except the Dr -- but $300k isn't that bad considering his current income). And again -- all by their own sweat/blood. How about you?
I'm solidly in the middle-class ($~80k/year living in southern california -- that puts me in the LOWER end of the spectrum here).
The only dumbass here is you suggesting that the bottom 2/3rds have no representation -- in my area, people paying virtually no taxes other than sales keep voting for more "stuff" they don't have to pay for. The only person I see with blinders is YOU -- with zero clue as to how economies work.
Yeah... I remember how Congress finally got Clinton (after several vetos) to sign huge reforms. Do you remember who that Congress was? It's amazing how that works,huh?
"One person having a billion dollars in the bank isn't going to make Target's quarterly numbers, no matter how much real-estate or stock said rich person invests in."
How many "billionaires" have even one "billion" in liquid cash sitting in the bank?
Your statement is just loaded with contradictions. If it's "in the bank" how can it be investing (real-estate or stock)? And if it's investing, how is it not helping the economy? Only the "stupid" with money have it sitting in a bank. Or the "scared" (and there's a whole other discussion about what prevents someone from investing in non-safe investments).
"So because people will play games with taxes we should just set all taxes to 0%, right?"
That's not what happens. The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive people have to find ways to not pay taxes. Somewhere along that curve is an "zone" that maximizes revenue...
With nearly 50% of the US paying no federal income tax, they have no problem asking for "more". Want to be 'fair'? Get rid of the EIC -- or at least prevent it from giving back MORE money that was originally paid by the recipient.
To be even MORE fair, get these folks in the system. Even at a nominal 1%. And link it to the upper end of the tax code -- at a 3:1 ratio. So every 3% more you want me to pay past 30%, the low end needs to pay 1% more. Want to raise my taxes 20% (to a total of 50%)? The low end gets raised to about 7%. I pay 50 -- they pay 7. How's that unfair to the 7?
Our country was founded on the ideal of "No taxation without representation". It appears that somewhere along the line something flipped to where we have "Representation without taxation" for a hell of a chunk of our population.
Assuming you are referring to the US, you've a poor understanding of just how many corporations employ how many workers compared to how many non-corporate...
I guess we'll just have to disagree... I see abuses from within the system -- and I see lawsuits, bills, investigations, etc to address those abuses. When we over-reach or over-react and demand our government "take action", we eventually get our representatives to fix the problems "passions of the moment" created.
Maybe it would be less of a problem if we get rid of the 17th amendment and allow the Senate once again to be selected by states and not the people -- as it was designed -- to cool the passions of the people by slowing the process of our legislature.
Right now, do people of an option to not be recognized by some person as they walk the street in public? If you can find a way to protect people from THAT, then we can have this discussion. This just looks to me like an extension of someone getting recognized in public...
Am I saying that our movements should be monitored 24/7/365? Hardly -- it's just if the data is already recorded, I don't see a huge problem with authorities mining the data providing they get a warrant...
Slashdot Mirror
"What's also silly is that we expect the market to magically assign the correct value to every job."
What's silly about it? If there are 500 people who can do the same single job, the value of that job is dramatically reduced.
"I see 0 economic value in restoring ancient artifacts. I see HUGE social and cultural significance."
I agree with you 100%. But there are far more art history majors than there are positions to fill -- so the job goes to the lowest bidder. This should not be unexpected.
"Similarly I don't hear jack shit about some accountant in the 16th century's contribution to culture and society today. I would say the Mona Lisa has some cultural significance."
That's probably because you don't read much of history or economics, but like to look at pretty pictures. Sorry -- that was a bit rude, but I'll leave it in. I'd say Jean Colbert or Adam Smith (two very differed views on economy) which had HUGE impacts on our culture and society. While not SPECIFICALLY 16th century, I feel my point is made.
"Just because something isn't economically rewarded doesn't mean we shouldn't support 'unproductive' occupations."
I would agree with you somewhat. However, when there is a GLUT of --- Art History major's (to continue my analogy), why should we pay for more?
Having the public: Pay for museums? yes. Pay for "the arts"? -- to a limited extent, yes. Pay for people to acquire skills already possessed in numbers that vastly outstrip need? No.
"You did implicitly, when you said It appears that somewhere along the line something flipped to where we have "Representation without taxation" for a hell of a chunk of our population. "
No I didn't. You are reading in to my statement information that isn't there. They are getting FEDERAL representation without FEDERAL taxation. The article is about FEDERAL taxes...
"Anyways, the argument that you are making is that it isn't fair for the lower class to receive more money than they pay from the federal government"
No, I'm arguing that they either pay nothing or get more back than they pay. It translates as they have no "stake" in the game such that they can say "give me more" without it impacting their federal tax burden.
SSI is not a federal income tax. The idea of FICA is that you pay in to it now so you can pull out of it later (when OTHERS are paying in to it). It's supposed to be zero-sum.
That "congress has been robbing the trust fund" (and I agree with you whole heatedly how WRONG that is) doesn't magically make it something it is not. It isn't the same as the funds aren't SUPPOSED to go in to the general fund.
And if you get rid of the 110k limit on SSI, I'm there with you in full agreement -- if you likewise raise the payout upon retirement -- to be fair.
"I wonder if after this round of budget cuts they would still be able to help out people like you."
This was circa 1990. As far as now, yes they would -- and still do.
"I don't know anything about lesions on the larynx...if you had gone untreated, would you have been able to work? would it have been life-threatening?"
Was found early. Could have turned cancerous in 10-20 years.
"To me it sounds like there are many ways in which you came very close to not making it as far as you have, and I wouldn't want to make it any harder."
What made it harder was the cheap availability of student loans pushing up the costs of private college curriculum -- and to a far lesser degree, public as well. This is due because people don't pay back their loans -- so banks get their money no matter what.
Or, more likely, "historical facts" are not included in one's analysis of what is believed to defy "common sense".
Agree with you about DC. Less so with PR as it's not a state (at least not yet -- if ever).
WTF? What do you think "tax avoidance" is? And it's not "illegal". If you've a mortgage and you declare it on your 1040 -- it's called a "tax avoidance".
And that's exactly what I was saying.
And the soviet union still collapsed.
I can't live with that.. If they aren't paying federal taxes, they aren't helping pay our federal expenses. And to say they are paying "SOME" taxes is nothing but a cheap cop-out.
Their $600/year sales tax burden does NOTHING to reduce our 14 trillion dollar deficit. And if they pay nothing, they have no problems asking for "more" stuff.
If by this, you mean your post, I agree.
easy citation
"What would have happened if you got a major illness during this time?"
I had a lesion on my larynx. LA County picked up the tab.
"Or your parents did and you had to drop out of college to support the family?"
Father died when I was 17. I didn't go to college right away to help my mother pay the mortgage. I did that for 4 years.
What I *DIDNT* do was blow off high school, get someone pregnant or get involved with drugs/alcohol. I also didn't pick a major with virtually no chance of an economic payout. (Well, I did at first... Philosophy -- but switched that when I realized that I'd most likely be unable to repay any loans I would assume).
What's silly is someone with a degree in 16th century literature and a $100,000-$200,000 debt is upset that they cant find a job that will help pay their student loans... Sounds to me that they would have been better off picking a different major/career path. A little "expected income" research when planning a major would have helped.
"Have you looked at the actual table [wikipedia.org]? For a single person, the Earned Income Tax Credit isn't available if (s)he earns more than $13,460. "
Really? Have you ever looked at the "big picture"?
"If you're not swayed by arguments such as "don't kill people with taxes""
Silly rhetoric. It's not "killing" when asking them to get invested in the system. If a person pays SOMETHING, they are more likely willing to make responsible voting choices if they know that asking/getting MORE stuff from the fed will mean they will pay MORE in taxes. It's far too easy for someone who pays NOTHING to ask for more.
"In other words, federal taxes aren't all taxes."
Who claimed it was? However, this entire story is about FEDERAL taxes and FEDERAL spending.
That person X pays $600 a year in local/state sales tax has virtually no impact on the fact that they may be getting $1000 more back from the feds than they paid via an EIC with regards to our FEDERAL DEBT.
If someone pays ZERO FEDERAL taxes -- and in fact may get MORE back than they pay, how is that fair? They have NO incentive to ask the government to curb spending. It's NOT punitive to ask them to pay SOMETHING -- and to pay MORE when they want MORE. It's getting them invested in society. When they realize that if they want their kids to have a special federal food program might mean they pay an extra $5 or $10 a year in federal taxes, they may reconsider that choice...
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html
Want another? Most claim this -- many will argue about degree.
Hah. Me rich? Of my grandparents, 3 came to this country as children -- penniless. I'm the first one in my family to not only go to college, but to FINISH HIGH SCHOOL. I was effectively homeless for part of my 2nd term at the local community college -- living out of lockers and getting a $25 hotel 2 or 3 times a week until I got a better job and could afford a real room. I finished school with no debt and on my own blood/sweat. How about you?
My wife came to this country when she was 19 only slightly better off than my grandparents. All 3 of her siblings and herself all host post graduate degrees and there's one doctor. All with no debt (except the Dr -- but $300k isn't that bad considering his current income). And again -- all by their own sweat/blood. How about you?
I'm solidly in the middle-class ($~80k/year living in southern california -- that puts me in the LOWER end of the spectrum here).
The only dumbass here is you suggesting that the bottom 2/3rds have no representation -- in my area, people paying virtually no taxes other than sales keep voting for more "stuff" they don't have to pay for. The only person I see with blinders is YOU -- with zero clue as to how economies work.
Yeah... I remember how Congress finally got Clinton (after several vetos) to sign huge reforms. Do you remember who that Congress was? It's amazing how that works,huh?
"One person having a billion dollars in the bank isn't going to make Target's quarterly numbers, no matter how much real-estate or stock said rich person invests in."
How many "billionaires" have even one "billion" in liquid cash sitting in the bank?
Your statement is just loaded with contradictions. If it's "in the bank" how can it be investing (real-estate or stock)? And if it's investing, how is it not helping the economy? Only the "stupid" with money have it sitting in a bank. Or the "scared" (and there's a whole other discussion about what prevents someone from investing in non-safe investments).
Moderators, Really? "insightful"? Feh.
"Consolidation of wealth however leads to threats to the continuation of society as we know it"
I question your premise. I would consider the loss of opportunity and liberty to be the greatest threats to the continuation of society AS WE KNOW IT.
If Wealth is finite, you are absolutely right. If it's something that can grow and expand (and, yes, shrink), your premise is flawed.
I question your assumption. It appears you assume that "wealth" is a finite resource.
"So because people will play games with taxes we should just set all taxes to 0%, right?"
That's not what happens. The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive people have to find ways to not pay taxes. Somewhere along that curve is an "zone" that maximizes revenue...
And to some it means to pay SOMETHING.
With nearly 50% of the US paying no federal income tax, they have no problem asking for "more". Want to be 'fair'? Get rid of the EIC -- or at least prevent it from giving back MORE money that was originally paid by the recipient.
To be even MORE fair, get these folks in the system. Even at a nominal 1%. And link it to the upper end of the tax code -- at a 3:1 ratio. So every 3% more you want me to pay past 30%, the low end needs to pay 1% more. Want to raise my taxes 20% (to a total of 50%)? The low end gets raised to about 7%. I pay 50 -- they pay 7. How's that unfair to the 7?
Our country was founded on the ideal of "No taxation without representation". It appears that somewhere along the line something flipped to where we have "Representation without taxation" for a hell of a chunk of our population.
Why not, instead wish a sinking boat benefit from the sea floor rising?
Assuming you are referring to the US, you've a poor understanding of just how many corporations employ how many workers compared to how many non-corporate...
I guess we'll just have to disagree... I see abuses from within the system -- and I see lawsuits, bills, investigations, etc to address those abuses. When we over-reach or over-react and demand our government "take action", we eventually get our representatives to fix the problems "passions of the moment" created.
Maybe it would be less of a problem if we get rid of the 17th amendment and allow the Senate once again to be selected by states and not the people -- as it was designed -- to cool the passions of the people by slowing the process of our legislature.
Right now, do people of an option to not be recognized by some person as they walk the street in public? If you can find a way to protect people from THAT, then we can have this discussion. This just looks to me like an extension of someone getting recognized in public...
Am I saying that our movements should be monitored 24/7/365? Hardly -- it's just if the data is already recorded, I don't see a huge problem with authorities mining the data providing they get a warrant...