|
So Trickle Down Economics Really Works Best? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
also wolv...On education, believe it or not I agree with you. I have no problem with state governments running public schools, and wouldn't mind a little federal support going to poorer areas. Compared to the bloated $2.8 trillion budget we have now, it would cost virtually nothing. I do think a little competition with the private sector would do wonders for the kids however, but I'm sure you disagree with that. ;)
On taxes, I still believe a flat rate system is the simplest and fairest way for government to collect revenue. A flat rate on all income above the poverty line would be effective and "progressive" at the same time. Let us take a hypothetical 20% rate on all income above $10,000.
An guy earning $10,000 a year pays 0.00% in federal taxes. Next year, he does a bit better and bumps his income up to $12,000. With this raise, he pays a whopping .6% in taxes. After another big raise and earning $15k, he pays a 1.2% tax rate. You get the idea.
Meanwhile the local factory owner has a great year and earns a million dollars. He sends $199,000 to the government, and keeps the rest to plow back into his business, creating more jobs (and more taxpayers) in the process.
What I don't understand is why this isn't this a considered "progressive" idea? Why must the left hold tight to the second plank of the communist manifesto ("a heavy and progressive income tax")
Is it impossible for you to see the benefits of an alternate system? A simple, low, and flat tax could fund the government, and benefit the "workers of the world" simultaneously, so why can't the left compromise? |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Subey, I'm afraid that 5% figure you noted is completely wrong.
After 2 minutes of searching I found some articles that thoroughly refute it. Two of these are studies are from the government itself, and analyze data over the past few decades. I recommend you give them a quick read.
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html (second article)
|
This article seems to only mention that the poor are getting poorer. Otherwise it says the question can't be answered.
| quote: | | Even the most sophisticated income distribution studies fail to tell us what we really want to know: are most Americans losing their birthright�a chance at upward mobility? |
The problem with these two sources is they are too coarse to lend any light on the situation. For instance if on tax return 1 John makes $20,000 and on tax return 10 he makes $60,000 what do we learn about John? He seems to have improved his lot in life, but where does he come from? Is John a university grad moving up the ladder, or is he a a high school drop out who opened his own business and is now making lots of money. Without that information I can't see how those sources address the topic at hand.
Also note that a woman with a grade 5 education making $1 a day in Indonesia making Nike running shoes is as much a participant of capitalism as the ceo of Nike in Atlanta. Can you really judge Capitalism's ability to foster opportunities if you ignore her?
But that complicates the situation uneccesarily. Here is a canadian study on drop out rates: http://www11.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/h...63/page06.shtml
Here is a crop of a screen capture
9% of drop outs have parents with a high level of education
45% have parents with a low level of education.
The simple question that has to be asked is, how much influence does a child have over the education level of the family they are born into? None of course.
[edit 2] woops my graph is irrelevent :D without #s of the people in each group. I will look for something better
[edit 3] all statistics, graphs, and external information presented in this, and only this thread are the result of my new research assistant Al Fraken, who informs me they were all collected using his "Coulter TM - Lexis Nexis Overload Methodology", as such, the technical logistics are beyond me, so please direct any questions relating to them to either Al himself, or Anne. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I've gotta go with you more on this, though I think the 5% number is a bit too conservative. Poor/high crime neighborhoods certainly have more to do with social & economic disadvantages, rather than the genetic inferiority of the people who live there. If you switched a child born in Compton, CA and one from Beverly Hills after birth, I think the former would be far more likely to have a better life.
Certainly some people are better in one area than another and certain people are gifted, but just about everyone is born with the potential to become more than a janitor. If a person gets an education where they barely have access to a computer though, they're never going to have the opportunity to become Bill Gates even if they do have the same gifts. That's why greater access to education is important, because a lot of potential doctors, entrepreneurs, professors, etc. are not given the resources to become their best. |
So you guys are saying that everyone is essentially conditioned to become what they ultimately become and that they somehow are denied the power to make decisions for themselves? Hogwash. Perhaps to some extent a person may cognitively choose the path of least resistence as opposed to actually making a plan of action and pursuing a goal of improving their position, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories out there that I am comfortable saying that people in unfortunate circumstances potentially can emerge from their position with some extraordinary effort. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is certainly not impossible. And yes, Lady Luck certainly plays a big hand in the ultimate outcome. I am not a big subscriber to fate, however. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
He seems to have improved his lot in life, but where does he come from? Is John a university grad moving up the ladder, or is he a a high school drop out who opened his own business and is now making lots of money. Without that information I can't see how those sources address the topic at hand. |
Are you kidding me? Talk about designing a survey to suit an agenda. Maybe it was a prisoner getting out of prison and going to work at a glue factory. On a macro view, details of that granularity are irrelevant. If you want to start comparing studies of incomes in the coal mining industry vs. incomes in the eCommerce industry, you'll have to make some pretty specific arguments.
Granted, I probably think the conclusion in the House article on income mobility is a bit optimistic, it is nonetheless significant. This was their conclusion (from the article)...
| quote: | The empirical data support the view of the market economy as a dynamic and open society which provides opportunity to those who participate. There is no evidence of stagnation, with the turnover rate in the most stable quintile -- the top fifth -- exceeding 35 percent. The turnover rates in the bottom four quintiles were at least 60 percent over the period, with most of this reflecting upward progress. Analysis which assumes or suggests stable composition of family or household income quintiles rests on invalid assumptions. It makes no sense to draw sweeping conclusions such as "the income of the bottom 20 percent of families fell" in a 15-year period when most of the people originally in that category have long since improved their standard of living enough to have moved up from the bracket entirely.
|
 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Surely Sharon & Netanyahu are decreasing that, aren't they (which is coming from cutting social programs rather than from their main public expenditure: defense spending)? |
Are you saying Israel shouldn't make defense their #1 priority? They have guns pointed at them no matter which way they turn!;) |
|
|
| Jive_Turkey |
| quote: | On taxes, I still believe a flat rate system is the simplest and fairest way for government to collect revenue. A flat rate on all income above the poverty line would be effective and "progressive" at the same time. Let us take a hypothetical 20% rate on all income above $10,000.
An guy earning $10,000 a year pays 0.00% in federal taxes. Next year, he does a bit better and bumps his income up to $12,000. With this raise, he pays a whopping .6% in taxes. After another big raise and earning $15k, he pays a 1.2% tax rate. You get the idea.
Meanwhile the local factory owner has a great year and earns a million dollars. He sends $199,000 to the government, and keeps the rest to plow back into his business, creating more jobs (and more taxpayers) in the process.
What I don't understand is why this isn't this a considered "progressive" idea? Why must the left hold tight to the second plank of the communist manifesto ("a heavy and progressive income tax")
Is it impossible for you to see the benefits of an alternate system? A simple, low, and flat tax could fund the government, and benefit the "workers of the world" simultaneously, so why can't the left compromise? |
I might be mistaken, but I think the tax you described above is a progressive tax where as your income increases so does the percentage you are taxed. A flat tax rate sounds like a proportional tax where everyone is taxed the same percentage no matter what your income is. I was a bit confused on the terms at first, dunno if anyone else was so I was clearing that up. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Are you saying Israel shouldn't make defense their #1 priority? They have guns pointed at them no matter which way they turn!;) |
This is precisely my point. The choices if you cut taxes for businesses would be either to have no defense and have the country cease to exist or else raise taxes on the middle class. That's why taxes are so high in Israel and why progressive taxation is the only way to go, because otherwise you squeeze the people with less for more if you want the country to exist.
| quote: |
So you guys are saying that everyone is essentially conditioned to become what they ultimately become and that they somehow are denied the power to make decisions for themselves? Hogwash. Perhaps to some extent a person may cognitively choose the path of least resistence as opposed to actually making a plan of action and pursuing a goal of improving their position, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories out there that I am comfortable saying that people in unfortunate circumstances potentially can emerge from their position with some extraordinary effort. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is certainly not impossible. And yes, Lady Luck certainly plays a big hand in the ultimate outcome. I am not a big subscriber to fate, however. |
I'm not denying there are people who do make it despite the odds against them and they're certainly great stories, but the point is
the odds are against them! For every Oprah or Elvis out there who makes it from humble roots there are many others who try just as hard and don't reach the same accomplishments, because the reality is not everyone can be at the top. I wouldn't say people are conditioned to reach potential, but I would say their reality & environment plays a great deal in terms of what obstacles they would have to overcome to reach success. For instance, I would say a lot of violent crime, drugs & theft in poor neighborhoods comes from the reality of that situation, rather than that more people in that area are genetically more prone to particpate in such behaviors than in rich communities. The lack of economic opportunities available I think plays a significant role in the frequency of people seeking illegal sources of income. While the valedictorian of a public school in say, Englewood, IL might get consideration by an Ivy League school, certainly the majority of students (no matter how hard they work) are not going to have as much of a chance as the students of a public school in the wealthier suburbs, who have access to more advanced technology, better information and better teachers. It's like running a race where you have hurdles to jump and your opponents don't, while you may overcome such obstacles if you work that much harder and are that much better, you're clearly at a disadvantage that most aren't going to be able to overcome. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
also wolv...On education, believe it or not I agree with you. I have no problem with state governments running public schools, and wouldn't mind a little federal support going to poorer areas. Compared to the bloated $2.8 trillion budget we have now, it would cost virtually nothing. I do think a little competition with the private sector would do wonders for the kids however, but I'm sure you disagree with that. ;) |
It would depend on what type of competition from the private sector. I'm not against the idea of private schools being available or the educational tax deductions that are given for parents who put their kids in private school. Are you refering to vouchers & charter schools?
| quote: |
On taxes, I still believe a flat rate system is the simplest and fairest way for government to collect revenue. A flat rate on all income above the poverty line would be effective and "progressive" at the same time. Let us take a hypothetical 20% rate on all income above $10,000.
An guy earning $10,000 a year pays 0.00% in federal taxes. Next year, he does a bit better and bumps his income up to $12,000. With this raise, he pays a whopping .6% in taxes. After another big raise and earning $15k, he pays a 1.2% tax rate. You get the idea.
Meanwhile the local factory owner has a great year and earns a million dollars. He sends $199,000 to the government, and keeps the rest to plow back into his business, creating more jobs (and more taxpayers) in the process.
What I don't understand is why this isn't this a considered "progressive" idea? Why must the left hold tight to the second plank of the communist manifesto ("a heavy and progressive income tax")
Is it impossible for you to see the benefits of an alternate system? A simple, low, and flat tax could fund the government, and benefit the "workers of the world" simultaneously, so why can't the left compromise? |
I'm with Jive Turkey on this, I would say this would be a progressive tax, just at a lower rate if you go by the percentages in your hypothetical. On taxes, I think I've mentioned before that I am all in favor of tax cuts and I think it's very possible to cut taxes while maintaining social safety nets. I think a great deal of measures could & should be taken to drastically cut taxes, which I have previously outlined in other threads. What I am suggesting is that even if you cut all social program spending, you would still not have enough tax revenue to tremendously cut taxes for the wealthy, unless you raised taxes on the middle class. On top of this, the middle class would shrink if social programs were cut, because there are citizens who are middle class due to such programs. I'm 100% with you in cutting government spending, but not on safety nets, because it is necessary. I may begin to discount their need if it can be shown in history where great gains to eliminate poverty have come during expansion to complete privatization, because as far as I can tell it has had negative effects on workers rights and wages. That's why I advocate a balance between the two. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I've gotta go with you more on this, though I think the 5% number is a bit too conservative. Poor/high crime neighborhoods certainly have more to do with social & economic disadvantages, rather than the genetic inferiority of the people who live there. If you switched a child born in Compton, CA and one from Beverly Hills after birth, I think the former would be far more likely to have a better life.
Certainly some people are better in one area than another and certain people are gifted, but just about everyone is born with the potential to become more than a janitor. If a person gets an education where they barely have access to a computer though, they're never going to have the opportunity to become Bill Gates even if they do have the same gifts. That's why greater access to education is important, because a lot of potential doctors, entrepreneurs, professors, etc. are not given the resources to become their best. |
Its hard to understand how anyone in this day and age wouldn't know where to find and get the information if they really wanted it.
Library have free internet access any time they want it; so do schools.
Why is it that people use geography as a crutch?
Excuses from people (not you wolverine16) that say they're trapped in their enviornment when really, they haven't planned anything to get themselves out even though over the fence lies their own unknown potential.
They're more afraid of the unknown than they are with staying with 'status quo' and in here lies the irony of their own demise.
Living in their own world of whatifs and Ishouldas.
Hoping someone will bail them out of their own indecision.
They never learn that oppurtunity does not just simply come up walking to their doorstep but in this day of big lottos and instant winners pounding their senses 24/7, it's no wonder. |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Its hard to understand how anyone in this day and age wouldn't know where to find and get the information if they really wanted it.
Library have free internet access any time they want it; so do schools.
Why is it that people use geography as a crutch?
Excuses from people (not you wolverine16) that say they're trapped in their enviornment when really, they haven't planned anything to get themselves out even though over the fence lies their own unknown potential.
They're more afraid of the unknown than they are with staying with 'status quo' and in here lies the irony of their own demise.
Living in their own world of whatifs and Ishouldas.
Hoping someone will bail them out of their own indecision.
They never learn that oppurtunity does not just simply come up walking to their doorstep but in this day of big lottos and instant winners pounding their senses 24/7, it's no wonder. |
bingo.. couldnt agree more..
The opportunities to succeed are there, but you have to out and get them yourself. It is something people are afraid of, and those who actually take a chance and DO make it big are more than often shunned by those poorer than them.. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
...Hogwash. Perhaps to some extent a person may cognitively choose the path of least resistence as opposed to actually making a plan of action and pursuing a goal of improving their position, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories out there that I am comfortable saying that people in unfortunate circumstances potentially can emerge from their position with some extraordinary effort. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is certainly not impossible. And yes, Lady Luck certainly plays a big hand in the ultimate outcome. I am not a big subscriber to fate, however. |
A business will fail if there is no business plan. Likewise, it's hard to advance yourself if you are not actively aware of where you are going. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Its hard to understand how anyone in this day and age wouldn't know where to find and get the information if they really wanted it.
Library have free internet access any time they want it; so do schools.
Why is it that people use geography as a crutch?
Excuses from people (not you wolverine16) that say they're trapped in their enviornment when really, they haven't planned anything to get themselves out even though over the fence lies their own unknown potential.
They're more afraid of the unknown than they are with staying with 'status quo' and in here lies the irony of their own demise.
Living in their own world of whatifs and Ishouldas.
Hoping someone will bail them out of their own indecision.
They never learn that oppurtunity does not just simply come up walking to their doorstep but in this day of big lottos and instant winners pounding their senses 24/7, it's no wonder. |
But do you really think that a school in a poor neighborhood has the same reasources and quality teachers? I honestly don't know how Canadian public schools are funded (I'm guessing not through a property tax system like we have), so maybe they are more equally funded. I completely agree that some people will make it no matter what the odds, but who can honestly say a poorly funded school prepares its students as well as the best schools for the SATs? Additionally even if a high school student puts forth the effort to take public transportation and use what is available at a library across town, aren't they at a disadvantage from when when they were in failing first & second grade classes? There are a lot of people in poor neighborhoods who work multiple jobs to provide for their families as best as possible, but the reality is they cannot afford the housing to live in better school districts. Gentrification often occurs when neighborhoods do become better and funding for schools increases through property taxes. If the resources and opportunities are so sufficient in poorly funded school districts, then why do so many parents try to live in areas with good school districts? There's no way on earth that more kids from poorly funded schools will be accepted to the best colleges than students from prep & magnet schools, no matter how hard they work. C'mon! We're falling behind even France!:nervous: |
|
|
|
|
