ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Not really
Most of the money goes back into the economy
And its worth it for the long-term social benifits
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Welfare.
- Thread starter Storm613
- Start date
Most of the money goes back into the economy
And its worth it for the long-term social benifits
Reminds me of a joke, that's funny because it's oh so true:
What's the little box on a SKY dish called?
A council house.
(SKY is a subscription satellite channel in the UK that costs at least $350pa, and a council house is State supplied housing - for those in the US and elsewhere not familiar)
(SKY is a subscription satellite channel in the UK that costs at least $350pa, and a council house is State supplied housing - for those in the US and elsewhere not familiar)
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
If you are referring to my welfare solution... here are my thoughts and questions.
It teaches welfare recipients a marketable skill and encourages them to get off welfare, and get a job that pays a decent wage. How is that for the rich?
If you are referring to my statement about raising the minimum wage.
That's common logic. Seriously, if you raise the cost to make things, then the price of everything goes up. If the price of everything goes up, and YOUR pay didn't go up, then you, in effect, must spend more on necessities and have less discretionary spending.
Minimum wage will ALWAYS be below the poverty line. There is nothing Congress, or anyone else can do about that.
If I'm rude here, I'm sorry. I'm trying not to be, but I don't see how to explain this without being rude.
This statement makes no sense. The money goes back into the economy anyway. Nothing's changed on that front. There are no long term social benefits. Here's why.
Wage increases are passed to the customer in form of price increases. Raising minimum wage does no good, if those on minimum wage cannot BUY more than they already could.
When minimum wage goes up, the prices of goods and services go up. When the prices of Goods and Services go up, those on minimum wage can pretty much only buy what they could already buy before. However, if you made more than minimum wage, your wages did NOT go up, and the price of goods and services DID go up, then you can buy LESS than you could before.
Raising minimum wage dampens the economy and makes everything more expensive. Those who already made more than minimum wage.
Minimum wage will ALWAYS be below the poverty line. There is nothing anyone can do about it. No matter how many times Congress raises the minimum wage, it will ALWAYS be below the poverty line.
If Congress raised the minimum wage to $50k per year, then everyone who made $50k per year would now be below the poverty line.
There are no long term social benefits. There are only long term social problems.
For instance, if you made $9.00/hr and Minimum wage was $4.15/hr, then you are making twice minimum wage. You are likely above the poverty line.
When minimum wage goes up, the poverty line follows. Moving minimum wage up to $7.25/hr means that you have roughly the same buying power as the old $5.80/hr. You are likely now going to be below the poverty line. The poverty line move isn't immediate, but it does happen. Businesses pass the increase costs onto you the consumer. Businesses aren't going to start taking a loss, or less profits. They ARE going to pass those costs onto the consumer, and that IS going to cause the poverty line to rise.
Raising the minimum wage brings EVERYBODY down. It doesn't raise ANYONE up.
The only thing that raising the minimum wage is good for... is getting votes. The poverty problem is far more complicated than raising the minimum wage. IF you want to get people out of poverty, that involves helping them get a better job.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I see what you are saying, but in my state, raising the minimum wage *seems* to have had a positive effect
I agree, prices went up, but in my state, during the boom any excuse to raise prices was used
Also it has pervented ghettoisation of immigrants largely, which is a cost saver in the long-term
I'm inclined to partially agree with byteware on the minimum wage issue.
I do think there should be a minimum wage to avoid exploitation, but in setting it I'd like to see it follow inflation in RPI(Retail Price Index, I assume there's an equivalent measure in the US?) I know it's a little chicken and egg, but surely there could be a way to link the MW to follow the RPI??
In addition I'd say that whatever meddling is done to any MW, for most 'Western' countries, the raising of import duties would have more positive effects on their economies.
I'm not saying that competition isn't good, but if the wages in Country X are only low(and therefore overly-competitive) because the workers are treated like shit, then do YOU want to benefit from the low price of Product X, at the cost to both the workers in Country X, and the workers(or unemployed) at home?
I know somebody that started an industrial company in the UK, worked incredibly hard for years, and then saw cheaper product flood his home market from China. He couldn't compete as a manufacturer, so he (reluctantly) started buying from the far east and becoming just a wholesaler. He then visited China to see the factories, and visit other factories for various products. He was astonished at the conditions of the workers, practices being used were similar to those he'd only heard of as distant horror stories from the old guys he worked with as an apprentice years earlier.
He asked the manager at one place where he was binging shown around if there was ever any accidents, and how they dealt with them if there were, because he wouldn't be allowed to operate like that for safety reasons. The manager explained that there was about 2deaths in that factory ever month, but not to worry because they dealt with them very well, and never missed a delivery!!
I do think there should be a minimum wage to avoid exploitation, but in setting it I'd like to see it follow inflation in RPI(Retail Price Index, I assume there's an equivalent measure in the US?) I know it's a little chicken and egg, but surely there could be a way to link the MW to follow the RPI??
In addition I'd say that whatever meddling is done to any MW, for most 'Western' countries, the raising of import duties would have more positive effects on their economies.
I'm not saying that competition isn't good, but if the wages in Country X are only low(and therefore overly-competitive) because the workers are treated like shit, then do YOU want to benefit from the low price of Product X, at the cost to both the workers in Country X, and the workers(or unemployed) at home?
I know somebody that started an industrial company in the UK, worked incredibly hard for years, and then saw cheaper product flood his home market from China. He couldn't compete as a manufacturer, so he (reluctantly) started buying from the far east and becoming just a wholesaler. He then visited China to see the factories, and visit other factories for various products. He was astonished at the conditions of the workers, practices being used were similar to those he'd only heard of as distant horror stories from the old guys he worked with as an apprentice years earlier.
He asked the manager at one place where he was binging shown around if there was ever any accidents, and how they dealt with them if there were, because he wouldn't be allowed to operate like that for safety reasons. The manager explained that there was about 2deaths in that factory ever month, but not to worry because they dealt with them very well, and never missed a delivery!!
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
I have to agree with byteware on this. It has nothing to do with a political party in any way and what he said wasn't a solution for welfare, but it is part of the problem. Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of living, kills off jobs and places more people on welfare. It effects both the rich and the poor, but the middle class get hit the hardest as far as cost of living goes. The poor get hit hard with job loss when employers have to let people go due to the rising cost of doing business. Only those that are foolish or just plain uninformed get excited over minimum wage increases.
Cost of living increase:
If the cost of doing business goes up, then the prices have to go up. If the prices go up, then the cost of living goes up. If the cost of living goes up, then what has the minimum wage accomplished? The only thing it has really done is cause a greater burden on the middle class.
Loss of Jobs:
An employer has 10 people working at minimum wage ($7 per hour) and finds an increase ($7.50 per hour) around the corner. This will change his $2,800 weekly payroll to $3,000 for these minimum wage people. He can't raise prices because it will cost him business. He can't cut cost by supplying an inferior product because that will also cost him business. He has to find a way to keep profits the same while taking on the increase in the cost of doing business. The solution? Let someone go and continue to do business the same as it has been.
More people on welfare:
That employee from the previous explanation is now out of a job and has to pay his bills. He can get unemployment, but it is only a fraction of what he was making before. He has to turn to the welfare system to make up the difference in lost wages. He is still be burdened by the cost of living increase though.
Not a lot of good in this overall. Plus, if you really think about it those that are making above minimum wage have now just received a pay cut in many ways due to the cost of living increase. It isn't like that many employers see a hike in the minimum wage as a reason to increase everyone's pay by the same percentage.
Minimum wage increases are feel good measures that make people feel like the government is trying to help them, but they are really doing nothing.
Some facts:
1) Less then 150 billion of the budget (out of over 3 trillion) goes to 'welfare" programs such as section 8, food stamps, EIC, ect
2) Medicaid is the biggest welfare program at over 300 Billion.
3) Technically... programs such as child tax credits ( most of us get ), education credits, veterans HC all are welfare and conservative blogs like to lump them into the total.
4) Min. wage has been going down when inflation is considered.
5) Min. wage increases has historically had no effect on inflation.
6) Min. wage increases has historically had no effect on total employment.
7) In the 1990s... the number of people on welfare went down.
8) in the 2000s... the number of people on welfare went up.
My views:
1) Sorry conservatives... under Bush there was a re-distribution of income to the upper class which moved more people towards welfare. ( and weakened the economy )
2) There is a % of people that are always going to be too lazy or unable to make a living on their own... the $1000/month they get is a drop in the bucket to our GDP and we shouldn't worry about it.
3) The goal is to get those that are working (and willing to work) higher wages so they add more into the economy.
4) One way or another a greater % income earned by workers needs to go to the workers.
5) Raising the min wage probably doesn't do much to achieve 4 above.
6) Profits pulled out of a company ( Stock Divs, Stock options, bonuses, ect) mean money not going to hire workers.
7) Profits pulled out of a company ( Stock Divs, Stock options, bonuses, ect) means less goes as income to the workers.
8) Tax policies of the last 10 years encouraged the taking of profits out of companies.
9) The saying of 'rich people create jobs' is wrong... companies re-investing their money into the company create jobs.
10) If you are going to allow large companies to shift all the jobs overseas while bleeding the company dry then push for small/medium businesses that create jobs.
11) Health care, including the welfare portion of it (medicaid) is the biggest drag on the economy these days and something needs to be done.
1) Less then 150 billion of the budget (out of over 3 trillion) goes to 'welfare" programs such as section 8, food stamps, EIC, ect
2) Medicaid is the biggest welfare program at over 300 Billion.
3) Technically... programs such as child tax credits ( most of us get ), education credits, veterans HC all are welfare and conservative blogs like to lump them into the total.
4) Min. wage has been going down when inflation is considered.
5) Min. wage increases has historically had no effect on inflation.
6) Min. wage increases has historically had no effect on total employment.
7) In the 1990s... the number of people on welfare went down.
8) in the 2000s... the number of people on welfare went up.
My views:
1) Sorry conservatives... under Bush there was a re-distribution of income to the upper class which moved more people towards welfare. ( and weakened the economy )
2) There is a % of people that are always going to be too lazy or unable to make a living on their own... the $1000/month they get is a drop in the bucket to our GDP and we shouldn't worry about it.
3) The goal is to get those that are working (and willing to work) higher wages so they add more into the economy.
4) One way or another a greater % income earned by workers needs to go to the workers.
5) Raising the min wage probably doesn't do much to achieve 4 above.
6) Profits pulled out of a company ( Stock Divs, Stock options, bonuses, ect) mean money not going to hire workers.
7) Profits pulled out of a company ( Stock Divs, Stock options, bonuses, ect) means less goes as income to the workers.
8) Tax policies of the last 10 years encouraged the taking of profits out of companies.
9) The saying of 'rich people create jobs' is wrong... companies re-investing their money into the company create jobs.
10) If you are going to allow large companies to shift all the jobs overseas while bleeding the company dry then push for small/medium businesses that create jobs.
11) Health care, including the welfare portion of it (medicaid) is the biggest drag on the economy these days and something needs to be done.
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
#1 - I won't argue that because I have not read the budget
#2 - Won't argue that either.
#3 - Not sure how tax credits are considered welfare when it is typically money that we put in in the first place. I'd like to see the source on this.
#4 - Probably true
#5 - This is a given as inflation deals with the declining value of money and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause money to become less valuable. Now, as far as cost of living goes, historically it does show that a raise in the minimum wage will increase the cost of living for the reasons already pointed out.
#6 - I would really like to see the source on this. From what I have been reading lately it does not increase unemployment, but put more accurately it decreases employment. This means that people aren't necessarily fired due directly to the increase, but jobs are phased out or replaced with machinery. There is also a typical decrease in teenage employment when an increase goes into effect.
#7 & #8 I'd like to see where you found your information. The data that I am seeing shows the exact opposite. In 1996 we had 4.8 million people on welfare in the US and it has dropped to 1.7 million by the year 2008. I do Clinton credit for some of that too. That said, I have recently heard statistics that say 48% of Americans currently receive some sort of Government assistance. It often looks as though our Government is driving us further and further into needing them to get by.
1 - I will never argue that Bush was a great President, because I honestly wasn't all that pleased with him. I don't come anywhere close to finding him as horrible as some of the liberals out there do though. As far as what weakened the economy, you can look back to 1993 where the subprime lending was being pushed. That is where it really started.
2 - All the drops in the bucket tend to add up and cause a flood at some point.
3 - I am all for getting people off their butts and working.
4 - That is really up to the workers. If they aren't earning enough then they need to go get better jobs or higher education.
5 - No, it won't ever achieve that goal.
6 & 7 - I am not going to claim that I know all that much on this subject, but I don't think an employee selling or pulling their personal stock options or bonuses has any effect on the companies profit.
8 -
9 - Exactly who do you think own these companies?
10 - I think most everyone roots for small business and wants to see them thrive. I also think that just about everyone is sick of seeing companies outsource jobs.
11 - Obamacare is only going to make things worse.
I think OTD pretty much addressed everything successfully, but I just wanted to point something out.
Less than 150 Billion of the budget goes to welfare, but the biggest welfare program is over 300 Billion?
I think you need to check your facts a little... or at least get them straight somewhat, so that they don't contradict each other.
Less than 150 Billion of the budget goes to welfare, but the biggest welfare program is over 300 Billion?
I think you need to check your facts a little... or at least get them straight somewhat, so that they don't contradict each other.
The 1st welfare was in quotes. I would think most people classify welfare as cash handouts.... monthly cash, food stamps, EIC.
Medicaid is welfare because it is giving someone something based on need.
But it is health care which one way or another is going to be paid by the government since we as a country have made the decesion not to allow people to die in the streets.
That is why I split them out.
When you hear a republican screaming about 1 trillion in welfare remember this post.
People automatically assume that the 1 trillion ( not the right number BTW ) is given to the lazy poor who turn around and buy big screen tvs with it.
In reality the bulk of that money is going to: children health care, special education, elderly health care and of course low income health care.
And for those of you that always claim that big government programs are never efficent... both medicair and medicade costs have been rising at a lower rate then general health care.
In fact the CBO earlier this year reported that the republican medicare part d was coming in under their projected costs.
Technically tax credits (especially refundable ones) are welfare because you are given something for nothing because you are in a 'class' of people. That includes the child tax credit.
I'll take half of it back. The number of people on welfare has remained steady since the Clinton program until the recession where the number of people on unemployment and food stamps has shot up. (since early 2008)
However the cost of welfare has shot up in the 2000s likely due to the huge rise in health care costs during that time.
That's the rub. There isn't any better jobs for those that don't have education. ( and less for those that do )
Higher education is hugely expensive and of course not everyone has the skill set to complete higher education.
I'd love to see more money put into higher education... both white collar and blue collar education and training.
6 & 7 - I am not going to claim that I know all that much on this subject, but I don't think an employee selling or pulling their personal stock options or bonuses has any effect on the companies profit.
8 -
9 - Exactly who do you think own these companies?
When a person buys stock the company itself does not receive your money. (outside of IPOs) So 'rich people' are not really investing in a company.
You make money off that stock in 2 ways:
1) Dividends where companies distribute profit to shareholders
2) Selling of the stock when its value increases.
Before 2000s that income was taxed at your normal rate which for the rich was 39%. With the Bush tax cuts that went to 15% for Dividends/CapGains.
That lead to the obvious... the desire to pull profit out of companies to take advantage of the low tax rates. That means less re-investing back into the company.
It also lead to a side effect. Since Cap Gains taxes were so low executive compensation shifted to stock options and companies goals became to keep the stock prices high so everyone could cash in at low tax rates.
Long term health of the companies were scraficed for short term stock price growth.
Qwest is a great example... sold off their profitable divisions which lead to short term huge revenue growth ( and stock prices ) but a long term hit to revenues which lead to them being bought.
I work for a F500 software. Well over 50% of our US jobs have shifted overseas. The goal is to go much higher.
Unfortunately, this isn't true. Both medicare and Medicaid are rising much faster than general health care. The estimation for this year is that Medicare and Medicaid costs will be 2/3 the costs of all of the rest of health care combined.
Medicare and Medicaid Spending Will Rise with Increasing Health Care Costs
I understand that we would LIKE Medicaid and Medicare to be efficient, but they are not.
Criminals scam the system for Billions of dollars each year. I'm not talking about people getting a few extra procedures, I mean companies getting paid to provide wheelchairs that were never requested or received.
The system pays them BILLIONS of dollars every year. And you call that efficient?
Coming in under projected costs is a good thing. However, that doesn't make something efficient. That just means you overestimated the costs.
Why do you think that is? Do you think that your company just hates America and don't want to give people here a job? Do you think they WANT to outsource overseas? Do you think they see that as best for their business? Why is outsourcing overseas best for the business?
When you make the environment hostile to business via excessive regulation and high taxes, the business goes overseas. It's that simple.
Tax credits aren't welfare. Welfare is giving you something that you didn't earn. Tax credits, let you keep the money you earned. They don't give you any other money. You are confusing tax credits and tax rebates.
Tax credit and tax rebate | Getting Personal | Marketplace from American Public Media
Here's a good explanation of the difference.
And the government NOT taking my money is NOT welfare.
Sources please?
Higher education isn't HUGELY expensive. Well, maybe if you are going to Harvard or MIT. For those of us with lower aspirations, it's quite affordable. I went to college at night after I got out of the Marines. It worked quite well.
She didn't ask who invested in a company. She asked who OWNED the company that created the jobs.
You stated that the rich do not create jobs, companies do. She asked who do you think OWNED the companies that created those jobs.
You may be right, or you may be wrong about companies needing to invest more in themselves. However, that doesn't change the fact that rich people own those companies that create jobs.
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
I think you are thinking of rebates, not credits.
I would still like to know where you are getting these numbers. I can't take it seriously without a source on something like this, especially since almost everything I have looked at contradicts what you are saying.
Student loans where created for a reason. There are technical schools and universities all over the country that will help with financial aid plus student loans. There are thousands of scholarships that can be applied for by anyone willing to look for them. Those that can't do that can sign up for the military and use the GI bill to pay for school. There are full time schools, part time schools, night schools and even Universities online now. Many of these schools will even help you find jobs when you graduate.
Hell, my girlfriend and I are both back in school right now trying find better careers or higher paying jobs. We are both working on our masters online. We have two kids and full time jobs. We both applied for student loans to pay for it. Will I have to pay it back? Yes, but I should be making the right kind of money after this to afford it.
Our Government does not need to throw a single dime towards higher education in this country. There is enough money out there already.
Ok, as Byteware already pointed out, I asked who you think owns these companies. Companies are not autonomous things that just sprout out of the ground. They are built by people. Many of those "rich people" that you are complaining about were the poor small business owners at one point, but people who blame corporations for everything tend to forget that. The fact is that the rich people do create jobs in this country by building, continuing and expanding businesses.
As far as the stocks go, I only know what I learned from Boiler Room.
50% of the jobs at your company or 50% of ALL US jobs?
If the former then what changed in the company to make that change?
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
You sound conservative.
LOL
If you asked me to pick a party I would say that I am a libertarian. If you asked me to label my core beliefs I would say that I am fiscally conservative and a mix of conservative and liberal on social issues.
After reading your post, that's exactly what I thought, fwiw.
uhh... you really should read your links before you post them. You proved my point.
The chart in your link shows all health care starting at 4.7% of GDP. Medicare/medicaid rose to 6.4% in 2010. Other healthcare rose to 10.8%.
Sure looks to me like non-M&M health care % of GDP rose higher.
Here are the raw numbers:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf
BTW... much of the rise in M&M HC spending is a result of the aging population as opposed to higher costs.
It means the Gov't has done a better job of managing costs then the private HC sector.
It also provides credibility to the CBO estimates that Obamacare will reduce the deficit.
all my company sees is that outsourcing is 'cheaper' for the business. Long term we are getting a poorer quality of product. Did you know the average length of indian software employment is 6 months? We can't even get an engineer trained on working with our product in 6 months. Funny... after 15 years of having a reputation of rock solid quality software onsite resources (that is what we are called) are pulled back into development to fix quality issues.
Strawman alert.
Question... was Clinton or bush more hostile to business? Which 8 years had 3 recessions? Which 8 years had higher non-government GDP? Which 8 years has seen a massive shift to outsourcing?
And question?... is having a blowout preventer that works and a relief well ready in a worst case situation 'excessive' regulation?
When you receive money from the government or you get special consideration from the government just because you are in a 'special group' it's welfare.
Lowering taxes across the board is not welfare. Giving only parents 5000/child is.
The rich do not own companies. Huge companies these days are owned by funds in general. 401Ks, IRAs, annuities, insurance premiums... millions own a piece of public companies.
The smaller companies are owned by individuals and our non-public. Almost all of them net less then 250K a year.
Lets look at the rich.
Bill Gates is the largest shareholder of of microsoft.
He only owns ~8% of the common stock. (is that owning microsoft?)
Bill Gates does not create jobs... microsoft itself does.
The higher dividends microsoft pays Gates ( and other shareholders ) the less microsoft has to hire employees.
Bill Gates could lose his entire wealth playing blackjack to me this weekend and it would not effect how many people microsoft hires this year.
Gates is a rich person. Microsoft is a company.
The rich do not hire people... companies do.
You can tax Gates all you want... doesn't effect Microsoft hiring.
uhh... you really should read your links before you post them. You proved my point.
The chart in your link shows all health care starting at 4.7% of GDP. Medicare/medicaid rose to 6.4% in 2010. Other healthcare rose to 10.8%.
Sure looks to me like non-M&M health care % of GDP rose higher.
Here are the raw numbers:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf
BTW... much of the rise in M&M HC spending is a result of the aging population as opposed to higher costs.
2 Things:
1) Honestly, can you not READ the chart? Even on numbers alone, when M/M was started to now, it's grown 6.4%, and the rest of health care has grown less than 6% of GDP.
2) Your link has no historical M/M data, only projections.
It means no such thing. It means only that they came in under budget.
Don't get under the mistaken impression that we are somehow a superior workforce. We have to compete. If we can't compete, then they deserve our jobs.
Do you even understand what that means? That absolutely doesn't apply here. Couldn't apply here. This is my response to your statement about your company. It's not a reply to an argument you made.
You do realize that the cause of this "recession" was banks being forced to make loans that they knew were bad loans. Subprime is a nice way of saying loans that a very high chance of defaulting. Banks didn't make them until they were forced to, not because banks are racist against minorities, but because banks don't do things that are bad for business. Who "forced" them to make those loans? Clinton.
Yes, it takes some time before the house of cards falls down, but that doesn't mean it wasn't because of those bad loans.
2 things:
1) Letting you keep your hard earned money isn't welfare.
2) Parents aren't GIVEN anything per child. They are allowed to keep $1000/child of their money.
Of course, the fair way to do taxes would be... take your household income (all of it) and divide it by the number of people in your household, and that's your tax bracket (of course parents would almost never pay ANY taxes then... but hey).
We'll ignore the rest of the errors in your statement, and focus on the above (the other errors are really irrelevant to the discussion and simply show a lack of understanding that no one on this forum can really help you overcome).
Bill Gates is a rich person. Leer is a company that makes private jets.
Bill Gates taxes go up, so he doesn't buy a Leer jet and a luxury yacht.
So many jobs just disappeared because he didn't buy that Leer jet and luxury yacht.
There are probably 1000 people who are now out of a job.
Now, apply that across the board. Lots of people out of work by taxing the rich.
But let's look at Microsoft. Aside from the fact that people who own stock in companies are rich people....
Let's look at the people who make decisions at Microsoft... not surprising, they are ALL rich people.
These rich people have to judge the economy and make staffing decisions.
What happens when their taxes go up and their spendable income goes down?
They feel less secure in the economy and make fewer decisions to hire.
Taxing the rich in a recessive economy is a no win situation.
Period.
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
How could they manage their cost better if they are getting ripped of by con artists left and right? That makes no sense at all. M&M are getting taken to the cleaners on a regular basis and you think they somehow figured out a way to manage their costs better?
Wow, did you every pick the worst example humanly possible.
Who founded Microsoft? Who built it from the ground up? Who ran it and controlled it for so many years? Who made it such an incredible power house of a company? I think that might have been Gates.
Now, who stepped down from his seat at the top so that he could devote more time to his philanthropy and various charitable organizations? I believe that would also be Gates.
As far as smaller companies, the one I work for has about 200 employees and is non-public, but we net well over $43 million a year. The guy that owns the company is disgustingly rich. Does he create jobs?
BTW, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, If I owned 2% of Microsoft and decide to sell of that stock the money I make does not come from Microsoft itself, it comes from the person buying the stock from me. People selling shares of stock does not effect a companies ability to hire or create jobs.
I often wonder if those that complain about the rich and expect them to pay such higher taxes have ever aspired to be rich themselves.
Actually, I disagree. Fair would be paying taxes on what we spend instead of what we make.
Ok, fairer than what we have now...
Learn to add:
starting in 1965
M/M starts at ~5% and grows to 6.4% = 1.4% growth
Other starts at ~5% and grows to 10.8% = 5.8% growth
In my math books 5.8 is greater then 1.4. (but I'm not a conservative)
You claimed outsourcing happens because a hostile business envirornment.
It's a strawman arguement because we did not have a hostile business envirornment when outsourcing accelerated. ( under Bush compared to Clinton)
Right. What a joke. How did Clinton force them to make these loans in 2006 the peak of the subprime.
It's typically fully refundable. Why should you get money back just because you have a kid while I don't.
Did you work any harder for your money?
Thanks for showing that supply side economics doesn't work in a recession. If no one can buy items it does not good to increase supply so business tax cuts in a recession do little good.
You are also making my point in a backwards way.
You are implying that Gates buying a Leer jet causing Leer to hire employees.
Leer is just as likely to take the profits from the sale and give it to shareholders or executive.
A rich person (gates) action did not create a job.
A company (leer) either creates or doesn't create a job.
So we are back to my assertion... Rich people don't create jobs... Companies do.
In reality it would go like this:
Bill Gates make 1 billion dollars. The government takes 150 million (15%) of it. Gates spends 5 million on a leer jet.
Raise Div Tax to 20%.
Bill Gates make 1 billion dollars. The government takes 200 million (20%) of it. Gates spends 5 million on a leer jet.
Give the top 5% more money... it typically gets invested which doesn't create jobs.
Raising Bill Gates taxes has no effect on the economy.
In fact both Gates and Buffet have said their taxes were too low.
They, and plenty of others in the top 2%, are pledging to give away massive amounts of their money. ( cms.givingpledge.org )
Raising their taxes is not going to have much of an impact on their spending habits.
So Bill Gates buys a Leer Jet. Leer
Rich people don't creat jobs.
That's why the idea of supply side economics is a joke.
In reality...
There are probably 1000 people who are now out of a job.
Now, apply that across the board. Lots of people out of work by taxing the rich.
But let's look at Microsoft. Aside from the fact that people who own stock in companies are rich people....
Let's look at the people who make decisions at Microsoft... not surprising, they are ALL rich people.
These rich people have to judge the economy and make staffing decisions.
What happens when their taxes go up and their spendable income goes down?
They feel less secure in the economy and make fewer decisions to hire.
Taxing the rich in a recessive economy is a no win situation.
Period.[/QUOTE]
Learn to add? That's both rude and wrong.
In 1965, the Health Care costs for the ENTIRE NATION were 5%. There was no M/M at all. M/M started at nothing, moved to .1% and has been increasing ever since.
Since 1965, M/M has increase 6.4% while Other grew 5.8%. M/M's 6.4% trumps the rest's 5.8%.
Sorry, that's simple math.
You claimed outsourcing happens because a hostile business envirornment.
It's a strawman arguement because we did not have a hostile business envirornment when outsourcing accelerated. ( under Bush compared to Clinton)
Ok, so we've established that you don't know the definition of strawman argument.
Here, this will help: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's a hint, if I'm not misrepresenting YOUR position, it's not a strawman argument.
And just to get it out there, what makes you believe that that Clinton WASN'T hostile to business.
If I sound snarky, I apologize. I find it personally offensive to have to educate someone on background information that they should have known before even starting a discussion on the topic.
In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed that required Businesses to offer their services to all neighborhoods, including poor and minority neighborhoods.
In 1995, Clinton initiated a "revamp" of the regulations, specifically how businesses were determined to be in compliance. It was no longer sufficient to simply "offer" your services, you had to prove that you actually had business dealings in those neighborhoods. This had the effect of requiring banks to make home loans that they would not have otherwise made. This required them to make subprime loans.
This information isn't hard to find.... if you want to know the truth.
It's not fully refundable, unless you paid that much in taxes. It's not a rebate, it's a credit. Read the difference.
It's the number of people being taxed per income amount.
I'm generally ALL for educating people, but you seem happy with what you do not know.
There are a few things you obviously don't know:
1) Business BUY things.
2) Business make purchasing decisions based upon how comfortable they are with their revenue stream. If taxes go down and revenues lift slightly, they are more likely to make purchases, then if they are worried about their liquid assets.
Who built the jet then? Who put together the jet that Bill Gates purchased? Robots?
You either can't understand that, or would prefer not to. I don't know which, but it gets tiring having to educate you.
M/M did not start at 0. The 1st year of M/M it was ~5%. Your chart shows that. The yearly increase of M/M is less then other HC. Both your chart and mine shows it.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person A has position X.
- Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.
You don't sound snarky. You sound un-educated.
Since you like to quote Wikipedia.
The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA
In addition. You seem confused what a sub prime loan is. The CRA deals with income and racial discrimination in leading.
You act like the bad loans were only to poor blacks.
In reality sub-prime loans are riskly loans to people who's financial history does not support the loan.
So it was not only loans to low-income buyers but also the over extension of credit to the middle class buyers.
The idea that Clinton was responsible for the 2003-2007 sub-prime loan issues is laughable.
Here is a chart of the number of sub-prime loans:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_fraud.svg/725px-Mortgage_loan_fraud.svg.png
Wrong. Ten Facts about Claiming the Child Tax Credit
See 10. Your income has to qualify.
Doesn't matter for the point however. A specific group gets a income tax benefit that the general population does not. The benefit is unrelated to the actual work that produced the income that was taxed.
That's welfare.
[/quote]
That's the utopia hope of how businesses will spend their profits.
But...
Businesses have been making more profit in the last decade but buying less. ( the business portion of the GDP has been declining)
It not as simplistic as you claim. If taxes go down and revenues lift slightly they are more likely to pay dividends and executive more.
There are no numbers to prove your contention of what businesses do with increased revenue but plenty to prove mine.
In any case. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that higher taxes has absolutely no effect on the spending habits of the upper 5% of the income earners.
Gates is still going to buy that LearJet if he wants/needs to.
All you have to do is compare the economies of the last 2 presidents.
Clinton raised taxes and cut spending. GDP grew and deficits turned into surpluses
Bush cuts taxes and raises spending. GPD droped and had historic deficits.
Clinton had 5 years of 4%+ GDP growth and none under 2%
Bush had 2 over 3%, 4 under 1% and a 0% year.
Clinton started with a 269 Billion deficit and ended with 3 surpluses.
Bush started with a 128 Billion surpluse and ended with over a trillion deficit.
The numbers don't lie. Spin them all you want. Here are the raw numbers from the sources:
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009