^ what? you didn't prove anything, except that the top earners are paying more taxes. It doesn't say anything about how much more they're making. The top earners are paying more taxes because they're making more, not because taxes are being unreasonably burdensomely shifted onto them. Meanwhile, the majority of workers have barely seen their wages rise at all













[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 3:17:09 PM

I'm pretty sure I adequately addressed the fallacy you presented below:

Quote :

" Well, you are right in one way, i suppose..... the last 30 years have seen the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world - vast amounts of wealth going from the working class up to the wealthy!"

Secondly, if you look at pg 31 of the previously-linked IRS report, the tax share of the top 1% has risen faster than their income share.

Thirdly, it makes no sense to look solely at wages. Total compensation is what matters. There have been multiple studies showing total compensation having kept up with productivity. (e.g.
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf)

None of the above is relevant to the original question I asked: can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect?

I have also not received an adequate response to my very first post. If the problem of rising inequality has been identified as a lack of high skilled workers, what good does blind redistribution do to correct that?

3/26/2009 3:35:26 PM

Quote :

"you didn't prove anything, except that the top earners are paying more taxes. It doesn't say anything about how much more they're making. The top earners are paying more taxes because they're making more, not because taxes are being unreasonably burdensomely shifted onto them."

[n]Hunt[/n] just has a very poor grasp of statistics.

3/26/2009 3:38:47 PM

^

Quote :

"Secondly, if you look at pg 31 of the previously-linked IRS report, the tax share of the top 1% has risen faster than their income share."

I recognize this may not have been clear. So let me restate. It is correct that incomes in this group have risen faster than other groups; however, their tax burden, as measured by their percentage contribution to total tax revenues, has increased. This, coupled with the fact that the bottom 50% are paying an effective tax rate that is half of what it was in 1986, is substantial evidence that the burden has not shifted towards the bottom 50% of earners, but rather the other way around.

Again, all this is irrelevant to the two questions I posed in my previously post. How much redistribution is less relevant than whether it is working at all. For instance, we can talk all day about how much Americans have spent on diet pills, but that is less important than a discussion of their efficacy

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 3:43:59 PM

If the rich find their immensely privileged position under current capitalism burdensome, I encourage them to renounce the system and strive for anarchist revolution. As comrades and equals, they won't have to worry about paying a disproportionate share of taxes.

3/26/2009 3:54:48 PM

Quote :

"can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect? "

no, because your premise is still bogus.
Before tax, after tax, whatever - the rich are still getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class isn't going anywhere.



http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411739_tax_cuts.pdf



http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957

Quote :

"The new CBO data document that income inequality continued to widen in 2004. The average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.[2] In contrast, the income of the middle fifth of the population rose $1,700, or 3.6 percent, to $48,400 in 2004. The income of the bottom fifth rose a scant $200 (or 1.4 percent) to $14,700. The new data also highlight the degree to which income gains over the past quarter-century have become increasingly concentrated at the top of the income scale. Since 1979 — the first year for which the CBO date are available — income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Over this 25-year period: - The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 — for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper were adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.) - By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004. - The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, over the past 25 years, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[3]"

3/26/2009 3:59:46 PM

Hmm...looks like some real serious owning going on here. With facts and shit too.

3/26/2009 4:02:23 PM

Quote :

"Before tax, after tax, whatever - the rich are still getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class isn't going anywhere. "

Yes, I know. I acknowledged this in my very first post (and did so again on page 3)

Quote :

"One of the primary factors that has lead to our widening income gap is rapid technological progress that has increased the returns of skilled workers (i.e. those with college degrees) The demand for higher skilled workers has outpaced the supply, leading wages for jobs requiring advanced skills to increase much faster than wages for less-skilled jobs. According to economist Tyler Cowen:"

My two points, which still have gone unanswered:

Quote :

"None of the above is relevant to the original question I asked: can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect? I have also not received an adequate response to my very first post. If the problem of rising inequality has been identified as a lack of high skilled workers, what good does blind redistribution do to correct that?"

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 4:08:35 PM

Quote :

"I recognize this may not have been clear. So let me restate. It is correct that incomes in this group have risen faster than other groups; however, their tax burden, as measured by their percentage contribution to total tax revenues, has increased. This, coupled with the fact that the bottom 50% are paying an effective tax rate that is half of what it was in 1986, is substantial evidence that the burden has not shifted towards the bottom 50% of earners, but rather the other way around. "

Do not get me wrong. I am not defending a progressive tax or the steepening of. Nonetheless I find it humurous at best at anyone trying to say that altruistic Bush increased the tax burden of the rich acting as a champion of the commoners.

3/26/2009 4:09:06 PM

Technically, it doesn't look as if the poor are getting poorer from those numbers. Rather, they're getting richer very slowly. (Six percent growth in twenty-five years. Wow.)

3/26/2009 4:10:46 PM

Quote :

"None of the above is relevant to the original question I asked: can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect?"

The redistribution of wealth hasn't necessarily been expanding in the past 60 years. We just deficit spend a LOT more while taxing the rich a lot less. We're trying to have our cake and eat it too, and it's starting to catch up with us.

But, so-called "entitlement spending" has had measurable effects on society in pretty much all social factors including education and crime rate. There are other ways and there are better ways, but it hasn't all just been completely wasted.

3/26/2009 4:12:18 PM

^^^ Let me preface my response by letting it be known I think Bush was a terrible president.

That said, yes, I believe his "soft conservatism" was a primary cause of greater progressiveness. There were a number of measures he put forth: lowering the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent, expanding the refundable child tax credit and enacting refundable earned income tax credit (EITC).

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 4:14:30 PM

Quote :

"My two points, which still have gone unanswered:"

that's because the questions are based on a false premise

Quote :

""None of the above is relevant to the original question I asked: can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect?"

the premise of this question is that there has been an expansion of wealth-redistribution, which historically means flatter incomes through all social classes. This clearly isn't so - as the graphs show, and as apparently you admit, there hasn't been "60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth" - there hvae been 60 years of the rich getting richer, even after taxes, and the lower/middle class not going up very much. i.e. there is no "expanded redistribution" you keep referring to

Quote :

"If the problem of rising inequality has been identified as a lack of high skilled workers, what good does blind redistribution do to correct that?"

wtf are you talking about? who is advocating a "blind redistribution"?

Quote :

"Technically, it doesn't look as if the poor are getting poorer from those numbers. Rather, they're getting richer very slowly. (Six percent growth in twenty-five years. Wow.)"

yes, "poor getting poorer" is most often used as hyperbole. But on a relative scale, they are getting poorer. As the wealthiest's incomes increase at such a fast pace, the poor are getting an increasing smaller part of the overall pie, as it were, so relatively, they are poorer than before.

3/26/2009 4:28:20 PM

Quote :

"The redistribution of wealth hasn't necessarily been expanding in the past 60 years. We just deficit spend a LOT more while taxing the rich a lot less. We're trying to have our cake and eat it too, and it's starting to catch up with us."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term%20Spending.pdf




While this is from the Heritage Foundation, note its source is CBO data.



[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 4:33:29 PM

Quote :

"so-called "entitlement spending"

I think entitlement spending acts more of a subsidy towards industries like consumer goods and services.

Instead of spending $300 food; Ms. Welfare queen can help Budweiser profit or Cadillac.

^ That is why i do not support a progressive tax. Those taking all these gov't services should be forced to chip in when they do have a job. That way they are paying into the system they rely on when they put forth minimal effort into finding employment after losing/quitting a job or when they retire having not saved at all for retirement. Many use these services even while holding employment b.c they are not budgeting right or are spending irresponsibly afterwhich complaining they can't afford saving for retirement/health insurance/affordable housing. etc.

Maybe state government should consider using the lottery to help subsidize a state-level social security program. All the money I have observed many foolish people at the gas station buying lottery tickets with could have easily been put towards a reasonable retirement nest egg. I've seen scruffy looking guys buy $30 in one visit to the shop n go down the street. $30 x 52weeks x 30 years = quite a bit of money if you are getting even a paultry 4% return

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : a]

3/26/2009 4:34:21 PM

^^ yeah, that's not "wealth redistribution" necessarily, as I previously noted.

If anything, we're redistributing from the middle class.


http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r131/Bruta1ity/Blog%20Picts/IRStaxchart3.gif

But, as I also previously noted, most of that spending is deficit spending.

You seem to be trying really hard to NOT understand this issue though. You can't just throw around terms like class warfare and wealth redistribution and think you're sounding intelligent.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 4:43:04 PM

Quote :

"the premise of this question is that there has been an expansion of wealth-redistribution, which historically means flatter incomes through all social classes."

No, not at all. Wealth redistribution is just that, redistributing wealth from X to Y. A flat income distribution is not at all a necessary condition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redistribution

It is clear you do not have an adequate answer, so lets just end it at that.

Quote :

"wtf are you talking about? who is advocating a "blind redistribution"? "

Let me rephrase, then. The redistribution of wealth, as it is executed today, does very little to address the root cause of income inequality. For those who suggest increasing the current level of redistribution, I would like to hear how such an expansion is anything other than an act of treating the symptom of a disease?

3/26/2009 4:43:06 PM

I wonder how the "growing dependency on the government" relates to increased outsourcing and manufacturing jobs the rich sent overseas.

3/26/2009 4:55:22 PM

Quote :

"yeah, that's not "wealth redistribution" necessarily, as I previously noted."

I beg to differ. If entitlements are being granted at an increasing rate and the contribution the recipient makes towards funding that entitlement is decreasing, the recipient is, in effect, receiving a transfer of wealth from those funding the gap. Whether debt is used is irrelevant. Debt merely defers the date of payment, but does not necessarily change the ultimate source of funds, which is disproportionately those in the upper-income brackets.

3/26/2009 4:56:25 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how the "growing dependency on the government" relates to increased outsourcing and manufacturing jobs the rich sent overseas."

How?

3/26/2009 4:57:52 PM

I dunno, Im just throwing the question out there.

I personally feel that roughly from 1990 to the present an increasing amount of manufacturing jobs and other similar jobs (decent pay/benefits but not necessarily highly skilled) have been sent to other parts of the world so that corporations could reap even bigger profits.


its no wonder that government help has increased as decent jobs have slowly disappeared.


the situation is obviously more complicated than the poor are lazy and the rich dont deserve to be taxed more for their laziness

3/26/2009 5:06:20 PM

If you define a job as decent by compensation alone, those jobs stopped existing when they became cheaper to export.

If you define a job as decent by the actual work performed, then I dont think most of those jobs were ever decent.

If the government wants to give these people who lost those jobs better jobs with better pay, then they should invest in education. Spending money to try to keep shitty jobs here is pointless. Make the workers better instead.

3/26/2009 5:10:22 PM

Quote :

"I personally feel that roughly from 1990 to the present an increasing amount of manufacturing jobs and other similar jobs (decent pay/benefits but not necessarily highly skilled) have been sent to other parts of the world so that corporations could reap even bigger profits."

I would rule out this hypothesis for two reasons: 1) Job losses in manufacturing are not significant enough to explain rising entitlements. Unemployed manufacturing workers make up only 1.3% of the total labor force as per the February employment situation report. 2) The net number of jobs were increasing during the period of rapid outsourcing. (i.e. lost manufacturing jobs were replaced by service-sector jobs, which tend to pay more)


[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 5:30:58 PM

Quote :

"I beg to differ. If entitlements are being granted at an increasing rate and the contribution the recipient makes towards funding that entitlement is decreasing, the recipient is, in effect, receiving a transfer of wealth from those funding the gap. Whether debt is used is irrelevant. Debt merely defers the date of payment, but does not necessarily change the ultimate source of funds, which is disproportionately those in the upper-income brackets."

I'll admit I haven't been following this thread too closely, but how are the rich being "attacked" if wealth is not being redistributed from them?

3/26/2009 5:35:30 PM

Wealth is being redistributed from them. I think I see where you are going with the debt angle. Let me try to explain better with an analogy.

Suppose four friends go out to dinner. The four decide to put their $1000 bill on a credit card. They decide they cannot afford to pay the entire credit card bill today, so only pay down $500. If they decide it is only fair that the two friends with the highest-paying jobs pay $400 while the two with median income-paying jobs pay only $100, the former two are effectively transferring their wealth to the latter two. Assuming they each pay the same proportion of the second $500 installment next year, the same transfer of wealth occurs.

In other words, there is still redistribution occurring even though a portion of our current expenditures are debt financed. Further, when that debt-financed portion is finally paid, as long as it is funded disproportionately by one group over another, redistribution of wealth takes place.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 5:58 PM. Reason : /]

3/26/2009 5:57:05 PM

Quote :

"Wealth is being redistributed from them."

yes, clearly the massive taxation is taking money away from them faster than they can make it.

oh wait.....
again

3/26/2009 8:29:57 PM

Quote :

"yes, clearly the massive taxation is taking money away from them faster than they can make it. "

When was that claim ever made? Are you confused by the following statement?

Quote :

"Secondly, if you look at pg 31 of the previously-linked IRS report, the tax share of the top 1% has risen faster than their income share"

It seems you take this to imply an effective marginal tax rate of 100% for the top 1%, which is clearly neither what I nor what the data implied.


On a related note, these two questions still remain:

Quote :

""None of the above is relevant to the original question I asked: can you provide evidence that the past 60+ years of expanded redistribution of wealth has had any positive long-term effect? I have also not received an adequate response to my very first post. If the problem of rising inequality has been identified as a lack of high skilled workers, what good does blind redistribution do to correct that?""

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 9:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 8:54:11 PM

repeating those questions over and over isn't going to do you any good if they're based on a false premise.

I can ask you all day if you enjoy beating your wife, but that doesn't mean you have to answer if it's not a legitimate question.

Quote :

"When was that claim ever made? Are you confused by the following statement? "

no, i'm not confused. The anti-tax-at-all-costs crowd seems to constantly imply that tax rates in the 30s, or tax increases by 3% are unduly damaging the wealth and spending power of the top earners. This is clearly not the case, as after-tax pay is still increasing for the top 1-5%, much less at a much faster rate than at any other bracket. Nobody (or at least not me) is suggesting anything like a 100% tax bracket or even 80 or 50%. I think it's fine where it is now, and I also think going back to Clinton's rates are fine, and they're not going to put an unmanageable burden on the top earners.

3/26/2009 10:27:48 PM

Quote :

"repeating those questions over and over isn't going to do you any good if they're based on a false premise. "

This is what you believe the premise to be:

Quote :

"the premise of this question is that there has been an expansion of wealth-redistribution, which historically means flatter incomes through all social classes."

This was my response showing you completely misunderstood both the premise and the definition of redistribution:

Quote :

"No, not at all. Wealth redistribution is just that, redistributing wealth from X to Y. A flat income distribution is not at all a necessary condition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redistribution"

So unless you want to re-define what you think the premise is, your argument remains specious. You are deliberately avoiding both questions by pointing to side issues that have no relevance to those questions' answers. As I have stated before, discussing how much redistribution going on is less relevant than whether redistribution, as it is being executed today, is even helpful. A company can argue all day about how much to spend on advertising, but if the advertising is worthless, the former argument is pointless.

My whole point with the thread was to highlight the fact that our society blindly throws money at problems without ever thinking of long-term efficacy or unintended consequences. We are the equivalent to Bernie Madoff investors who throw billions of dollars each year without ever questioning where those billions go and if they are achieving stated goals.

I do not at all advocate eliminating all aid to the poor, but think we should re-evaluate when we decide it is a good idea to expand redistribution from the chronically poor to your average American, who may not need the aid and is arguably less well off in the long run for it. I understand attempts to help those beneath the poverty level with targeted aid that will help them rise up, but robbing Peter to pay Paul, who is 400% above the poverty line (as will be the case with SCHIP) is unnecessary, damaging and diverts resources away from those who desperately need it: the chronically poor. When it is decided that the means of coercion must be used to extract wealth from Peter for Paul, the onus is on those advocating coercion to prove that coercion is even necessary and the ultimate goal is being achieved by it.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2009 6:33:27 AM

agentlion, your figures claim to measure 'income', but it is unclear to me whether this includes all forms of compensation such as health insurance and retirement contributions? If not, then it is possible a large chunk of the disparity would decrease since skyrocketting health insurance rates do not differ substantially for the rich and therefore gobble up a larger share of lower incomes than higher incomes.

Plus, the period of time in question experienced a slashing of top-margin tax rates. As such, it is unclear how much of the disparity was due to growing inequality and how much was due to taxing previous tax-avoided incomes and incomes of small businesses which previously filed as corporations but, due to lower rates, now file as individuals.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/27/2009 9:02:49 AM

so, you're arguing the premise that "the rich are getting richer".

ok, check. duly noted.
This will help in the future when I see one of your posts that makes me question your grasp of reality.

3/27/2009 9:41:55 AM

Hmmmm Tax Fairness. Let's take a look.

The top 5% of income earners pay 60% of all federal income taxes.

But they need to pay more of their "fair-share", right?

The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3% of all federal income taxes.

and Obama wants to give them a "tax-cut"

Now does that seem fair?

3/27/2009 10:22:29 AM

Quote :

"The top 5% of income earners pay 60% of all federal income taxes."

yeah..... and the top 5% make something close to 50% of the income too

3/27/2009 10:51:43 AM

We just need a flat tax of say 22% on income with an exemption on the first 12K dollars (additional exemptions for dependants) for all income levels.

This is the fairest in my opinion. The rich still pay the most taxes since 22% of 200,000 is > than 22% of 40,000. Yet everyone chips into the system that provides the services that low/no income earners cry about needing. The exemption amount starting at 12K (inflation adjusted), I think is more than reasonable to appease the lower class and altruistic liberals who cry that a flat tax is not fair since low income earners pay a higher proportion income towards necessities.

($5/meal * 3meals/day *365 days) + ($400 rent/month) = $10275 + $1725 (other expenses) =$12000 tax free

I do not cry at night that the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of the income taxes. What bothers me is that the lowest two quintiles ~40% pay near nil income taxes; yet they are the ones that need/want the gov't to fund their retirement, pay for their healthcare services, gov't subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare checks (beyond what is reasonably needed for those between unemployment or unable to work), etc

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason : a]

3/27/2009 11:07:04 AM

how exactly is the government going to have any money to do anything if we implement that?

3/27/2009 11:47:14 AM

^ i think that's step 2 of their plan.

step 1) implement "fair tax", claiming it is the only fair way to tax the citizens
step 2) act surprised when gov't revenues fall like crazy and use that as a reason to eliminate all entitlement spending, cut education resources, cut R&D, etc. But claim this is all for the better because it's the only "fair way" to do it

3/27/2009 11:54:15 AM

Quote :

"how exactly is the government going to have any money to do anything if we implement that?"

b.c surely getting 22% (minust 12K exemption) from 100,000,000 Americans currently paying 0%-3% effective tax rate would offset the lost income from the top 1% who would get a tax decrease from 33%-22%. This is neglecting the fact that much of this "lost" taxable income would be reclaimed via sales tax or capital gains tax depending on how the well to do spend.

Do not misinterpret my argument as trying to be a champion of the wealthy as some people in the thread sound like. I merely just want those in the bottom to pay their "fair share" since they demand so many gov't benefits.

Quote :

"implement "fair tax", claiming it is the only fair way to tax the citizens"

A "fair" tax and a "flat" tax are NOT the same thing. I support a flat income tax not the stupid fair tax.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : l]

3/27/2009 12:04:28 PM

Quote :

"so, you're arguing the premise that "the rich are getting richer". "

Again, you are completely misunderstanding what is a very basic argument: expanding income redistribution, as it is executed today, does little to address the root cause of income inequality and is thus misguided. We are, in effect, very poorly and naively treating the symptom of the disease and by doing so are exacerbating the disease. (see reason 1 in the very first post of this thread)

This argument has not fully been addressed. Thus far, the proponents of expanded redistribution in this thread have simply repeated the fallacy claimed on the campaign trail that the rich have unfairly received a tax break at the expense of the poor. Even though this is factually incorrect, it is irrelevant to my original argument. Therefore, the argument remains unaddressed.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ,]

3/27/2009 12:07:23 PM

^ You don't actually seem to be reading this thread.

3/27/2009 12:12:31 PM

Quote :

"I merely just want those in the bottom to pay their "fair share" since they demand so many gov't benefits."

i don't see where the disconnect is here..... people at the bottom are "demanding" so many gov't benefits because they do not make enough money to pay for their basic needs. So, to fix that, we raise their taxes so they make even less money, and..... then what, again? They all of a sudden will stop "demanding" government assistance?

3/27/2009 12:14:16 PM

Quote :

"so many gov't benefits because they do not make enough money to pay for their basic needs."

get it straight many people simply choose not to work but want to live on Uncle Sam without any intention or motivation to get a job or a better job.

My mom's old high school friend married a trailer park loser who went to jail for fraud about 15 years ago. She had 3 kids at this point and was collecting welfare and food stamps. When I asked my mom why she did not get a job her answer was "Carla did not want to lose her welfare check"...

Kinda sounds great if I were a high school drop out with a kid...
I could collect welfare , section 8 housing, and just to pass some time work like 12 hours at Hardees to make that xtra lil bit of cash to buy my booze, manicures, PS3 games for the kiddies.

^ some of these benefits also are not ones collected while working. Factory worker A gets laid off and oops I was not responsible enough to save up extra cash. So once my workers comps dries up and I still have not decided to seek employment I can keep my health care and lifestyle thanks to the hard working tax payer.

For some aspects of gov't spending the rich do in my opinion deserve to pay a higher proportion of their income to support. The wealthy have more at stake and get more net benefit from a well funded military, police, infrastructure, etc to protect the status quo in which they have established their livelihood.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : l]

3/27/2009 12:24:42 PM

Quote :

"get it straight many people simply choose not to work but want to live on Uncle Sam without any intention or motivation to get a job or a better job."

How many people?

Many rich people are evil douchbags who take every opportunity to screw over the little guys, they never earned an honest cent in their entire lives.

3/27/2009 12:28:10 PM

Quote :

"evil douchbags who take every opportunity"

are you being sarcastic?

evil?

Corrupt, unethical, greedy sure their are these people out to screw over the common guy. For everyone like this though i would bet their are at least two people who choose to freeload of the system.

3/27/2009 12:32:26 PM

Quote :

"^ You don't actually seem to be reading this thread."

Then point out where in this thread someone addressed how expanding the level of redistribution addresses the root cause of income inequality.

3/27/2009 2:16:56 PM

Quote :

"expanding the level of redistribution addresses the root cause of income inequality"

1) who said expanding wealth redistribution is supposed to address the root cause of income inequality
2) please provide evidence that this is actually occurring before we address what it's doing

3/27/2009 2:32:27 PM

Quote :

" Kinda sounds great if I were a high school drop out with a kid... I could collect welfare , section 8 housing, and just to pass some time work like 12 hours at Hardees to make that xtra lil bit of cash to buy my booze, manicures, PS3 games for the kiddies."

I know you rail on this sort of thing all the time, but I guess it never hit home with me until my wife told me about an anecdote this week.

A temp girl her firm hired recently is living with her boyfriend with her kid and his kid. I think my wife said she gets $1000 a month in child support, both kids are on medicare (or medicade, whichever comes first) insurance. On Tuesday, the temp was going on and on about how her and the boyfriend went to Bogarts and had a nice meal and were drinking cosmos like candy. On Wednesday, the temp was pissed off because the boyfriend brought home an xbox and used up all their money so that the temp had to go pawn something at the pawn shop to pay for groceries for the kids.

I SHIT YOU NOT

I guess I've known that these type of people exist. This got me to thinking, people that are on welfare or any sort of government dime should have to account for all their expenses similar to how food stamps can't be used for beer and such. I can imagine people deep in welfare don't have much to live on, but if they are going to get government support, they should have to account for where it goes. If they can't do that, they don't get it.

3/27/2009 4:25:24 PM

Quote :

"1) who said expanding wealth redistribution is supposed to address the root cause of income inequality"

What is it supposed to do, then, absent this? Address the symptoms of income equality? Act as a palliative measure to soothe over hurt feelings? If this premise is in question, what exactly do you propose in its place?

3/27/2009 4:58:30 PM

Quote :

"I guess I've known that these type of people exist. This got me to thinking, people that are on welfare or any sort of government dime should have to account for all their expenses similar to how food stamps can't be used for beer and such"

Food stamps can't be but there are no regulations on how to use your welfare check.

I admit everyone gets hit with tough times and maybe an unexpected medical expense wiped your emergency fund. I am not heartless and don't think we should eliminate social programs nor do i think someone collecting food stamps or welfare should be living like a hermit or eating ramen noodles everynight. Nonetheless these systems have tirelessly been abused as a safety hammock that people relax on their entire lives instead of a safety net people use as a last resort. People should feel shame about standing in line at the welfare office to the point that they only would endure only if they legitimatly needed it.

3/27/2009 5:10:31 PM

Quote :

"How many people?"

Probably more than you think. And not always because they are greedy lazy sloths (well, not primarily anyway). The systems we have in place encourage this sort of behavior because they are poorly thought out and managed, and provide a better income than working at the bottom rungs.

My wife a while back qualified for a form of assistance similar to SSI (sorry, I forget the specific name). The problem was, she had a medical condition that while it didn't prevent her from working, kept her from being able to hold a steady job (between causing her to miss work in bouts and/or getting her let go because of how much work she would miss). What she needed and wanted was very simple, a little bit of assistance to provide for food and rent during the periods when she was in between jobs or missing work due to health (and it wasn't like she wasn't looking or working, 14 different jobs in about 2 1/2 years).

The short version of it was, she could get assistance, but she had to apply and be approved, which was a 2-6 month process. During that time, she couldn't work more than about 15 hours per week on a regular basis, or she would be denied and have to reapply once her hours fell below 15/week. Once she was approved, she could work up to about 25 hours a week, with the benefits decreasing the more she worked (as they should), but any more and she would be disqualified and would have to go through the whole process all over. In short, the program encouraged her to be without a job and stay without a job (or with minimal job) so that she could maintain easy access to temporary assistance.

3/27/2009 8:56:13 PM

I wonder just how many cases like that exist across the country. Sounds like a rather specific instance where someone can sometimes work sometimes can't.

The average person I'd expect to be in that situation is someone well up in age that is probably just going to be stuck on medicaid until they are done.

3/27/2009 9:32:52 PM