View Full Version : Fiscal cliff
Boehner is the person who should take the fall if we go over the cliff. He wants the house to produce a bill that has the majority of the house republicans voting for it. He does not give a damn about America our it's citizens. All he cares about is his image in the Republican Party.
He could get a bipartisan bill passed but it would need the democrats and moderate republicans to vote for it. It would be a bill that more democrats voted for than republicans. Boehner does not want that. He is still under the control of the tea party.
It is so sad when a politician puts his party ahead of what is good for the country.
He could get a bipartisan bill passed but it would need the democrats and moderate republicans to vote for it. It would be a bill that more democrats voted for than republicans. Boehner does not want that. He is still under the control of the tea party.
What such a bill would require would be some serious spending cuts to go along with revenue increases. The Senate has made it clear that they won't pass such a bill. What's Boehner to do?
What such a bill would require would be some serious spending cuts to go along with revenue increases. The Senate has made it clear that they won't pass such a bill. What's Boehner to do?
They already did - it's called the fiscal cliff. And the House has already passed revenue increases, which are also in the fiscal cliff.
They already did - it's called the fiscal cliff.
And that's a foregone conclusion IMO. The fiscal cliff is the only sure way to raise everyone's taxes, direct mandated cuts at favored cost centers and blame it all on the opposition.
And that's a foregone conclusion IMO. The fiscal cliff is the only sure way to raise everyone's taxes, direct mandated cuts at favored cost centers and blame it all on the opposition.
I wish I had your optimism :-) I expect we'll go over the cliff - but then I expect most of the "painful" parts (defense spending cuts leading the way) will get undone shortly after. Taking real change and remodeling it into kicking the problem down the road.
And that's a foregone conclusion IMO. The fiscal cliff is the only sure way to raise everyone's taxes, direct mandated cuts at favored cost centers and blame it all on the opposition.
'favored cost centers' Do you mean the military? Yeah, ok, I'm all for that, as long as the spending cuts are in equipment, and 'war making' and not in personnel. Mind you, I don't mean reducing personal. I'm all for that, over time, and can be done quite quickly, actually. But I would balk at reducing the obligation to existing troops.
the military is a giant suck on the checkbook. I do believe we can have a lean, mean military at a greatly reduced cost. If we pulled back our support of 'nation building' by just 5 or 10%, we would still have incredible influence, but increase our own strength as well. A stronger 'us' is a stronger 'us in the world'.
As far as tax hikes, congress will come back in the new year and vote the tax breaks for the middle class. And really, that is the best of all worlds. The Waltons aren't selling their plastic crap to each other. They, and all the 'captains of industry' need a strong middle (and yes, lower class) to build their wealth. When the lower/middle class does well, the top 1-2% does well. That's just logic economics as opposed to greed economics (which says grab what you can before the whole thing explodes!)
Now, to dispel the 'fear mongering' meme... no, everyone isn't going to be required to write a check to Uncle Sam on January first. If every one's taxes go up, briefly, before they vote to reinstate them for 98% of the country, it will be on one or two days income, period. I'm sure it helps the fear merchants to let everyone believe they will have to sit down and write a check for $2,000 on January 1st, but that just isn't so. You won't pay your 2013 taxes until April 2014, and unless the republicans want to drag it out THAT long, you won't notice a nickle or two in extra taxes.
Actually, I believe Boehner is a decent sort, who really wants to advance the country and progress. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have control of his congress. Or at least the tea baggers, who I believe want the country to go down in flames. It kind of fits their agenda of totally crashing the economy and reforming it in their image.
These myopic 'thinkers' really believe they can shrink the government down to where they can fit into a woman's vagina, (by the hard line agenda)
Or maybe I'm confusing the conservatives with ultra-conservatives with tea baggers.
As far as tax hikes, congress will come back in the new year and vote the tax breaks for the middle class.
Agreed, I predicted the same in one of the earlier threads about the fiscal cliff, although we'll all see an increase over what we've been paying this past decade. Actually, lots of the younger folks I work with will see the first tax increase of their professional lives after the coming "tax break".
Now, to dispel the 'fear mongering' meme... no, everyone isn't going to be required to write a check to Uncle Sam on January first. If every one's taxes go up, briefly, before they vote to reinstate them for 98% of the country, it will be on one or two days income, period. I'm sure it helps the fear merchants to let everyone believe they will have to sit down and write a check for $2,000 on January 1st, but that just isn't so. You won't pay your 2013 taxes until April 2014, and unless the republicans want to drag it out THAT long, you won't notice a nickle or two in extra taxes.
I'm not aware of anyone thinking they'll have to write a check on January 1st, but I believe you're way wrong about the no extra taxes.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder how bad going off the cliff really is. It clips the military budget pretty good, leaves SS alone where Obama has apparently agreed to the chained CIP as a part of cost cutting cliff negotiations, both parties save face and can blame the other, those who think that growing debt is a threat to the country get both drastic spending cuts and big increases in revenues, and certain government subsidies that support artificial pricing, like say milk, will come to an end and pricing will become part of the free market.
From whatever the news analysts seem to know, the effects will probably not be too impactful on the economy for the first month or so, which will give more time for argument. Tax increases will be off the table as they will have already happened, and then the verbiage will be tax cuts, so at least one road block over tax increases will be over and done.
That's my optimistic "best case" take. I have a more negative take, too.
ApatheticNoMore
12-27-12, 10:03pm
Now, to dispel the 'fear mongering' meme... no, everyone isn't going to be required to write a check to Uncle Sam on January first. If every one's taxes go up, briefly, before they vote to reinstate them for 98% of the country, it will be on one or two days income, period.
I'm sure it helps the fear merchants to let everyone believe they will have to sit down and write a check for $2,000 on January 1st, but that just isn't so. You won't pay your 2013 taxes until April 2014, and unless the republicans want to drag it out THAT long, you won't notice a nickle or two in extra taxes.
Yea I'm not even sure how they plan to handle that, but I guess if your paycheck is being run through a big payroll company they have plans to change the rate? Or you just owe it not this but next April?
freein05
12-27-12, 11:32pm
I am not that convinced that going over the fiscal cliff is a bad thing. I think the politicians and the press are making it a bigger deal than it really is. The big cut in defense spending is a good thing. As far as taxes go I am not convinced that everyone having to pay more in taxes is a bad thing. Having the top 1% pay higher taxes will not do much to reduce the deficit. What really needs to be done is to take a good hard look at all of the deductions in the code and how they are abused.
It will take all of us paying more in taxes to get the deficit under control. Spending especially defense also needs to be looked. We can not be the worlds traffic cop. Get out of all of our wars.
There clearly are no simple answers to such complex issues. As a matter of fact, without regard to politics, you can easily pick out the wrong answers by detecting when those advocating for those answers are working hard to make the solution into something simple. If you're having brain surgery, do you want the neurosurgeon to use the most sophisticated diagnostic and surgical equipment, and plan out the entire operation including modeling out what would be done based on myriad different contingencies, or do you want the neurosurgeon to just grab a basic scalpel and just wing-it?
There clearly are no simple answers to such complex issues. As a matter of fact, without regard to politics, you can easily pick out the wrong answers by detecting when those advocating for those answers are working hard to make the solution into something simple. If you're having brain surgery, do you want the neurosurgeon to use the most sophisticated diagnostic and surgical equipment, and plan out the entire operation including modeling out what would be done based on myriad different contingencies, or do you want the neurosurgeon to just grab a basic scalpel and just wing-it?
This is true. I'd rather they took the weeks, or month they need to actually DO something helpful, rather than a 'quick fix' that really doesn't do anything.
We're going over! Oh yeah, we are.
The Storyteller
1-2-13, 9:38am
Well, that was the most entertaining thing I have seen on television in a long long time. What a hoot.
Yes, it was entertaining, in a trainwreck sort of way. You dare not blink even though you know how badly it will end.
Now, we get to look forward to another two months of posturing before we reach the edge of the cliff again, while providing a further erosion of the ravine we'll eventually fall into.
Political theater at it's finest!
Well let's see....$620B or so in new taxes, tax hikes, eliminated tax cuts or whatever you want to call it. No reduced spending. All decision making regarding any spending cuts kicked a couple months down the road (this time). As predictable as the tides. IMO it may be the most spineless effort by our duly elected representatives to date. But then hey, at least it was bipartisan. Bravo.
Political theater at it's finest!
Really makes you wonder what they have in mind for an encore, doesn't it?
Really makes you wonder what they have in mind for an encore, doesn't it?
Obviously more of the same. And the comment on political theater is spot on - after an overwhelming bipartisan effort (actually alot like the vote on NDAA the year before), they will settle back into their "can't agree on anything" mode until they do again.
I guess this was a real political compromise because no one liked it.
We have two more political shows coming in the next 2 months. They are the debit limit and sequestration that was kicked down the road.
Political theatre indeed!..I was disappointed they felt the need to push SOMETHING through before midnight! Absolutely I agree with letting part of the Bush tax cuts expire, although i still believe more of us can pay a bit more, but I was really hoping for some real spending cuts. To the military especially, but really a bit across the board with more from some sources. The thing is, I do believe most everyone there agrees we need spending cuts, but can't agree on where they come from. I wonder if they will ever get to an agreement. Ideally, as free says, one in which no one is particularly happy, meaning everyone has to give a bit of ground.
Remember that "balanced" approach we've been hearing daily for the past 6 months? Let's see if that holds up to scrutiny come February when the debt ceiling talks go down to the wire.
The interesting thing though is that the taxes are already out of the way, with many "permanent" changes. So come time for the debt ceiling fight, it's going to be just mostly a battle between spending versus deficit.
The Storyteller
1-2-13, 5:55pm
There isn't going to be any debt ceiling fight.
There isn't going to be any debt ceiling fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne614zXSxCI
ApatheticNoMore
1-2-13, 6:32pm
The interesting thing though is that the taxes are already out of the way, with many "permanent" changes. So come time for the debt ceiling fight, it's going to be just mostly a battle between spending versus deficit.
Could just tax those earning under 400k or whatever (full repeal of Bush tax cuts) though, that was the fiscal cliff proposal.
I don't think tax rates are going to be an issue during the next debates. I do think the original republican offer to close tax loop holes will play will play a major role in the political fight. That would increase revenue. I also feel spending needs to be cut especially defense. It was interesting that the 69 billion in Sandy aide did not come up for a vote and now democrats and republican are blaming the republican congress for this.
Were do you start cutting when everyone is holding out their hand? Budget cutting will affect someone and they will not like it.
San Onofre Guy
1-2-13, 9:21pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the Republicans passed a temporary tax cut that was sold as temporary and that it would expire 12/31/12. Did they go back on their word?
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the Republicans passed a temporary tax cut that was sold as temporary and that it would expire 12/31/12. Did they go back on their word?The 2 year extension to the "Bush Tax Cuts", scheduled to expire on 12/31/12, was passed by the 111th Congress in December of 2010 and signed by President Obama. Both the Legislative and Executive branches of government were controlled by Democrats at that time. The Republicans wanted them to be permanent.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the Republicans passed a temporary tax cut that was sold as temporary and that it would expire 12/31/12. Did they go back on their word?
I think it did expire, since Obama didn't sign the renewal bill until this year.
So now they are The Obama Tax Cuts. Thanks Barack! I think I can structure my income to appear "not rich" and maintain my favorable treatment of dividends and capital gains, and so can continue my Simple Living. I'm going to hold back on ordering the new yacht though, too bad for the boat building industry, it was going to be about a $2.5 million purchase. Maybe I'll figure out some sneaky financing trick to keep everything under the radar.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the Republicans passed a temporary tax cut that was sold as temporary and that it would expire 12/31/12. Did they go back on their word?
My impression from looking at a longer perspective of tax rates is that regardless of the terminology, they are all temporary.
I failed to understand the Republican differences between their objection to tax increases which they said would undercut jobs and their desire to reduce spending...which would not? At some time we are going to have to take a serious look at our nations debt and the critical figure of debt as related to GNP, but both tax increases and reduced spending are likely to affect the unemployment rate.
At some time we are going to have to take a serious look at our nations debt and the critical figure of debt as related to GNP, but both tax increases and reduced spending are likely to affect the unemployment rate.
Right now, our national debt is nearly $1T more than our annual GNP. That debt is approximately $52K per citizen and $145K per taxpayer, and increasing.
Can we actually tax ourselves enough to retire that debt without substantial spending decreases?
The first email I sent this morning:
Re: Increase in Payroll Tax
Dear Rep. Lance, My husband just informed me this morning that I will have to find $250 per month in our tight budget for the increase in the Payroll Tax. He also let me know that you and the Republican Party were against extending the Payroll Tax cut. I am very angry about this. Now we are going to have to cut our health club membership to cover that increase. I am trying to be a stay at home mom in one of the most expensive areas of the country and we need every single cent that comes in to save properly for our future and our children's future. Why in the world would the Republican Party want to make WORKING less profitable for the American people? I thought WORKING was a cornerstone of a productive citizenry. I am a registered Independent that used to vote Republican as much as I voted Democrat, but between FoxNews, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, archaic stances on women's issues and now this ridiculous anti-worker legislation to not extend the Payroll Tax cut.... the Republican Party can just forget about ever counting on my vote. I will work hard to find responsible, mathematically sound Democrats instead.
Sincerely, ticked off real housewife of NJ (I didn't sign it that way, I did use my real name)
I know, world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin.... to stop the health club membership, but I do enjoy going and my daughter loves the kid's corner there and I love the break and moment to myself.
I seriously do not get how the the Repub party can be anti-Tax on everything known to man except for the Payroll Tax.
...i still believe more of us can pay a bit more, but I was really hoping for some real spending cuts. To the military especially, ....
Get back to me about the "pay a bit more" part when we are no longer spending more on our military than the rest of the planet combined...
Until then, I prefer to retain my earnings to not be used to kill people who have never raised a hand towards me. Or their children.
ApatheticNoMore
1-3-13, 12:26am
At a certain point it becomes self defeating. Like I could say I wasn't going to pay more state taxes because the state pours money into the most ridiculous boondoogle high speed rail project to nowhere ever (although by a vote of the people), and has mysterious state park money that disappears and reappears like the Cheshire cat. And both those facts are very real and it's definely my strongly held opinion the rail is a boondoogle. But if that state tax hadn't passed it would have been colleges and schools that got the cuts period. It would be nice to think it would be high speed rail that got the axe but it wouldn't. A rigged choice but I voted for the tax. I guess I could afford to pay more.
I can see being a lot more opposed to the wars than such a boondoogle, but honestly the wars would probably continue if they had to finance them with pure money printing. It's really only social programs that are up for the axe.
Get back to me about the "pay a bit more" part when we are no longer spending more on our military than the rest of the planet combined...
Until then, I prefer to retain my earnings to not be used to kill people who have never raised a hand towards me. Or their children.
+ 1!! The military industrial complex has been very good at spreading plants across the US so they have local congress people and senators in their pockets. Why do we have to be the policemen of the world? I think we make more enemies in the process.
ApatheticNoMore
1-3-13, 12:41am
I am trying to be a stay at home mom in one of the most expensive areas of the country and we need every single cent that comes in to save properly for our future and our children's future. Why in the world would the Republican Party want to make WORKING less profitable for the American people? I thought WORKING was a cornerstone of a productive citizenry. I am a registered Independent that used to vote Republican as much as I voted Democrat, but between FoxNews, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, archaic stances on women's issues and now this ridiculous anti-worker legislation to not extend the Payroll Tax cut.... the Republican Party can just forget about ever counting on my vote. I will work hard to find responsible, mathematically sound Democrats instead.
Well the payroll tax holiday was reducing your future claim on Social Security. And Social Security in general is a terrific help to most working people. They depend on it more than they do an extra 2% of income. They really are utterly working and middle class programs. So it's not necessarily anti-worker if one believes in those programs and in the trust fund IOUs. But they (the politicians) are going to steal all the Social Security taxes anyway for other programs (like the wars) and NEVER PAY IT BACK and so there wont' be anything anyway so tax cuts now rather than a hamburger (that used to be a filet minon steak but chained CPI you know ...) tommorow? Well if that's the assumption one makes I don't think it is particularly unreasonable. They are just itching to get their hands and shred the old age safety net. They almost did this time. One might ask if the old age safety net will even last the year!
But if one assumes that much of Social Security will last for them, cutting their contributions now via the payroll tax may not be the best as it does reduce one's future claim. The lower payroll taxes are also a good excuse to cut SS, because they will hit the point where they are bringing in less than they are spending sooner if the lower rates had remained.
I also learned that FSA contributions reduce one's future claims on SS (due to reduced payroll taxes), which might add up if you are putting in thousands a year. Just something interesting to know, whether or not one believes SS will be there or chooses or not to have an FSA. It's a hopeful position that SS will be there, not one I necessarily think is likely. Because almost noone in the country is ready for retirement without it, so it's going to get ugly if that's what is agreed to.
At a certain point it becomes self defeating.
I refuse to surrender to that defeatism.
I shall continue to arrange my affairs to pay almost *nothing* in taxes, but spend *lots* on useful philanthropic causes.
I will not particpate in evil, to the extent I am able to avoid doing so without sacrificing something of greater moral significance.
I do not like the fruits of my labor being used to bomb children in their beds. It's wrong. Even if their skin color and religion are different from mine. I will not participate.
I failed to understand the Republican differences between their objection to tax increases which they said would undercut jobs and their desire to reduce spending...which would not? At some time we are going to have to take a serious look at our nations debt and the critical figure of debt as related to GNP, but both tax increases and reduced spending are likely to affect the unemployment rate.
+1 Rogar. That's really the elephant in the room. I think almost everyone here would like to see a fairly drastic reduction in military spending, for our favorite example. In theory the people laid off by defense contractors could simply go to work in whatever fields benefited from the switch in spending priorities (I'm too jaded to believe the government would simply forgo that level of spending, but that's another thread). Problem is that those evil defense contractors employ several million people who are relatively highly paid and have fairly specific skill sets. They can all be retrained as other industries develop; the question is how long would it take and what price would we pay in the mean time? Are we willing to live through a period of 20% unemployment? The last time that happened life was pretty tough. And in this day and age when unemployment benefits extend beyond the horizon what would be the fiscal ramifications in addition to the lost income tax revenue?
Worst of all, the track record at the federal level indicates, to me, that most of the jobs created by diverting former military funds would be civil service jobs. Moderate pay (less tax paid in) with high level benefits and retirement (more money paid out). As a country we might get a good tune up of our moral compass, but fiscally we may end up even worse off. I'm certainly not advocating building bombs to balance the budget, just saying we have to step back and look at the whole picture in order to find sustainable ways to go forward.
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 9:11am
I refuse to surrender to that defeatism.
I shall continue to arrange my affairs to pay almost *nothing* in taxes, but spend *lots* on useful philanthropic causes.
I will not particpate in evil, to the extent I am able to avoid doing so without sacrificing something of greater moral significance.
Good excuse as any, I suppose.
And an excellent argument why we need tax reforms that take away loopholes and require rich folk pay their fair share.
I seriously do not get how the the Repub party can be anti-Tax on everything known to man except for the Payroll Tax.
They're trying to save Social Security.
When President Obama instituted the reduction in the employee contribution to Social Security, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the economic conditions at that time. I'll not pretend that the conditions have improved appreciably, but the reductions net effect was to eliminate years from Social Security's paper solvency. Like so many other elements of progressive tax policy, it's not sustainable.
And an excellent argument why we need tax reforms that take away loopholes and require rich folk pay their fair share.
Fair: adj: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
Right now, our national debt is nearly $1T more than our annual GNP. That debt is approximately $52K per citizen and $145K per taxpayer, and increasing.
Can we actually tax ourselves enough to retire that debt without substantial spending decreases?
Reduced spending is no doubt a part of a balanced solution to debt reduction.
Equally a person could ask if it is wise to risk the higher unemployment associated with reduced spending and job loss in order to reduce debt?
They're trying to save Social Security.
When President Obama instituted the reduction in the employee contribution to Social Security, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the economic conditions at that time. I'll not pretend that the conditions have improved appreciably, but the reductions net effect was to eliminate years from Social Security's paper solvency. Like so many other elements of progressive tax policy, it's not sustainable.
A couple of things about SS taxes that make them unique - they are regressive and cut off above a certain level of income - and any surplus can be "borrowed" and offset the need to generate revenue via other taxes.
The tax holiday had to end - but it's definitely not the only piece that's unsustainable. The thing I find annoying is the end of the tax holiday for SS is just going to generate more IOU's for the program as the surpluses are redirected to other uses.
Reduced spending is no doubt a part of a balanced solution to debt reduction.
Equally a person could ask if it is wise to risk the higher unemployment associated with reduced spending and job loss in order to reduce debt?
Unless you reduce spending to be less than revenues, it would never touch the debt.
If Europe is any model, austerity doesn't do positive things to employment.
Unless you reduce spending to be less than revenues, it would never touch the debt.
And that's the issue isn't it? We're currently spending an annual average of what, $1.3 or $1.4T more than we bring in? Now, we've increased taxes to possibly bring in an additional $65B of revenue, leaving us with a projected $1.235T annual disparity. How long can we maintain that sort of offset before the entirety of US revenue is needed just to service the debt?
And that's the issue isn't it? We're currently spending an annual average of what, $1.3 or $1.4T more than we bring in? Now, we've increased taxes to possibly bring in an additional $65B of revenue, leaving us with a projected $1.235T annual disparity. How long can we maintain that sort of offset before the entirety of US revenue is needed just to service the debt?
Agreed - but what are the alternatives? Yank $1.235T from the economy? Economy tanks and so do revenues, making the problem worse. But we can't continue racking up debt every year, either.
We went over the cliff years ago. If the US was a household, we're at a point where the only viable option is bankruptcy.
No one has proven why any specific thing that government does (except national defense, but let's put that aside for now) should be reduced or eliminated, from a standpoint that fully acknowledges the primacy of "needs" over "comfort and luxury" - a basic tenet of morality. So much of what I read smacks of personal preference for self-enrichment or enrichment of others who don't actually need enrichment to survive, at the expense of depriving those for whom such deprivation actually scrapes at survival itself. Why? Can't a more comprehensive perspective be crafted that embraces economic justice and fiscal conservatism? Or is fiscal conservatism by definition necessarily devoid of moral foundation?
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 10:44am
And yet tax credits and exemptions are somehow giveaways when they oppose them, according to the same people who claim they want to cut taxes.
Issa takes aim at revised wind credit (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/275301-issa-wind-power-credit-of-serious-interest)
Nuts.
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 10:45am
A couple of things about SS taxes that make them unique - they are regressive and cut off above a certain level of income -
Which has always seemed odd to me.
No one has proven why any specific thing that government does (except national defense, but let's put that aside for now) should be reduced or eliminated, from a standpoint that fully acknowledges the primacy of "needs" over "comfort and luxury" - a basic tenet of morality. So much of what I read smacks of personal preference for self-enrichment or enrichment of others who don't actually need enrichment to survive, at the expense of depriving those for whom such deprivation actually scrapes at survival itself. Why? Can't a more comprehensive perspective be crafted that embraces economic justice and fiscal conservatism? Or is fiscal conservatism by definition necessarily devoid of moral foundation?
+1
Can't a more comprehensive perspective be crafted that embraces economic justice and fiscal conservatism? Or is fiscal conservatism by definition necessarily devoid of moral foundation?
I believe being fiscally conservative and being moral fit well together. Continual borrowing from our children and their children is not a conservative fiscal approach and is, IMO, immoral. I think the real answer to your question might be in the "comprehensive perspective" that is needed. There are a lot of people who hold pieces of the puzzle, but not many who can see what the whole thing looks like. Our government has become so grossly distorted into an almost mythically colossal machine that no one knows how to turn it around anymore or even where to start. And I do agree with your assessment that self-enrichment, personal or corporate, is the goal these days and the country be damned.
If the US was a household, we're at a point where the only viable option is bankruptcy.
I'm far from convinced that bankruptcy would be the worst option for the US. However, interest on debt for 2013 is only 7% of the proposed 2013 budget. If we go bankrupt and completely eliminate the national debt we still need to decrease spending (or increase revenue) by 7% just to stay even. If you really want to turn the tide quickly bankruptcy would also eliminate the obligation to pay retirement benefits, other than Social Security, to millions of former government workers (military and civil). Something tells me that would face a lot of opposition. At this point I'd be thrilled just to see a 28th Amendment requiring a balanced budget...
I believe being fiscally conservative and being moral fit well together. Continual borrowing from our children and their children is not a conservative fiscal approach and is, IMO, immoral.That still only drives one side of the issue, i.e., raising revenues so as to cover costs. Lots of people don't support that approach - they oppose it while still claiming to be in the interest of fiscal conservatism. There's a really nasty disconnect there.
And I do agree with your assessment that self-enrichment, personal or corporate, is the goal these days and the country be damned.The country be damned, yes, but also everyone else in the country be damned except "me and mine". The abject and grossly offensive disrespect I see directed at anyone who isn't as fortunate as they need to be to cover their own basic needs in our society is remarkable. I don't believe that so many Americans are so grievously mean - rather, I think they need to act that way to justify the stances they need to take to foster their own self-enrichment.
At this point I'd be thrilled just to see a 28th Amendment requiring a balanced budget...
But a balanced budget would remove well over a $1 trillion from the economy yearly - not that we'd survive through the first year economically. I think we're way beyond the point of a fix. We may rise from the ashes, but I think the only options are crash through change - or crash because it can no longer be kicked further down the road.
ApatheticNoMore
1-3-13, 1:24pm
The country be damned, yes, but also everyone else in the country be damned except "me and mine". The abject and grossly offensive disrespect I see directed at anyone who isn't as fortunate as they need to be to cover their own basic needs in our society is remarkable. I don't believe that so many Americans are so grievously mean - rather, I think they need to act that way to justify the stances they need to take to foster their own self-enrichment.
Meh most people don't do anything to foster their own enrichment beyond work for The Man. You assume the average person is getting far more out of the deal than they are. Very few are running fossil fuel companies or something. If your issue is the 1% that do run those companies, then very well. But others work for such companies? Yea, they might, they probably shouldn't even do that. If by fostering self-enrichment all you mean is some people want a tax break that may add a few ultimately negligible percents to their income (like the payroll tax), and this might be short-sighted, ok.
See I really don't think if one's main issue is picking on what little remains of welfare or food stamps or something the motivation there is even "but I need another ipad and a giant t.v. and marble counter tops!". Advertising tries to push people in that direction, but I think such anger at "people not working" despite all the advertising, mostly comes more from people hating their jobs. Is it a very good outlet for such frustration? No, don't think so. As for SS and stuff, that stuff directly benefits the middle class and the only one's who can be above all need of it are the 1% yes or those who earned extremely high salaries or invested extremely well, or those with pensions (and ironically most of those with pensions are those actually working for the dreaded gooberment, so not those who want some years in old age pay from the government but those who spent their whole lives pulling a government check).
And an excellent argument why we need tax reforms that take away loopholes and require rich folk pay their fair share.
I will tell you the secret of my "loophole". I simply live well below my means, and choose to *earn* well below my ability.
Is my "fair share" determined by the amount I *could* produce? If so, to close my "loophole" and force me to produce, you'd have to point a gun at my head and keep me in the work camps. Helping build your glorious future...
That still only drives one side of the issue, i.e., raising revenues so as to cover costs. Lots of people don't support that approach - they oppose it while still claiming to be in the interest of fiscal conservatism. There's a really nasty disconnect there.
The country be damned, yes, but also everyone else in the country be damned except "me and mine". The abject and grossly offensive disrespect I see directed at anyone who isn't as fortunate as they need to be to cover their own basic needs in our society is remarkable. I don't believe that so many Americans are so grievously mean - rather, I think they need to act that way to justify the stances they need to take to foster their own self-enrichment.
I think by now every reasonable tax payer in the US has figured out that it will take BOTH more revenue AND spending cuts to move the needle. True fiscal conservatism drives both sides of that issue. The only ones who haven't figured it out are the assholes in Congress. I, like most of my ilk, don't give a fart in space about the Grover Norquists of the world puffing and spouting about no new taxes or else. That kind of sanctimonious crap, which gets labeled "conservatism", is completely out of touch with reality. Putting that fiscal conservative badge on myself, I know we have to spend money. I WANT programs that help people who need help and support the rest of us in our pursuit of happiness while at the same time making investments that do all we can to guarantee the same opportunity for our kids. If that's what you want to, then there is no disconnect.
What I have a problem with is spending at a nonsensical level (such as much of the aforementioned military budget) and borrowing in an effort to eliminate/moderate market forces so we can maintain our opulent and completely unsustainable lifestyle (ie. subsidies). We've spent enough and the world has suffered enough 'collateral damage' in our ongoing series of resource wars. Successful companies/industries don't need the government to continually set the floor of commodity prices to insure minimum levels of profitability. It shouldn't be our job to hold a shield in front of half the countries on the planet. It makes no sense for us to spend money in those ways. People here need education and decent housing and healthcare. Our country needs to completely rebuild our infrastructure and develop new sources of energy. Those would be investments that will pay a return down the road. If Washington starts thinking that way we might still have time to fix things. If not, well...???
I think by now every reasonable tax payer in the US has figured out that it will take BOTH more revenue AND spending cuts to move the needle. True fiscal conservatism drives both sides of that issue. The only ones who haven't figured it out are the assholes in Congress. I, like most of my ilk, don't give a fart in space about the Grover Norquists of the world puffing and spouting about no new taxes or else. That kind of sanctimonious crap, which gets labeled "conservatism", is completely out of touch with reality. Putting that fiscal conservative badge on myself, I know we have to spend money. I WANT programs that help people who need help and support the rest of us in our pursuit of happiness while at the same time making investments that do all we can to guarantee the same opportunity for our kids. If that's what you want to, then there is no disconnect.
What I have a problem with is spending at a nonsensical level (such as much of the aforementioned military budget) and borrowing in an effort to eliminate/moderate market forces so we can maintain our opulent and completely unsustainable lifestyle (ie. subsidies). We've spent enough and the world has suffered enough 'collateral damage' in our ongoing series of resource wars. Successful companies/industries don't need the government to continually set the floor of commodity prices to insure minimum levels of profitability. It shouldn't be our job to hold a shield in front of half the countries on the planet. It makes no sense for us to spend money in those ways. People here need education and decent housing and healthcare. Our country needs to completely rebuild our infrastructure and develop new sources of energy. Those would be investments that will pay a return down the road. If Washington starts thinking that way we might still have time to fix things. If not, well...???
Well said! +1
flowerseverywhere
1-4-13, 12:52am
[QUOTE=bae;122253]I will tell you the secret of my "loophole". I simply live well below my means, and choose to *earn* well below my ability.
QUOTE]
isn't this what a lot of people think simple living is? Not going with the current trends and fashions, living simply and not running the treadmill of working for the man until you drop dead?
We left two professions in the mid fifties. Being in contact with old coworkers convinces us we have done the right thing. One car, small energy efficient house, low or no cost entertainment and simple home prepared food is the basis for our current life and as a result we pay way lower income tax , gas tax , property tax and sales tax. Yet due to no debt and good savings habits we would probably be thought of as rich (like many other frugal folk here) by many who still are in the spend spend spend mode.
Gregg your post is spot on. Government money for banks, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies that are raking in billions seems quite ridiculous.
I will tell you the secret of my "loophole". I simply live well below my means, and choose to *earn* well below my ability.
Is my "fair share" determined by the amount I *could* produce? If so, to close my "loophole" and force me to produce, you'd have to point a gun at my head and keep me in the work camps. Helping build your glorious future...
This liberal does the same.
This liberal does the same.
Is my "fair share" determined by the amount I *could* produce? If so, to close my "loophole" and force me to produce, you'd have to point a gun at my head and keep me in the work camps. Helping build your glorious future...
This one does too. Although I'm a Heinz 57 kind of liberal - part conservative, part socialist, part libertarian, and always confused :-)!
I think almost everyone here would like to see a fairly drastic reduction in military spending, for our favorite example. In theory the people laid off by defense contractors could simply go to work in whatever fields benefited from the switch in spending priorities (I'm too jaded to believe the government would simply forgo that level of spending, but that's another thread). Problem is that those evil defense contractors employ several million people who are relatively highly paid and have fairly specific skill sets. They can all be retrained as other industries develop; the question is how long would it take and what price would we pay in the mean time? Are we willing to live through a period of 20% unemployment? The last time that happened life was pretty tough. And in this day and age when unemployment benefits extend beyond the horizon what would be the fiscal ramifications in addition to the lost income tax revenue?
Worst of all, the track record at the federal level indicates, to me, that most of the jobs created by diverting former military funds would be civil service jobs. Moderate pay (less tax paid in) with high level benefits and retirement (more money paid out). As a country we might get a good tune up of our moral compass, but fiscally we may end up even worse off. I'm certainly not advocating building bombs to balance the budget, just saying we have to step back and look at the whole picture in order to find sustainable ways to go forward.
And I can't see the highly trained, educated and experiened space and defense contractor engineers being statisfied using their skills pressing buttons for low wages at some widget factory in the USA. Or building the bridge or high-speed rail-to-nowhere. Most will take positions in foriegn countries working on Chinese or French or Russian etc... space and defense projects. I'm sure there are many countries that would be very happy to pay for that good old Yankee know-how!
I think it did expire, since Obama didn't sign the renewal bill until this year.
So now they are The Obama Tax Cuts. Thanks Barack! I think I can structure my income to appear "not rich" and maintain my favorable treatment of dividends and capital gains, and so can continue my Simple Living. I'm going to hold back on ordering the new yacht though, too bad for the boat building industry, it was going to be about a $2.5 million purchase. Maybe I'll figure out some sneaky financing trick to keep everything under the radar. And don't forget that even if you do buy that yacht - and maybe a few more million dollar islands as well - if you keep your taxable income level below $88K/year (interest income on your savings lets say) you'll be considered poor and therefore able to get your entire families medical insurance subsidized starting in 2014 because there will be no means testing under the ACA. So go ahead and buy that yacht!
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 2:52pm
And I can't see the highly trained, educated and experiened space and defense contractor engineers being statisfied using their skills pressing buttons for low wages at some widget factory in the USA. Or building the bridge or high-speed rail-to-nowhere. Most will take positions in foriegn countries working on Chinese or French or Russian etc... space and defense projects. I'm sure there are many countries that would be very happy to pay for that good old Yankee know-how!
Maybe we should just give them million dollar severances packages or something, make them sign contracts not to work for foreign countries in return for this severance (non-compete contracts are not unheard of) and BE DONE WITH IT. Because if we need to buy these people out, let's just buy them out proper, and at least guarantee an END POINT to the madness, no more bright young people going into the war machine. Haha, unless you believe the madness has a natural end point anyway, U.S. bankruptcy could be one end to the madness, it worked for the USSR, and much of the rest of the world probably justly and with all the moral correctness in the world wishes it, but it's not a clean end is all .... for these scientists and the Military Industrial Complex (what happened to the USSRs vast defense stockpiles?) or of course us citizens.
And don't forget that even if you do buy that yacht - and maybe a few more million dollar islands as well - if you keep your taxable income level below $88K/year (interest income on your savings lets say) you'll be considered poor and therefore able to get your entire families medical insurance subsidized starting in 2014 because there will be no means testing under the ACA. So go ahead and buy that yacht!
I guess if the real point is for wealthy people not to evade taxes, we'd need wealth means tests rather than income means tests, and wealth taxes rather than income taxes. Because pretty NOONE earning 88k a year via income, especially wage income, will be able to evade taxes. So yea, come the revolution we'd have wealth taxes I guess, but in reality we have a congress that works for the status quo as much as anything and a tax bill that will bring in a slight bit more revenue.
Well my sister works for a large space and defense contractor so she'll take your million dollar buy out in a heart beat ;-)! But I don't know if most would. I think changing "Space and Defense" to more "Space" and less "Defense" or something else might work better then buy outs. The US can keep those highly educated people with all those skills and training in very specific high tech fields (along with their security clearences) and use them for good instead of evil - and keep those folks amd their skills and knowledge out of the hands of other countries. Keep up the military use of those skills, but direct to a smaller scale "only for our defemse" kind of thing rather then a larger scale global warfare kind of thing. Still cost the big bucks but would allow us to keep our very important military tech as well as use it for more civilian (beneficial) jobs.
I agree with you on taxes for the wealthy. I do believe a means test on assets needs to done when ever anyone is going on a government welfare program or entitlement program like Obamacare.
I agree with you on taxes for the wealthy. I do believe a means test on assets needs to done when ever anyone is going on a government welfare program or entitlement program like Obamacare. Just out of curiosity, if healthcare is a "right" as so many believe, why would we charge some more for that "right" than others?
Free Speech is a right, but that's not the whole story, either.
The point is that porcelain veneers for your teeth aren't a "right", but treatment for a heart attack in process, in an Emergency Room, is (according to a law Ronald Reagan signed). The dividing line is (a) somewhere between those two extremes; and (b) not necessarily set in stone; it will vary over time as humanity becomes more humane. (To wit, before Ronald Reagan signed EMTALA into law, Emergency Rooms were allowed to refuse to treat people having a heart attack.)
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 3:35pm
Well yes if we had universalized healthcare certain things would be provided regardless of income. As long as you have a cut off, there's going to be bickering (with apologies to bicker) on where you draw the line, it should be higher, no it should be lower etc. ...
Free Speech is a right, but that's not the whole story, either.
The point is that porcelain veneers for your teeth aren't a "right", but treatment for a heart attack in process, in an Emergency Room, is (according to a law Ronald Reagan signed). The dividing line is (a) somewhere between those two extremes; and (b) not necessarily set in stone; it will vary over time as humanity becomes more humane. (To wit, before Ronald Reagan signed EMTALA into law, Emergency Rooms were allowed to refuse to treat people having a heart attack.)
You're missing the gist of my question. I'll re-frame.
If healthcare is a "right" should there be a charge associated with it, or if so, should the charge vary between individuals?
I know this question veers completely off the course of this thread, but it does have a long and storied past on this forum. I'm actually questioning the notion of something being a "right" just because we want it to be. If healthcare is a "right" and we are OK with dispensing it on a sliding scale, what other "rights" are subject to the same?
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 4:04pm
It seems mostly a semantic question, seems to me there are a thousand ways to argue for universal healthcare without it being "a right" (and I think the universal healthcare people are the only ones who even argue it is a right, because Obamacare is definitely still going to leave some people uninsured AND even insurance itself isn't equaivalent to healthcare, people go bankrupt for healthcare even with insurance).
For universal healthcare one could argue efficiency in terms of overall healthcare results per healthcare dollars spent (a better system than any of the above may exist, but not many are in love with the *current* system, or think it's getting great results for the money). You could just generally argue a promoting the general welfare case as it were, as just being socially beneficial. Heck you could even argue it as being pro-business as it might well be, as businesses are currently paying that cost (whether it is good to be pro-business is another matter).
"The pursuit of happiness" is surely dispensed "on a sliding scale".
"The pursuit of happiness" is surely dispensed "on a sliding scale".
I'd say the pursuit of happiness is not dispensed at all, it's a journey that we all enjoy at our own pace.
So we really are down to semantics.
So we really are down to semantics.
Only if you insist on treating it so. My originial question was one of philosophy and law, but we can 'bicker' if you like. ;)
You're missing the gist of my question. I'll re-frame.
If healthcare is a "right" should there be a charge associated with it, or if so, should the charge vary between individuals?
I know this question veers completely off the course of this thread, but it does have a long and storied past on this forum. I'm actually questioning the notion of something being a "right" just because we want it to be. If healthcare is a "right" and we are OK with dispensing it on a sliding scale, what other "rights" are subject to the same?
Aren't all rights, 'rights' just because we want them to be? We determine what our rights are, generally by consensus, then shape our laws and society to fit our (evolving) beliefs.
It wasn't that long ago when women and blacks did not have the right to vote. Now we do, and most everyone would be horrified by anyone who advocated differently.
For the record, I do believe basic health care is a right, considering our society and it's morals and ethics. Right here, right now, this is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, due to (ahem) some in congress, we do not have universal health care. It is a pay system, still tied to employment, and middleman insurance companies. Obamacare tried to address that, but only got a bit of the way down the road. As long as we all need to pay, it is reasonable that those more fortunate can pay a bit more. But, if and when we do have universal health care, everyone shall get the same care no matter how poor, or wealthy they are. Of course the wealthy will still have the choice to 'more' if they wish, with 7 attending physicians and 5 hovering nurses, but no one will check the wallet when you first step through the door.
It's a pretty simple concept that the very wealthy enjoy overall better/more benefit living in this great nation than the rest of us. (do I REALLY need to list the ways!)
It's not robbery, or sinful, or unethical to ask them to pay a bit more. But really, considering the tax returns that Romney did release, he is paying a far smaller tax rate than the average worker. I can only assume his wealthy buddies are pretty much the same.
You're missing the gist of my question. I'll re-frame.
If healthcare is a "right" should there be a charge associated with it, or if so, should the charge vary between individuals?
I know this question veers completely off the course of this thread, but it does have a long and storied past on this forum. I'm actually questioning the notion of something being a "right" just because we want it to be. If healthcare is a "right" and we are OK with dispensing it on a sliding scale, what other "rights" are subject to the same?
Police, fire, public schools - big disconnects between what various people put in vs. what they take out. All could be private sector.
Aren't all rights, 'rights' just because we want them to be?
No, true "rights" are inalienable, not dispensed by others, nor are they dependent upon others to provide or pay for. They are to be respected.
For the record, I do believe basic health care is a right...
So you believe that you have a right to someone else's time, effort and ability, regardless?
Good point. I think some are tripping themselves over words, like "right". Is the protection of the police a "right"? Is the streetlight outside the town hall a "right"? These are things we as a society decide to provide. And among those things are some things which are the social safety net, the things that ensure that no one dies on the streets, from hunger, exposure, or inadequate access to basic health care. And illiteracy is fought by ensuring all children have an education. Are these "rights"? Well, yes, but if the word trips you up then don't focus on the word.
No, true "rights" are inalienable,No: Inalienable rights are inalienable. Otherwise Thomas Jefferson would have written something that was internally redundant.
There are inalienable rights (basic human rights, for example), and rights that are granted by society.
I do feel health care should have a means test. It should be on a sliding scale or progressive. The most important thing is health care costs must be brought under control. Inflation today is less than three percent and health care inflation is close to 10 percent as one talking head said yesterday Medicare is not the problem the problem is health inflation.
I would say our defense engineers could be used to work on modern upgrades to our falling apart infrastructure. I would include high speed rail. High speed rail is needed as a transportation means. Our airports are over crowed and don't serve a lot of the US and some people don't want to fly. As bad as Amtrak is almost all of there trains are full. I have used the trains in Europe a lot and they are so nice. You don't need 300 + mph trains but the trains in Europe that go 180 mph are sufficient. So I do agree that the high speed rail talked about in the US is not necessary. The trains would have to be subsidized. But we already subsidize car travel and air travel.
Good point. I think some are tripping themselves over words, like "right". Is the protection of the police a "right"? Is the streetlight outside the town hall a "right"? These are things we as a society decide to provide. And among those things are some things which are the social safety net, the things that ensure that no one dies on the streets, from hunger, exposure, or inadequate access to basic health care. And illiteracy is fought by ensuring all children have an education. Are these "rights"? Well, yes, but if the word trips you up then don't focus on the word.
+ a big 1
There are inalienable rights (basic human rights, for example), and rights that are granted by society.
Can society grant you a right to my labor? If it can, do your rights trump mine?
Can society grant you a right to my labor?No. Specific performance of an individual is precluded. However, society can and should, dictate the terms for participation in our economy.
And no - you don't have to like the rules.
No. Specific performance of an individual is precluded. However, society can and should, dictate the terms for participation in our economy.
And no - you don't have to like the rules.
Okay, so if society will not let me participate in our economy, do I have a "right" of societal support?
Okay, so if society will not let me participate in our economy, do I have a "right" of societal support?Why won't society let you participate in the economy?
Or did you just read a few of the words I posted and skipped over the rest?
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 5:19pm
Okay, so if society will not let me participate in our economy, do I have a "right" of societal support?
Yea, probably, if such a situation were ever to exist, you could call it compensatory, or you could call it humane - because participation in the economy = SURVIVAL. So the question is if society bans you from participating in a system you need to survive, shouldn't it be required to provide what you need to survive otherwise? Seems so to me.
Analogous with the current system? Well maybe, but it's not so black and white. The current economy may very well require a certain amount of unemployment to function, but it does not require any given individual to be unemployed, they may have some choice in the matter :P. You could probably use the Marxist term mystification for how this process tends to work on people's minds but it's really just the basic paradox of the part and the whole. Just like the economy may absolutely require low wage workers to function, but it doesn't mean you personally necessarily must spend your life working at McDonalds. Besides the fact that most people in this society do find a way to survive, it might not be approved of and it might not be much of a life, or a long life, it might be food stamps, or holding a sign on the freeway, or selling drugs or stolen stereos, or prostitution, or white collar crime, of leaching off one's family, or finding a sugar daddy, but it's a way (even jail is a way, I've heard they provide 3 horrible meals a day).
Why won't society let you participate in the economy?
Or did you just read a few of the words I posted and skipped over the rest?No, I read the whole thing. If society can dictate terms for participation, I gathered that it assumed the right to prohibit me. Did you not intend to imply that?
No, I read the whole thing. If society can dictate terms for participation, I gathered that it assumed the right to prohibit me. Did you not intend to imply that?
What I intended to imply is what I wrote... that society gets to "dictate the terms for participation in our economy." You'll find that changing my words to something that doesn't mean the same as what I wrote doesn't actually help you understand what I wrote.
I'm still wondering what you did to earn complete exclusion from participation in the economy. It has to be something terrible, to warrant such an absolute sanction. Once I know what that was, then I can probably add more details.
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 5:38pm
What I intended to imply is what I wrote... that society gets to "dictate the terms for participation in our economy." You'll find that changing my words to something that doesn't mean the same as what I wrote doesn't actually help you understand what I wrote.
+1
I'm still wondering what you did to earn complete exclusion from participation in the economy. It has to be something terrible, to warrant such an absolute sanction. Once I know what that was, then I can probably add more details.
Sanction, love the term, such would be an absolute sanction. In this society even those who don't participate in the economy on it's terms (criminals etc.) usually find some mode of participation.
However, society can and should, dictate the terms for participation in our economy.
And no - you don't have to like the rules.
What moral foundation is there for "society" dictating the terms of agreement between mutually-consenting adults, and using force to compel those terms?
If I want to hire Alan for $5/hour, well below the "dictated" minimum wage here, to do a job for me, and he willingly enters into that agreement, why should "society" have any ability to interfere with our agreement to associate for our mutual benefit?
The economy, the monetary system, commerce, etc. - all are society's apparatus. Society created 'em, put 'em in place, owns 'em outright - lock, stock and barrel. As a matter of fact, the society here within the country also prohibits anyone else from putting their own alternative economy in place within the nation's borders.
Society invites you to use the economic and monetary system it is has furnished, and the commercial marketplace too. If you choose to do so, you're subject to the terms and conditions of participation. If you prefer to live without money in your life, I suppose you can do that. It's a form of "freedom" I suppose.
Incidentally, society also created the apparatus for ownership of real assets. If you decide to participate in real estate, you're subject to the terms and conditions society dictates.
Some of these things seem to surprise some people, as if they assumed that they were somehow above the rest of everyone else, superior, sovereign unto themselves. They're not. There's no basis for claiming individual sovereignty despite ridiculous claims to the contrary.
So, no moral foundation at all for interfering in agreements between mutually-consenting adults?
Other than that you have a big stick?
The moral foundation is basic and superior ownership rights. Society owns the economic and monetary system.
There is moral foundation for imposing your personal preferences over the terms and conditions set forth by society, within society's economic and monetary system. What money you "own", you "own" according to the terms and conditions of ownership society has set forth.
Every bit of evidence you have for something you assert ownership over is actually a granting of what you have, to you, by society -- again, according to society's terms and conditions. Whip out that $5 you were going to pay Alan. Those aren't your signatures at the bottom. Those are signatures of trustees of our society, attesting to the fact that what you have in your hand is a representation of some measure of value, as per the terms and conditions of participation in our society's economic and monetary system.
Some of these things seem to surprise some people, as if they assumed that they were somehow above the rest of everyone else, superior, sovereign unto themselves. They're not. There's no basis for claiming individual sovereignty despite ridiculous claims to the contrary.So, if sovereignty is not individual, are there inalienable individual rights or are we all subject to the whims of whatever majority may exert itself?
ApatheticNoMore
1-4-13, 8:05pm
We seem now mostly to be subject to the whims of whatever minority can buy power and the right to do whatever it wants (even if this minority seems to want to take a path toward human extinction).
What moral foundation is there for "society" dictating the terms of agreement between mutually-consenting adults, and using force to compel those terms?
If I want to hire Alan for $5/hour, well below the "dictated" minimum wage here, to do a job for me, and he willingly enters into that agreement, why should "society" have any ability to interfere with our agreement to associate for our mutual benefit?
Why should society be able to interfere with things like insider trading, price fixing, monopolies, ponzi schemes, etc?
Why should society be able to interfere with things like insider trading, price fixing, monopolies, ponzi schemes, etc?
Externalities, fraud, and initiation of force....
Why should society be able to interfere with things like insider trading, price fixing, monopolies, ponzi schemes, etc?
Murder, assault, rape, etc.
Is it as simple as no one having a right to harm someone else (except in the case of defense against harm)? Hardly deep philosophy, but not a lot of room for loopholes.
Externalities, fraud, and initiation of force....
Not always - if company A and company B are the only ones making widgets and they voluntarily enter into an agreement to not compete and charge the same price for their widget why should society be able to interfere? If company A voluntarily lets investor B know market changing information before it's public so investor B can take advantage of that information why should society be able to interfere? If company A buys company B and is the only one making widgets and uses that hard earned advantage to set prices and prevent new competitors from becoming established why should society be able to interfere? No fraud or force involved - just situations that society has decided they don't want to occur.
Murder, assault, rape, etc.
These are examples of using force against another - the ones I mentioned are not.
Just out of curiosity, if healthcare is a "right" as so many believe, why would we charge some more for that "right" than others?
I personally think it's a right - like public education - for everyone. And that everyone, irregardless of income and wealth, should be covered. That like public education, those who have the money to pay for better private healthcare, like better private education, can if they wish. I have a a serious problem with Obamacare as it is written because I find it discriminatory to the wealthy. But taxes on income (not wealth) should be somewhat equal percentage-wise (although I'm not in the flat-tax school of thought) with the wealthy paying at least an equal share (and not less then lower or middle income people. But if they pay taxes, then I think thay should also reap the benefits of those taxes whether it's a public education or public healthcare. But of course I'm talking about a universal healthcare option and that's something I just don't think will ever come about in this country. And of course if there was some basic healthcare coverage for all, then you could eliminate things like the VA healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.. Employers could use their capital to fund more ptivate sector jobs rather then paying for high cost health insurance coverage. The Gov could contract with private insurance, pharma, and medical providers on a larger scale for lower rates. Reducing redundancy and reams of red tape.
ETA: Oops - just finshed reading the rest of the thread and see other's answered more or les the same as I did.
Employers could use their capital to fund more ptivate sector jobs rather then paying for high cost health insurance coverage.
Really? Who pays for universal coverage?
Really? Who pays for universal coverage?
For universal ER coverage, we all do.
Really? Who pays for universal coverage? Employers still have to pay the same taxes as they do now and part of that could go to fund healthcare coverage. I don't see that changing in anyway. Perhaps they could pay a bit more in taxes - although less overall then they would to cover private healthcare coverage for many employees and their families - but with plenty left over for more job creation. But yes, the majority would come out of individuals income taxes just like any other tax does. Just as taxes are paid for Medicare, Medicaid, education, military, and all other programs. Probably on a sliding scale as it does now with some tax breaks for various things that wealthy people could probably use - one being private business and jobs creation. I know as lower income person, I would very happily pay more in taxes to fund a universal healthcare program for all - even to cover the wealthy - just as I pay taxes for other things I support like education even though I don't have kids.
Aren't all rights, 'rights' just because we want them to be? We determine what our rights are, generally by consensus, then shape our laws and society to fit our (evolving) beliefs.
.Exactly. A "right" is probably the wrong word for healthcare but really it's just a thing a group of people agree we should have - and fund if it costs money. Universal healthcare isn't intristicly a "right" anymore then free education is, but we, by concensus, have agreed that free education is a valuable thing to have for the benefit of our whole society so we make it available. So while I don't feel healthcare is a "right" in the same sense that freedom of religion or my right to vote is intristicly (sp?) a right, it's a thing I feel is very valuable for our society and think it should be available for all. And it's certainly something I'd rather see tax dollars spent on over many other things they are spent on.
I do feel health care should have a means test. It should be on a sliding scale or progressive. . I think that under the proposed Obamacare, that people applying for it should absolutely have means testing of both income and assets just as they now have for Medicaid, the VA hospital (for non-service connected disability/injury/illness services), and any type of government aid because these things ARE funded by those who can not themselves use them. However, if we had universal health care then means testing would not be needed because everyone would have access to basic healthcare coverage irregardless of their income or assets. People wouldn't have to pay anything extra based on their income or asset levels, just increased income taxes across the board for everyone (and private businesses) and divert some of our current taxpayer supported funds into healthcare from other areas (like war money).
What moral foundation is there for "society" dictating the terms of agreement between mutually-consenting adults, and using force to compel those terms?
If I want to hire Alan for $5/hour, well below the "dictated" minimum wage here, to do a job for me, and he willingly enters into that agreement, why should "society" have any ability to interfere with our agreement to associate for our mutual benefit?probably the same reason we are not allowed to buy or sell our kidneys or other organs - to keep the haves from taking advantage of the have-nots or needy. Minimum wage (and other financial and labor laws) are in place for protection of one segment of society from the other. However, in principle, I agree that I as an individual should be able to pay or accept what ever amount of money I want for a job. Although I'm not sure I'd want to be a have-not on the kidney donation waiting list while those wealthy island dwelling yacht owners snatched up all the good-uns for a fee I couldn't afford :-)!
You've raised good points. It is a given-and-take between compassionate consideration of others and self-centered greed. There will always be a dialog and an evolution of how humane our society is. For 400 years we have been on a pretty steady climb out of barbarism, toward ever-higher levels of consideration of others. Today, just like 400 years ago, there are people who would prefer society to remain stagnant rather than improve; and people who perhaps see nothing wrong with exploiting inequities in society to place their own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of other hard-working people.
probably the same reason we are not allowed to buy or sell our kidneys or other organs - to keep the haves from taking advantage of the have-nots or needy. Minimum wage (and other financial and labor laws) are in place for protection of one segment of society from the other. However, in principle, I agree that I as an individual should be able to pay or accept what ever amount of money I want for a job. Although I'm not sure I'd want to be a have-not on the kidney donation waiting list while those wealthy island dwelling yacht owners snatched up all the good-uns for a fee I couldn't afford :-)!
This is true. Minimum wage laws are there for a good reason.
However, bae can in fact hire Alan for $5 or .50 cents, if that is the agreed upon price. If Alan is an independent contractor, and his price for raking the lawn, or whatever, is $5, then 5 it is, no matter how long it takes him. So, there is a way to offer Alan unfair wage for his time, assuming bae was complaining he couldn't gouge Alan for way more than $5 worth of time/work.
But, he cannot set up a factory and pay his 500 employees $5 an hour. That's the law, and what we, as a society, decided.
Timothy Geithner, two words:
Platinum coin.
This is true. Minimum wage laws are there for a good reason.
However, bae can in fact hire Alan for $5 or .50 cents, if that is the agreed upon price. If Alan is an independent contractor, and his price for raking the lawn, or whatever, is $5, then 5 it is, no matter how long it takes him. So, there is a way to offer Alan unfair wage for his time, assuming bae was complaining he couldn't gouge Alan for way more than $5 worth of time/work.
But, he cannot set up a factory and pay his 500 employees $5 an hour. That's the law, and what we, as a society, decided.
So, it's a good thing to set wages artificially high in order to benefit a few while others are effectively barred from the marketplace due to their inability to provide a return on the mandated hourly wage?
Timothy Geithner, two words:
Platinum coin.
LOL, a couple dozen Trillion dollar coins and we'll be sitting pretty!
Society expects those less fortunate to refrain from just taking what they need - instead, they are expected to abide by society's precepts to engage the structures society sets forth for general benefit: a labor market that is often stacked against them, and a social safety net that is often inadequate. However, it is not only those less fortunate who are expected to abide by society's precepts. Those who benefit from what society offers, including the order that society affords them and which facilitates such benefits. Fairness dictates that all abide by society's precepts, not just those less fortunate. But the rationalizations for greed do run so very thick.
ApatheticNoMore
1-5-13, 6:12pm
LOL, a couple dozen Trillion dollar coins and we'll be sitting pretty!
Lol, but let's look at some facts:
This is already happening. The Fed is purchasing 40 billion a month in MBS (mortgage backed securities). So in effect every couple of months or so the equivalent of a trillion dollar coin is printed to bail out the banks. So one might ask: if trillion dollar coins can be printed to bail out the (corrupt badly run risk taking) banks, why not to bail out the people? And THERE IS NO answer to that question! How about $40 billion a month printed for green tech? The only good thing that can be said about the bank bailout is that at least it is for now mostly non-inflationary as the money just sits there.
The trillion dollar coin is a bad idea but the reason it's a bad idea may not be because it's inflationary. The main reason it's a bad idea is because do you really want to give the unitary executive vast money printing powers all by himself? So maybe it's bad to give money printing powers to the Fed and banks, so one can argue then that congress or congress AND the executive shared should have it, but all vested in one man? Crazy ... However, it has been argued the trillion dollar coin should be used as a bargaining chip. Of course the President shouldn't have that power, and of course budgets shouldn't be made by such brinksmanship just to pay the bills. So maybe a bargaining chip to get rid of all the dysfunction. As for inflationary, depends on if the trillion dollar coin is meant as a temporary measure to be replaced by treasuries or whatever. But isn't replacing it with treasuries also inflationary? Well, the Fed is also currently buying $45 billion a month in Treasuries (in addition to the $40 billion of MBS). This has been offset by selling $45 billion a month in short term securities, but it seems that second part is soon going to stop so it will be pure purchases. So I think we are back to: this is already happening. It has to happen to a greater degree to the extent that cuts are not made to the deficit sure, but the brinksmanship being played on the deficit is aimed at this point ONLY at social programs. It's not a fair fight.
So what we know:
1) the equivalent of a trillion dollar coin is being printed by the Fed every couple of months to bail out the banks (QE3)
2) the Fed has also been buying long term tresuries and selling short term ones to keep the interest rate down (operation twist). This is meant to stimulate the economy and has also been an indirect bailout to the banks (because housing sales need this artifical stimulus) and has probably stimulated the stock market. I've also heard it affects the pricing of risk around the whole world as it is the risk free benchmark
3) Soon this operation twist treasury buying itself may not be offset by short term purchases
Conclusion:
The system is so manipulated at every level that is difficult to impossible to even know all the results of the manipulation anymore (or predict where it will all end up). It is difficult or impossible half the time to even know who the winners and losers of it are. One thing we can be certain: the plutocrats will always get their lifeboats, rest assured on that one. And we can pretend the bad trillion dollar coin idea is not merely a bad idea but unprecedented money printing but it's really not.
Society expects those less fortunate to refrain from just taking what they need - instead, they are expected to abide by society's precepts to engage the structures society sets forth for general benefit: a labor market that is often stacked against them, and a social safety net that is often inadequate. However, it is not only those less fortunate who are expected to abide by society's precepts. Those who benefit from what society offers, including the order that society affords them and which facilitates such benefits. Fairness dictates that all abide by society's precepts, not just those less fortunate. But the rationalizations for greed do run so very thick.
+1
So, it's a good thing to set wages artificially high in order to benefit a few while others are effectively barred from the marketplace due to their inability to provide a return on the mandated hourly wage?
Yeah, why pay minimum wage when you can find truly needy people to work for a lot less! And while we are at it, why mandate bathroom breaks? They can just hold it! And lunch breaks? They ate that morning didn't they? Well, they can eat again when they get home! And what is with the minimum age laws? Little kids will work for far less than older people. I mean, they don't have families to support, so they don't really need as much. And I'm pretty sure you can determine what's 'safe' and what isn't in your paint thinner/asbestos factory.
But really, let's be honest. If you can't get a return on the minimum hourly wage, then you don't need to be in business. Or hire anyone. Or maybe you just self deport to China, or India, where you have an army of little nimble fingers to work for slave wages. Hell, you don't even need to do that. The newspapers are full of help wanted ads that offer tiny return for piecemeal work. You just need an army of home workers. See, you can take advantage of all sorts of desperate workers without even leaving the comfort of your home...;)
But all kidding aside, it's not 'just a few' who benefit from minimum wage, but it is the least powerful among us, which is why it is in place. And thank goodness for that. I choose to NOT live in China, or India, and am saddened by those who would look to these countries as shining examples of how our labor laws should be ordered.
LOL, a couple dozen Trillion dollar coins and we'll be sitting pretty!
Coins are too expensive to mint, in today's fast-changing world Alan.
This is a much better solution:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8N0ShIjtsjw/UEfIT6SieGI/AAAAAAAAGNM/V5kSJS_WEFc/s576/Awesomized.jpg
In just one short year you can span the range of currencies you issue to meet the needs-of-the-moment:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sRjREpXrEJ0/UEfIP-qHIoI/AAAAAAAAGNU/4VosjuxXOIo/s576/Awesomized.jpg
Yeah, why pay minimum wage when you can find truly needy people to work for a lot less! And while we are at it, why mandate bathroom breaks? They can just hold it! And lunch breaks? They ate that morning didn't they? Well, they can eat again when they get home! And what is with the minimum age laws? Little kids will work for far less than older people. I mean, they don't have families to support, so they don't really need as much. And I'm pretty sure you can determine what's 'safe' and what isn't in your paint thinner/asbestos factory.
But really, let's be honest. If you can't get a return on the minimum hourly wage, then you don't need to be in business. Or hire anyone. Or maybe you just self deport to China, or India, where you have an army of little nimble fingers to work for slave wages. Hell, you don't even need to do that. The newspapers are full of help wanted ads that offer tiny return for piecemeal work. You just need an army of home workers. See, you can take advantage of all sorts of desperate workers without even leaving the comfort of your home...;)
But all kidding aside, it's not 'just a few' who benefit from minimum wage, but it is the least powerful among us, which is why it is in place. And thank goodness for that. I choose to NOT live in China, or India, and am saddened by those who would look to these countries as shining examples of how our labor laws should be ordered.
+1
Yeah, why pay minimum wage when you can find truly needy people to work for a lot less! And while we are at it, why mandate bathroom breaks? They can just hold it! And lunch breaks? They ate that morning didn't they? Well, they can eat again when they get home! And what is with the minimum age laws? Little kids will work for far less than older people. I mean, they don't have families to support, so they don't really need as much. And I'm pretty sure you can determine what's 'safe' and what isn't in your paint thinner/asbestos factory.
But really, let's be honest. If you can't get a return on the minimum hourly wage, then you don't need to be in business. Or hire anyone. Or maybe you just self deport to China, or India, where you have an army of little nimble fingers to work for slave wages. Hell, you don't even need to do that. The newspapers are full of help wanted ads that offer tiny return for piecemeal work. You just need an army of home workers. See, you can take advantage of all sorts of desperate workers without even leaving the comfort of your home...;)
But all kidding aside, it's not 'just a few' who benefit from minimum wage, but it is the least powerful among us, which is why it is in place. And thank goodness for that. I choose to NOT live in China, or India, and am saddened by those who would look to these countries as shining examples of how our labor laws should be ordered.
Ha Ha!! You crack me up. And of course I completely agree. Great minds and all that :-)! But you left out the part where women don't need to get paid as much as men because we have men to take care of us and our kids - because, of course, we are all married and will remain so forever. We only need to earn just enough for pin money to buy new silk stockings and perfume! Sadly I'm old enough to remember back in the 1970's when that was the way it was. I remember going to a high school guidance counselor and getting a long list of jobs that were expected to be available when I graduated with 2 different pay scales - one for men and one for women - for doing the exact same job. Scary stuff even back then.
Coins are too expensive to mint, in today's fast-changing world Alan.
This is a much better solution:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8N0ShIjtsjw/UEfIT6SieGI/AAAAAAAAGNM/V5kSJS_WEFc/s576/Awesomized.jpg
In just one short year you can span the range of currencies you issue to meet the needs-of-the-moment:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sRjREpXrEJ0/UEfIP-qHIoI/AAAAAAAAGNU/4VosjuxXOIo/s576/Awesomized.jpg
We must be smarter than the Zimbabweans. As ApatheticNoMore pointed out Ben Bernanke just uses electronic banking transfers when he wants to print that much money.
women don't need to get paid as much as men because we have men to take care of us and our kids - because, of course, we are all married and will remain so forever. We only need to earn just enough for pin money to buy new silk stockings and perfume! Sadly I'm old enough to remember back in the 1970's when that was the way it was.If there weren't so many people in this country who would agree with what you wrote instead of with the implicit ridicule, I wonder if it would be funnier or less funny.
If there weren't so many people in this country who would agree with what you wrote instead of with the implicit ridicule, I wonder if it would be funnier or less funny.
I remember questioning it back then and the counselor looked at me like I was a crazy person and just said -"because that's how it is" - just as if "that's how it should be". Looking at the jobs list I remember I saw that welder was an up and coming job so I asked him "Why would I, if I was a welder working for company z, only get half of what a guy got for the same job?" The answer - "Oh that wouldn't happen in reality, because you couldn't be a welder in the first place since you're a girl." UGH!
Ha Ha!! You crack me up. And of course I completely agree. Great minds and all that :-)! But you left out the part where women don't need to get paid as much as men because we have men to take care of us and our kids - because, of course, we are all married and will remain so forever. We only need to earn just enough for pin money to buy new silk stockings and perfume! Sadly I'm old enough to remember back in the 1970's when that was the way it was. I remember going to a high school guidance counselor and getting a long list of jobs that were expected to be available when I graduated with 2 different pay scales - one for men and one for women - for doing the exact same job. Scary stuff even back then.
+1
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.