Obama State of the Union Address...

[pmrmd]

Exactly why there should be no mandated minimum wage. The market will decide. If employer X pays 2 bucks an hour, they get an individual worth that amount. Offer 20 an hour and the quality goes up. Also I believe the 15 minimum is in Seattle proper and is not mandated until 2017, so the paychex data will tell much more of a story then and future comparisons will need to be made between Seattle and its burbs to see how many barristas are still employed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pmrmd]

they wont be able to see a PP pain doc. ok. point taken.

they will be able to find some crappy doc or NP that can check their BP and manage their diabetes. if you get out of your sub-specialist's bubble and see the bigger picture, you might see that the ACA isnt all bad. of course, its not as good as single payer, but thats another story.

to sum up: obamacare bad for us but good for the country.

Somehow I missed this post. It's entirely wrong. Simple office visits and diabetes management costs are being forced onto the patients. Deductibles used to be $300. This silver plan **** is $3,000 per the quoted example. That could be the entire year of office visits and diabetes management that the patient is now paying themselves in exchange for having a higher monthly premium. That 55 year old diabetic is now paying for maternity they don't want or need, but I'm sure their appreciation for that coverage bubbled forthwith. And while we are talking about bubbles, try to let some outside info regarding single payor into yours.

 

[Ligament]

Obama:

The rich have stuff. You don't have as much stuff.

I'm going to take their stuff and give it to you people with less stuff.

You don't need to earn it. You just need to suck on the government tit and vote for me.

 

[powermd]

Exactly why there should be no mandated minimum wage. The market will decide. If employer X pays 2 bucks an hour, they get an individual worth that amount. Offer 20 an hour and the quality goes up. Also I believe the 15 minimum is in Seattle proper and is not mandated until 2017, so the paychex data will tell much more of a story then and future comparisons will need to be made between Seattle and its burbs to see how many barristas are still employed.

I'm always suspicious when people espouse market absolutism. What is best for the individual or corporation is not always what's best for aggregate society. The issue of minimum wage seems intertwined with the thresholds for our social safety nets. Should companies like Walmart get to save money on benefits by paying poverty rates?

 

[powermd]

Obama:

The rich have stuff. You don't have as much stuff.

I'm going to take their stuff and give it to you people with less stuff.

You don't need to earn it. You just need to suck on the government tit and vote for me.

The hatred is strong in this one.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I'm always suspicious when people espouse market absolutism. What is best for the individual or corporation is not always what's best for aggregate society. The issue of minimum wage seems intertwined with the thresholds for our social safety nets. Should companies like Walmart get to save money on benefits by paying poverty rates?

You seem to believe the free market is a tool for government to use in order to put in place a vision of society. I believe the opposite: government is a tool for the free market. I think at the core, you believe government represents the people better than the free market. I disagree.

For example, you may say that teachers don't get paid enough. Therefore, you elect a government that mandates a higher paying salary for teachers. After all, enlightened societies must place a high value on education. The market however betrays the actual value you place on teachers.

Personally, I think government is necessary to 'maintain' a free and competitive market. For example, a market can easily be monopolized by a single player, which can then intentionally stifle competition. I don't know if you call that absolutism...

 

[powermd]

You seem to believe the free market is a tool for government to use in order to put in place a vision of society. I believe the opposite: government is a tool for the free market. I think at the core, you believe government represents the people better than the free market. I disagree.

[snip]

Personally, I think government is necessary to 'maintain' a free and competitive market. For example, a market can easily be monopolized by a single player, which can then intentionally stifle competition. I don't know if you call that absolutism...

Then we mostly agree.

Although when you say you believe the government is a tool of the free market, I would disagree and say it's a tool for society at large. That is, people- not entities.

My problem with free market capitalism starts when one player gets so powerful it can engage in anticompetitive behavior and can muscle customers, suppliers, employees, and maybe even the government. Regulators need to remember that large corporations are loyal to capital, not to their customers, employees, the government, or society at large. This loyalty is at it's core sociopathic and needs to be kept in check.

As far as teachers are concerned, I would say you get what you pay for- provided that the market for teachers is kept competitive. The problem arises of how you measure a teacher's performance fairly in order to determine who gets fired, and who gets promoted. Test scores alone tell you nothing about whether the teacher inspired curiosity, resilience, tolerance, ingenuity, creativity, honor... all things we need in a healthy society and competitive economy.

 

[pmrmd]

I'm always suspicious when people espouse market absolutism. What is best for the individual or corporation is not always what's best for aggregate society. The issue of minimum wage seems intertwined with the thresholds for our social safety nets. Should companies like Walmart get to save money on benefits by paying poverty rates?

Wal-Mart pays above the minimum wage already. I would guarantee if the federal or state minimum goes away Wal-Mart doesn't lower the hourly wage. They have stores to operate and lowering wages leads to employee turmoil, employee turnover, higher costs, and lower profit overall. Any manager knows this. Is it your contention that they would lower the hourly rate to put people into Medicaid?

 

[powermd]

Wal-Mart pays above the minimum wage already. I would guarantee if the federal or state minimum goes away Wal-Mart doesn't lower the hourly wage. They have stores to operate and lowering wages leads to employee turmoil, employee turnover, higher costs, and lower profit overall. Any manager knows this. Is it your contention that they would lower the hourly rate to put people into Medicaid?

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

My concern comes from reports like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052502162.html

where Walmart does crafty things like limit hours in order to shift full time employees to part time in order to cut costs. Of course, their rationale is squeaky clean.

 

[hyperalgesia]

The big picture here is that the wealthy have been favored for a long time and it's killing the middle class. We need to find a way to recirculate cash from the top to the middle. Hanauer suggested raising the minimum wage, pointing out the benefits he has observed in Seattle. That's one option. Changes in the tax code are another.

I just don't think you have the right to 'recirculate cash' no matter how unfair you may think it is or how worthy you believe the cause to be. You basically signed an agreement with Steve Jobs when you bought your iphone. Now you are saying you don't think it's fair that he got your money and you got his product. You want to change the rules and say he has to give an extra 50% of his earnings to 'society'. Even as you purchase another iphone. The deal I made with Bill Gates was that I get Windows 7 and he gets some money. I am completely comfortable with that deal and he doesn't owe me or my society anything else - it wasn't part of the deal. He can use his money to buy confetti, it's his business.

Another issue I take with the liberal view is that it seems to imply that there is a big pie of wealth that arrives on the shores of America and it gets divided up at some point. The reality is that Steve Jobs CREATED VALUE, like an artist turns clay into sculpture, the product has value that simply did not exist before. So when you buy the sculpture and give the artist money, you both win.

 

[powermd]

I just don't think you have the right to 'recirculate cash' no matter how unfair you may think it is or how worthy you believe the cause to be. You basically signed an agreement with Steve Jobs when you bought your iphone. Now you are saying you don't think it's fair that he got your money and you got his product. You want to change the rules and say he has to give an extra 50% of his earnings to 'society'. Even as you purchase another iphone. The deal I made with Bill Gates was that I get Windows 7 and he gets some money. I am completely comfortable with that deal and he doesn't owe me or my society anything else - it wasn't part of the deal. He can use his money to buy confetti, it's his business.

Another issue I take with the liberal view is that it seems to imply that there is a big pie of wealth that arrives on the shores of America and it gets divided up at some point. The reality is that Steve Jobs CREATED VALUE, like an artist turns clay into sculpture, the product has value that simply did not exist before. So when you buy the sculpture and give the artist money, you both win.

It sounds like you don't believe in taxation.

I don't have an issue with a guy making money selling a product he created.

I do have an issue with the trickle-down taxation policies we've had for thirty years. Capital gains, dividends, and carried interest should all have been taxed the same as earned income in the interest of fairness and with a goal of supporting the middle class. I think some correction of this flawed policy is in order. Perhaps increased estate taxes is the way to do it.

 

[lobelsteve]

10% flat tax. On all income. No deductions, no loopholes. No withholding unless desired.

Thoughts?

 

[pmrmd]

I do have an issue with the trickle-down taxation policies we've had for thirty years. Capital gains, dividends, and carried interest should all have been taxed the same as earned income in the interest of fairness and with a goal of supporting the middle class. I think some correction of this flawed policy is in order. Perhaps increased estate taxes is the way to do it.

Wait just a second. A low capital gains tax rate helps EVERYONE. Anyone can buy stock for a few dollars a trade. Anyone can make a profit. A low capital gains rate increases tax revenue and a high rate lowers it. We know this already. Its not up for debate. If you want to redistribute wealth you have to have the tax revenue to do it, and you have more of it by a lower rate. Estates are the money left over after paying taxes. Having to give any of it to the government is theft and should be proscribed. If you want fairness, go Steve's way with the flat tax. The rich guy pays more than the poor guy but EVERYONE pays because government programs affect/help EVERYONE. The taxation we have had the last 30 years has been rigged to buy votes by having less and less people pay tax though they certainly use the services taxes fund. You should be upset at that. We should all be paying 10-15% of income, no deductions. Steve for President.

 

[lobelsteve]

Wait just a second. A low capital gains tax rate helps EVERYONE. Anyone can buy stock for a few dollars a trade. Anyone can make a profit. A low capital gains rate increases tax revenue and a high rate lowers it. We know this already. Its not up for debate. If you want to redistribute wealth you have to have the tax revenue to do it, and you have more of it by a lower rate. Estates are the money left over after paying taxes. Having to give any of it to the government is theft and should be proscribed. If you want fairness, go Steve's way with the flat tax. The rich guy pays more than the poor guy but EVERYONE pays because government programs affect/help EVERYONE. The taxation we have had the last 30 years has been rigged to buy votes by having less and less people pay tax though they certainly use the services taxes fund. You should be upset at that. We should all be paying 10-15% of income, no deductions. Steve for President.

Head exploded. Was already too big. Man ypu should npt see the skeletons in my closet.

 

[pastafan]

10% flat tax. On all income. No deductions, no loopholes. No withholding unless desired.

Thoughts?

Flat tax at 6% would probably generate more government revenue than the current system but would require one change. Eliminate cash, all transactions would be on plastic. Small business is a major component of the economy and most cash businesses under report income. Combine this with the "disabled" working for cash, cash transactions from drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. and that is why those of us that work pay so much. The side benefit would be to wipe out a huge amount of crime and resources spent chasing criminals since they couldn't hide their money.

 

[powermd]

Wait just a second. A low capital gains tax rate helps EVERYONE. Anyone can buy stock for a few dollars a trade. Anyone can make a profit. A low capital gains rate increases tax revenue and a high rate lowers it. We know this already. Its not up for debate. If you want to redistribute wealth you have to have the tax revenue to do it, and you have more of it by a lower rate. Estates are the money left over after paying taxes. Having to give any of it to the government is theft and should be proscribed. If you want fairness, go Steve's way with the flat tax. The rich guy pays more than the poor guy but EVERYONE pays because government programs affect/help EVERYONE. The taxation we have had the last 30 years has been rigged to buy votes by having less and less people pay tax though they certainly use the services taxes fund. You should be upset at that. We should all be paying 10-15% of income, no deductions. Steve for President.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

Sure, anyone can buy stock and make a profit. But according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 5% of earners benefit from 83% of capital gains income.

No room for debate on revenue vs the capital gains rate?

Some of the salient points from the progressive-leaning page above:

While a capital gains tax cut can lead investors to rush to “cash in” their capital gains when the lower rate first takes effect, it does not raise revenue over the long run.

• Especially when a capital gains cut is temporary, like the 2003 tax cut that Gibson cited, investors have a strong incentive to sell stocks and other assets in order to realize their capital gains before the capital gains tax rate increases. This can cause a short-term increase in capital gains tax revenues, as happened after the 2003 tax cut.
• Capital gains revenues also increased after 2003 because the stock market went up. But the stock market increase was not a result of the 2003 tax cut, as a study by Federal Reserve economists found. European stocks, which did not benefit from the U.S. capital gains tax cut, performed as well as stocks in the U.S. market in the period following the tax cut.
• To raise revenue over the long run, capital gains tax cuts would need to have extraordinary huge, positive effects on saving, investment, and economic growth that virtually no respected expert or institution believes they have. In fact, experts are not even sure that the long-term economic effects of these capital gains tax cuts are positive rather then negative.
  
  One reason is that preferential tax rates for capital gains encourage tax sheltering, by creating incentives for taxpayers to take often-convoluted steps to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains. This is economically unproductive and wastes resources. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s director Leonard Burman, one of the nation’s leading tax experts, has explained, “shelter investments are invariably lousy, unproductive ventures that would never exist but for tax benefits.” Burman has concluded that, “capital gains tax cuts are as likely to depress the economy as to stimulate it.”

Middle-income families derive only a miniscule benefit from the 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends.
Charles Gibson’s second statement — that 100 million Americans own stock and would be affected by a change in the capital gains tax rate — also is mistaken.

• Most middle-income Americans own much or all of their stock through 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred saving accounts. They do not pay taxes when their stocks within those accounts go up, so a change in the tax rate doesn’t affect them.
• Even among the minority of middle-class Americans who do benefit from the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, the benefits are very small. This is because capital gains and dividend income is highly concentrated at the very top of the income scale. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income.
• According to the Tax Policy Center, the average household in the middle of the income spectrum received $20 from the 2003 capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The average household earning over $1 million received $32,000, or 1,600 times as much.
  

 

[pmrmd]

A. Never trust anything from the political left. It will not be truthful. Their end goal is not compatible with the U.S.A.
B. Anyone from any income tier can buy stock. There are fortunes to be made in inexpensive stocks. Revenues went up after the tax cuts in the 1990s and helped balance the budget.

 

[hyperalgesia]

No room for debate on revenue vs the capital gains rate?

Capital gains are not income and should not be taxed at all. A person already earned the money and was taxed on the money. Now they are taking a huge risk by investing in companies, etc. You're saying that IF that money returns anything, they are to be taxed AGAIN?

 

[powermd]

A. Never trust anything from the political left. It will not be truthful. Their end goal is not compatible with the U.S.A.
B. Anyone from any income tier can buy stock. There are fortunes to be made in inexpensive stocks. Revenues went up after the tax cuts in the 1990s and helped balance the budget.

1. Never trust anything from the political right. It will not be truthful. Their end goal is not compatible with the USA, whatever that means.
2. Anyone from any income tier can buy stock. But only the wealthy can make a living that way. There are fortunes to be made AND lost in inexpensive stocks. I sure hope you're not advocating penny-stocks. http://www.nasdaq.com/investing/lowdown-on-penny-stocks.stm

And, from https://www.american.edu/spa/publicpurpose/upload/2011-Public-Purpose-Flat-Tax.pdf

"The increase in taxes during the early 1990s, combined with a prolonged economic expansion,
produced a budget surplus of $281 billion in 2000, and cumulative projected surpluses
of $5.6 trillion over the next ten years.13 Despite the excellent opportunity to pay down public
debt afforded by a surplus, tax rates (and revenues) dropped dramatically under President
George W. Bush as part of a broader conservative return to support of the flat tax proposals
first made under President Reagan."

It was a tax INCREASE that helped raise revenues and balance the budget. Bush's tax cuts, among numerous other things, led to the great recession.

 

[powermd]

Capital gains are not income and should not be taxed at all. A person already earned the money and was taxed on the money. Now they are taking a huge risk by investing in companies, etc. You're saying that IF that money returns anything, they are to be taxed AGAIN?

One can make a pretty good living flipping assets.

How is profit on a sale not income?

Hedge funders even get to pay the capital gains rate on the percentage of profits they take on capital that is not even theirs. Can you believe that?

 

[drusso]

Then we mostly agree.

Although when you say you believe the government is a tool of the free market, I would disagree and say it's a tool for society at large. That is, people- not entities.

My problem with free market capitalism starts when one player gets so powerful it can engage in anticompetitive behavior and can muscle customers, suppliers, employees, and maybe even the government. Regulators need to remember that large corporations are loyal to capital, not to their customers, employees, the government, or society at large. This loyalty is at it's core sociopathic and needs to be kept in check.

We are seeing this happen in medicine with the consolidation of health care markets by large physician employers, ACO's, and vertically-aligned health purchasing programs. It is anti-competitive, anti-American, and at its core antithetical to the ethical practice of medicine (ie the Corporate Practice of Medicine). When clip-board yielding RN's dictate to MD's where to refer patients for what service...we have a problem.

 

[Ducttape]

Wait just a second. A low capital gains tax rate helps EVERYONE. Anyone can buy stock for a few dollars a trade. Anyone can make a profit. A low capital gains rate increases tax revenue and a high rate lowers it. We know this already. Its not up for debate. If you want to redistribute wealth you have to have the tax revenue to do it, and you have more of it by a lower rate. Estates are the money left over after paying taxes. Having to give any of it to the government is theft and should be proscribed. If you want fairness, go Steve's way with the flat tax. The rich guy pays more than the poor guy but EVERYONE pays because government programs affect/help EVERYONE. The taxation we have had the last 30 years has been rigged to buy votes by having less and less people pay tax though they certainly use the services taxes fund. You should be upset at that. We should all be paying 10-15% of income, no deductions. Steve for President.

this is actually wrong.

the system is destroying the middle class, and capital gains significantly favor the rich, those with money to invest, not the middle class. You guys are NOT the middle class, in case you were wondering.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/22/states-where-the-middle-class-is-dying/


in terms of walmart, i know this is biased, but as a counterpoint (and some of these facts are verifiable):

http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/

• About
• Facts
• Blog
• Press
• News

Fact Sheet – Wages
Download a PDF on this topic.

Walmart jobs are poverty-level jobs.
Walmart’s average sale Associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of 34 hours per week1. This is significantly below the 2010 Federal Poverty Level of $22,050 for a family of four. The Wall Street Journal reported that the average Walmart cashier makes just $8.48 an hour, far below the $11.22 national average for all cashiers.

Walmart can afford to pay higher wages.
According to a 2011 report (PDF), if Walmart started paying a $12/hour minimum wage, its workers currently earning less than $9 per hour could each earn $3,250 to $6,500 more per year before taxes. If Walmart were to pass this cost directly to shoppers, the average consumer would need to pay only 46 cents more per shopping trip, or $12.50 per year.

In 2010, Walmart CEO Mike Duke received $18.7 million in total compensation, or 1,201 times the annual income of the average Walmart sale Associate.

Walmart’s entry into a market depressed wages, displacing better-paying retail jobs.
A 2005 study (PDF)found that Walmart’s entry into a metropolitan area eliminates similar jobs that pay about 18% more than Walmart. In those areas, the total average earnings of retail workers fell by 0.5 to 0.8% .

Walmart’s average wage for sales associates2 is distinctly lower than the wage for comparable positions at unionized competitors in key markets.

• The average Walmart sales associate earns 32% less than the average wage of a comparable UFCW worker at one of the three major supermarkets under the current contract for Southern California in 2011.3
• The average Walmart sales associate earns 21% less than an average comparable retail worker covered by a UFCW contract with a large employer in Massachusetts.4

 

[pmrmd]

1. Never trust anything from the political right. It will not be truthful. Their end goal is not compatible with the USA, whatever that means.
2. Anyone from any income tier can buy stock. But only the wealthy can make a living that way. There are fortunes to be made AND lost in inexpensive stocks. I sure hope you're not advocating penny-stocks. http://www.nasdaq.com/investing/lowdown-on-penny-stocks.stm

And, from https://www.american.edu/spa/publicpurpose/upload/2011-Public-Purpose-Flat-Tax.pdf

"The increase in taxes during the early 1990s, combined with a prolonged economic expansion,
produced a budget surplus of $281 billion in 2000, and cumulative projected surpluses
of $5.6 trillion over the next ten years.13 Despite the excellent opportunity to pay down public
debt afforded by a surplus, tax rates (and revenues) dropped dramatically under President
George W. Bush as part of a broader conservative return to support of the flat tax proposals
first made under President Reagan."

It was a tax INCREASE that helped raise revenues and balance the budget. Bush's tax cuts, among numerous other things, led to the great recession.

1. The political left at its extreme favors socialism, and that is incompatible with America. Leftist sites espouse this goal.
2. If you think tax cuts led to a recession, then I wonder if you feel that the Clinton tax hikes of 93 led to the late 90s boom. Because they didn't. That only happened after the tax change in 95-96. In a coherent sentence, tell me how the tax cuts led to a recession. The last I checked it was due to an asset bubble created by A. People not understanding they were responsible for a loan but just presuming they could flip a house forever and B. Ridiculously lax lending standards. GWB had nothing to do with either.

 

[hyperalgesia]

One can make a pretty good living flipping assets.

How is profit on a sale not income?

Hedge funders even get to pay the capital gains rate on the percentage of profits they take on capital that is not even theirs. Can you believe that?

What do you think of an American that has no real interest in society but is simply jealous and bitter that his neighbor makes more money than him? Would it be ok for him to take action against his neighbor, legal or otherwise, for the simple reason that he is jealous and it seems unfair?

 

[SSdoc33]

so let me get this straight:

the flat taxers want to get 10% of their earnings taken out instead of 30. so, if you make 500k, you would pay 50k in taxes instead of the 150k.

of COURSE you support this.

this has nothing to do with policy or whats best for the nation. it is what is best for YOU. pure greed.

the progressive tax code is fair. if you are lucky/smart/talented enough to make a lot of money, you have to be good enough to give a decent chunk of it back to the society that allowed you to do so. sorry.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” - the immortal Elizabeth Warren



(i added immortal because i wanted to hear the steam pour out of your ears)

and no, a flat tax will not generate more revenue that a progressive one

 

[lobelsteve]

so let me get this straight:

the flat taxers want to get 10% of their earnings taken out instead of 30. so, if you make 500k, you would pay 50k in taxes instead of the 150k.

of COURSE you support this.

this has nothing to do with policy or whats best for the nation. it is what is best for YOU. pure greed.

the progressive tax code is fair. if you are lucky/smart/talented enough to make a lot of money, you have to be good enough to give a decent chunk of it back to the society that allowed you to do so. sorry.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” - the immortal Elizabeth Warren



(i added immortal because i wanted to hear the steam pour out of your ears)

and no, a flat tax will not generate more revenue that a progressive one

Except that with current deductions and loopholes I can pay much less. It is a shell game.
Obama has a public tax return, he pays less in taxes than I do and he has a book that makes millions. Shell game.

 

[SSdoc33]

Except that with current deductions and loopholes I can pay much less. It is a shell game.
Obama has a public tax return, he pays less in taxes than I do and he has a book that makes millions. Shell game.

one way or another the high earners still should pay more on a percentage of their income basis. sure, get rid of the loopholes and lower the overall rates, but it still needs to be stratified based on income.

 

[lobelsteve]

one way or another the high earners still should pay more on a percentage of their income basis. sure, get rid of the loopholes and lower the overall rates, but it still needs to be stratified based on income.

Each his fare share.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. None of this redistribution of wealth BS. No job: build a road for the govt. Where is Harry with his plan?

 

[hyperalgesia]

There would be a benefit just from simplifying it. If you said 10% or 25% or whatever flat tax on all income, inc capital gains, dividends, etc, it would be so much harder for congress to manipulate and there would be much more stability.

 

[Ligament]

one way or another the high earners still should pay more on a percentage of their income basis. sure, get rid of the loopholes and lower the overall rates, but it still needs to be stratified based on income.

No they should not. That is punishing them for success. Everybody should pay a flat tax. Too poor to pay a flat tax? Get a better job, don't have so many kids, or just suffer. I don't care, they are not my problem. SSdoc if you want these folks to be YOUR problem, by all means pay more taxes voluntarily. Thats called charity.

 

[powermd]

What do you think of an American that has no real interest in society but is simply jealous and bitter that his neighbor makes more money than him? Would it be ok for him to take action against his neighbor, legal or otherwise, for the simple reason that he is jealous and it seems unfair?

Is that your thinly veiled caricature of our President?

 

[Ducttape]

No they should not. That is punishing them for success. Everybody should pay a flat tax. Too poor to pay a flat tax? Get a better job, don't have so many kids, or just suffer. I don't care, they are not my problem.

This is why revolutions occur.

 

[powermd]

No they should not. That is punishing them for success. Everybody should pay a flat tax. Too poor to pay a flat tax? Get a better job, don't have so many kids, or just suffer. I don't care, they are not my problem. SSdoc if you want these folks to be YOUR problem, by all means pay more taxes voluntarily. Thats called charity.

And they say conservatives lack empathy...

A flat tax seems fair at first glance, but disproportionately burdens the poor. A guy taking care of a family of four feels the pinch of a 20% loss of his $30,000 income much more than a guy making $300,000. One way to deal with that is to set the threshold for the tax above the basic cost of living for working people.

The 20% figure comes from the American University study exploring flat tax proposals I posted a ways back.

 

[powermd]

We are seeing this happen in medicine with the consolidation of health care markets by large physician employers, ACO's, and vertically-aligned health purchasing programs. It is anti-competitive, anti-American, and at its core antithetical to the ethical practice of medicine (ie the Corporate Practice of Medicine). When clip-board yielding RN's dictate to MD's where to refer patients for what service...we have a problem.

I was waiting for somebody to point that out.

One of my favorite ways to piss away time on the internet is to look over the reviews of companies at Glassdoor.com. It provides insight into stocks I might trade, but also makes me feel good to live a life not under the thumb of a major corporation. One of the things ACOs promise to do is put physicians under that thumb.

 

[hyperalgesia]

And they say conservatives lack empathy...

A flat tax seems fair at first glance, but disproportionately burdens the poor. A guy taking care of a family of four feels the pinch of a 20% loss of his $30,000 income much more than a guy making $300,000. One way to deal with that is to set the threshold for the tax above the basic cost of living for working people.

The 20% figure comes from the American University study exploring flat tax proposals I posted a ways back.

Everyone should have to sacrifice something and to contribute to society in order to vote. Just like taxation without representation is wrong, so is representation without taxation. Close to 50% of voting eligible Americans pay no taxes.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Is that your thinly veiled caricature of our President?

Actually no, I'm trying to dissect your liberal gland. My theory is that some folks are unable to separate personal feelings from objective policy analysis. They have an emotional reaction and then rationalize a compensatory but ultimately destructive response.

 

[Ducttape]

Everyone should have to sacrifice something and to contribute to society in order to vote. Just like taxation without representation is wrong, so is representation without taxation. Close to 50% of voting eligible Americans pay no taxes.

Again, patently wrong and the conclusion is nonsequitur.

Fyi this means that college students can't vote. Those who make their income entirely on capital gains and pay no tax cannot vote. Those on SSI cannot vote, eliminating essentially most elderly. Of course, the poor....

 

[powermd]

Actually no, I'm trying to dissect your liberal gland. My theory is that some folks are unable to separate personal feelings from objective policy analysis. They have an emotional reaction and then rationalize a compensatory but ultimately destructive response.

I would say that I'm liberally minded, although in no way tribal about it the way some just mindlessly spout their party's talking points as if it's undisputed truth. I have empathy for those less fortunate than me, but I also recognize that plenty of poor people actually deserve their lot in life. I recognize that being generous to poor people can have a variety of undesirable unintended consequences. Another way of saying that is to say I think liberals usually have their heart in the right place, but their head is in the wrong place. Conversely, I think conservatives often have their heart in the wrong place... with too much emphasis on "what's in it for me" failing to see that they benefit indirectly when others do well. Their heads are no clearer than anyone else's.

 

[lobelsteve]

Again, patently wrong and the conclusion is nonsequitur.

Fyi this means that college students can't vote. Those who make their income entirely on capital gains and pay no tax cannot vote. Those on SSI cannot vote, eliminating essentially most elderly. Of course, the poor....

If the government is paying you not to work.... no vote for you.

 

[Ligament]

And they say conservatives lack empathy...

A flat tax seems fair at first glance, but disproportionately burdens the poor. A guy taking care of a family of four feels the pinch of a 20% loss of his $30,000 income much more than a guy making $300,000. One way to deal with that is to set the threshold for the tax above the basic cost of living for working people.

The 20% figure comes from the American University study exploring flat tax proposals I posted a ways back.

There is a difference between being empathic and being patronizing and promoting dependence. Let people earn their way.

 

[powermd]

There is a difference between being empathic and being patronizing and promoting dependence. Let people earn their way.

Agreed. But part of being empathetic to the lower classes is recognizing they are in an increasingly feudalism like state, and taking action to improve their opportunities. This makes class mobility a reality for those with the ability and will to succeed.

One goal in redistributing wealth to the middle class is to open up opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist so more people can "earn their way" at more than a subsistence level. Think about it. As a small business owner or entrepreneur, wouldn't you want there to be a larger customer base with disposable income to spend on your products? You can only sell so much "stuff" to the upper 10%. More customers allows more entrepreneurship leading to greater innovation and productivity gains. Not a bad deal. But you can't get past the whole "redistribution is stealing" thing, right?

 

[pmrmd]

We already spend the most in the world per student on education. There are tons of scholarships available and --hey!-- Obama just federalized the student loan business, so now there should be easy paths to make PhDs as ubiquitous as the flat HDTV in every kids home, lower income strata included. Eventually the left will have to realize that its up to the person to do something with their lives and the government cannot do it for them. Except for CRNAs, I guess, who were legislated as equals though they don't have the background to be. Maybe Obama can just legislate everyone an advanced degree so their incomes can be higher? How about those free community colleges offering a 2-year M.D. program. An extra month and he can do pain in the Northeast.

 

[powermd]

We already spend the most in the world per student on education. There are tons of scholarships available and --hey!-- Obama just federalized the student loan business, so now there should be easy paths to make PhDs as ubiquitous as the flat HDTV in every kids home, lower income strata included. Eventually the left will have to realize that its up to the person to do something with their lives and the government cannot do it for them. Except for CRNAs, I guess, who were legislated as equals though they don't have the background to be. Maybe Obama can just legislate everyone an advanced degree so their incomes can be higher? How about those free community colleges offering a 2-year M.D. program. An extra month and he can do pain in the Northeast.

Without a lot of middle class disposable income it really doesn't matter how much we dump into education. You'll have an army of overeducated people twiddling their thumbs with no jobs to do. Our economy is based on consumption and services. We go nowhere without middle class consumption, so they need money to spend. The government can definitely help with that.

 

[pmrmd]

Without a lot of middle class disposable income it really doesn't matter how much we dump into education. You'll have an army of overeducated people twiddling their thumbs with no jobs to do. Our economy is based on consumption and services. We go nowhere without middle class consumption, so they need money to spend. The government can definitely help with that.

Lol, really? The last time the government tried to help we increased jobs in China while we added to our debt. It did not even reach the stated goal for jobs. It was called the stimulus. Democrats had to change the goalposts to even make the conversation palatable. Job creation became created or saved and the the target unemployment rate was plain forgotten. And we haven't paid for it yet.

 

[SSdoc33]

Lol, really? The last time the government tried to help we increased jobs in China while we added to our debt. It did not even reach the stated goal for jobs. It was called the stimulus. Democrats had to change the goalposts to even make the conversation palatable. Job creation became created or saved and the the target unemployment rate was plain forgotten. And we haven't paid for it yet.

did we pay the 2 trillion for GWB's unnecessary wars? c'mon

 

[SSdoc33]

We already spend the most in the world per student on education.

incorrect

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list...at-spend-the-most-on-their-students/?view=all

also, this doesnt include some of the middle eastern countries who send their nationals to college (kuwait, saudi arabia, oman, ?qatar?, )

 

[pmrmd]

did we pay the 2 trillion for GWB's unnecessary wars? c'mon

Non sequitur

 

[powermd]

Lol, really? The last time the government tried to help we increased jobs in China while we added to our debt. It did not even reach the stated goal for jobs. It was called the stimulus. Democrats had to change the goalposts to even make the conversation palatable. Job creation became created or saved and the the target unemployment rate was plain forgotten. And we haven't paid for it yet.

So what's your plan instead if you don't want the government to act? Do nothing, and let income and wealth inequality continue to accelerate? Think feudalism. Do you really want that?

 

[SSdoc33]

Non sequitur

Not really.

You said we haven't paid for the stimulus. We wouldn't have needed it if the good ol boy from Texas didn't waste all of our money on 2 unwinnable wars

 

[pmrmd]

Not really.

You said we haven't paid for the stimulus. We wouldn't have needed it if the good ol boy from Texas didn't waste all of our money on 2 unwinnable wars

Yes, really. The topic was the economy and how to stimulate it. Powermd thought the government could help with that when it already failed at it. To add to the conversation you bring up Afghanistan and Iraq. I can only guess as to why. Were the wars about stimulating the economy? No. One was about ridding the world of a bunch of crazies and one was about making a democracy in the middle of the region to try to bring the rest of them into the 20th century at least. Your last sentence makes even less sense. "We wouldn't have needed it if the good ol boy from Texas didn't waste all of our money on 2 unwinnable wars"--Okaaaaay. I don't know what you read, but Iraq/Afghanistan did not lead to the recession.