Jump to content

Putting Things In Perspective


Daniel

Recommended Posts

The question is who do you compare yourself with

Global income inequality: Where the U.S. ranks

The U.S. has a higher level of income inequality than Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and South Korea, according to data gathered by the World Bank.

And, while many nations have seen income inequality rise within their borders, the United States has experienced a more rapid increase in recent decades, widening the wealth gap even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is who do you compare yourself with

Global income inequality: Where the U.S. ranks

And now we're faced with trying to figure out why the income gap is growing. I don't buy the narrative that the 1% isn't "paying their fair share." Push up the bottom and the middle, don't drag down the top. How do you do it? I believe that most of the answers are in the free market. The "partnership" between big government and big business is not good at all for the regular joe. There's a lot of money to be made with your tax dollars! Simplify the tax code, greatly reduce (can you eliminate?) subsidies and big tax breaks. Make government leaner, in other words.

I think this is the biggest problem, but there are others. In poor families, the welfare culture has wrecked personal ambition and family life. It has to end. But it can't stop there. You have to offer school choice to poor families who want a chance to better their kids' future through a voucher system. Heck, I think middle class families should have that option, too. Public education needs competition ... badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is who do you compare yourself with

Global income inequality: Where the U.S. ranks

How important though is income inequality, at least as a comparison to other countries, when your average American is richer than an average Western European (not including Scandanavian countries, which have small populations and relatively large oil reserves, so it would be difficult for the US to duplicate those models even if the political will to do so existed). See this piece in the NY Times.

Also remember that prices are generally much higher in Western Europe, especially for things like gasoline. So your average American has greater purchasing power than your average Western European.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now we're faced with trying to figure out why the income gap is growing. I don't buy the narrative that the 1% isn't "paying their fair share." Push up the bottom and the middle, don't drag down the top. How do you do it? I believe that most of the answers are in the free market. The "partnership" between big government and big business is not good at all for the regular joe. There's a lot of money to be made with your tax dollars! Simplify the tax code, greatly reduce (can you eliminate?) subsidies and big tax breaks. Make government leaner, in other words.

Ok but in reality we are running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits and if you reduce the tax base you are only going to increase that. As pointed on on these forums many times our biggest expenditures are not going to be solved by "reducing subsidies and big tax breaks". I have yet to see anyone put forth even a generic outline of spending cuts that can possible balance the budget, and the reason for that is simple, no one wants to be the guy who says "oh we can't afford medicare [or defense, or medicare] anymore... any of it". So as long as you are sticking to fluffy populist ideas like "simplify taxes, reduce fraud and waste!" (while good ideas) no true solutions come through.

Oh, and the income gap is growing because that's what wealth does, it accumulates more wealth. Historically top tax rates are at lows which probably has something to do with it.

I think this is the biggest problem, but there are others. In poor families, the welfare culture has wrecked personal ambition and family life. It has to end. But it can't stop there. You have to offer school choice to poor families who want a chance to better their kids' future through a voucher system. Heck, I think middle class families should have that option, too. Public education needs competition ... badly.

So, families are too dependent on welfare (which is essentially the government handing you money and telling you where and what you can spend it on) and one way you think to solve this is to give those families school vouchers (which is essentially the government handing you money and telling you what schools to spend it on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, families are too dependent on welfare (which is essentially the government handing you money and telling you where and what you can spend it on) and one way you think to solve this is to give those families school vouchers (which is essentially the government handing you money and telling you what schools to spend it on).

We already do that, they're called public schools, except with vouchers you at least have different, albeit relatively limited, options on where you can spend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already do that, they're called public schools, except with vouchers you at least have different, albeit relatively limited, options on where you can spend it.

I know we do. My point wasn't if vouchers are a good idea or not, it's that one the one hand he is saying welfare is bad and then yet still promoting a welfare-based idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squishy, we can certainly do nothing ... and then when it all falls apart, austerity comes whether we like it or not.

You are too hung up on tax revenue. The way the government has grown, there will never be enough revenue. The beast is never full. You have no interest in solving the problem, and neither do most Democrats. "Don't touch our Medicare and Social Security." Yeah, right.

You call the reduction of government a "populist ideal." I call it reality. It has to happen, and it will happen, one way or the other. It will probably be the other ... we will be forced to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How important though is income inequality, at least as a comparison to other countries, when your average American is richer than an average Western European (not including Scandanavian countries, which have small populations and relatively large oil reserves, so it would be difficult for the US to duplicate those models even if the political will to do so existed). See this piece in the NY Times.

Also remember that prices are generally much higher in Western Europe, especially for things like gasoline. So your average American has greater purchasing power than your average Western European.

Norway is the only Scandinavian country with oil reserves. The US could very well duplicate those models if it wanted to. The idea of how society in general show be and what role the Government should play differs though significantly between the US and northern Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norway is the only Scandinavian country with oil reserves. The US could very well duplicate those models if it wanted to. The idea of how society in general show be and what role the Government should play differs though significantly between the US and northern Europe.

Denmark has oil reserves. My link

But you're right about Sweden and Finland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squishy, we can certainly do nothing ... and then when it all falls apart, austerity comes whether we like it or not.

You are too hung up on tax revenue. The way the government has grown, there will never be enough revenue. The beast is never full. You have no interest in solving the problem, and neither do most Democrats. "Don't touch our Medicare and Social Security." Yeah, right.

I have been saying for about four years on this board that the only way to reduce our deficit is to raise taxes and cut spending. so spare me your democrats wont cut spending rhetoric.

You call the reduction of government a "populist ideal." I call it reality. It has to happen, and it will happen, one way or the other. It will probably be the other ... we will be forced to do it.

A "populist" ideal by definition is just something that's popular, as I even said I support it, just like I support eliminating earmarks, the problem is much bigger then either of those issues though so I spend most of my energy on stopping the forest from burning down instead of worrying about the 3 little bushes by the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Squishy. I don't want to pay more taxes ... the ones I have to pay directly and the ones that are passed on to me in the form of price increases by businesses that are taxed more. This "balanced approach" notion is the biggest fantasy going.

That's fine, just say "I'm not serious about fixing the problem I just want to blame someone" then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to look at your charts because they are a waste of my time. You obviously don't believe in supply-side economics. I do. Both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan showed you don't need higher taxes to increase tax revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to look at your charts because they are a waste of my time. You obviously don't believe in supply-side economics. I do. Both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan showed you don't need higher taxes to increase tax revenue.

The question is how much and what kind of tax cuts spur economic growth. That is, I'm sure squishy will argue that we would have had the same or about as much growth anyway without or at least without certain tax cuts.

I think we'd have been better off if W kept the top marginal tax rate the same and reducing corporate taxes, but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to look at your charts because they are a waste of my time. You obviously don't believe in supply-side economics. I do. Both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan showed you don't need higher taxes to increase tax revenue.

I see, balancing the federal budget using federal expenditures / federal revenues is a waste of your time.

You would rather sit here and pretend that it can be balanced with spending cuts rather then look to see what you would actually have to do.

Oh and your boys Reagan and Bush only had 2 out of 16 years with a surplus budget, 2000 and 2001, the result of a non supply sider named Bill Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how much and what kind of tax cuts spur economic growth. That is, I'm sure squishy will argue that we would have had the same or about as much growth anyway without or at least without certain tax cuts.

I think we'd have been better off if W kept the top marginal tax rate the same and reducing corporate taxes, but who knows.

Not really, he continually advocates that we need a balanced budget and refuses to even consider taxes (unless he is making a sarcastic point see above) so I genuinely want to know what it is he would cut from which department. How does he get from point A to point B, for me it's not enough to sit here and bitch that we aren't where we want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how much and what kind of tax cuts spur economic growth. That is, I'm sure squishy will argue that we would have had the same or about as much growth anyway without or at least without certain tax cuts.

I think we'd have been better off if W kept the top marginal tax rate the same and reducing corporate taxes, but who knows.

If we had an answer to this question we would just do it. Or would we? The ebbs and flows of national economies are extremely complex. Some people like to say, "Well when this guy was president," or "When this party controlled Congress. . ." In reality, decades old policies still effect the economy now. The short-term, I think, is mainly dictated by emotion, which can be irrationally optimistic or pessimistic. Having a government that's more involved can help control these factors, but the reps we have there are human too, plus it opens the door to corruption. Damn this crap is complicated! It's almost like there's so much to be fixed, so much work to do, it's discouraging from even starting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't even matter what I think. I am in the minority. The majority in this country believe in soaking the rich to prop up the welfare state. We are all Frenchmen ... well, most of us are. :D

Funny though in France and most every other European country you have very high consumption taxes, primarily in the form of the VAT, which is highly regressive. Don't even mention gas taxes, which, if we paid the same, would bring a gallon of gas to something like $7 or $8 a gallon.

See my link. In France, VAT results in a near 20 percent sales tax.

So I guess you can say everyone gets soaked in Europe, one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just been thinking the other day that Europe is called socialist evil by many pundits (or heaven depending on who you ask), but when I was there as a tourist, the sales tax was gigantic, and that tax is far more regressive than our income tax here. In fact the cheapest sales tax as I remember it, might have been Greece's, the country whose finances are falling apart. Denmark's was through the roof and their economy is doing fine.

Edited by Devils Dose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.