search results matching tag: earned income

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (1)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (16)   

Is California Becoming A Police State?

lucky760 says...

@dalumberjack - Very well stated.

"I really wish we were appreciated like firemen or military but I know we never will be."
Law enforcement will never be appreciated like firemen or military because unlike the latter two, on the whole, officers overall spend a lot of their job targeting the people they're supposed to be protecting.

Firefighters attack fires to save innocent people.

Soldiers attack bad guys for the sake of innocent people (often at the expense of the lives of foreign innocent people, but that's another topic).

Law enforcement officers instead of just protecting innocent people from bad guys also attack innocent people (and rape their wallets).

There are no honest taxpayers who become fearful when a fire truck is on the road, but many get scared whenever there's an officer on the road even though they aren't doing anything wrong.

Part of it is policy (how local governments push to "earn" income by squeezing every cent they can out of taxpayers [because it costs money catching bad guys who often don't pay taxes nor have a wallet to rape]) and the other part is just human nature, which is obvious when you consider generally the type of personality that would seek to wield power over all the sniveling pissants that make up society.

People should feel safe and protected when officers are around.

Bill Gates: Raise taxes on the rich. That's just justice.

Deadrisenmortal says...

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>


Joseph Stiglitz on "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%"

heropsycho says...

Democrats are jointly responsible with Republicans in the destruction of the middle class. Cutting the corporate tax rates would serve primarily to increase corporate profits. If the demand isn't there for goods and services, corporations won't increase production and hire more workers. Not to mention this won't help deficits. You definitely would help the stock market in the short run, which is disproportionately invested in by the rich, thereby stratifying the population even more along class lines.

The stats you're pointing to are horrible stats for useful data points about economic policy. It's true that the bottom 50% of the population are paying less as a percentage of total tax revenues collected today compared to five years ago. When unemployment went to 10% and higher, who typically lost their jobs? The bottom 50%. Whose houses typically got foreclosed on? The bottom 50%. When pay was cut, who most often lost out on that? The bottom 50%.

If you're paying taxes, it means you're earning income. Ask the unemployed what they'd rather be - taxpayers or jobless? They'd go with having to pay taxes. It's not all roses for the bottom 50% who are not paying taxes right now. But the point still stands - when the economy goes into a tailspin, it distorts who's shouldering the burden for paying the taxes.

This data varies too widely to be useful due to extraneous influences.

>> ^bobknight33:

Fuck that. The democrats had the chance and the duty to pass a budget when they were in complete control. This issue lays on their door step.
Cut corporate taxes jobs will come back and bring more opportunity fro all of us. Then pass the budget proposal for 2012 that cuts more than $5.8 trillion spread over a few years. These ex FED employees could then go back to private employment.
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
the top 10% pay 71%,
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.

In the US, the Left Asks Politely; In Europe, They Do This

In the US, the Left Asks Politely; In Europe, They Do This

Congressman Yells "Liar" At Obama During Health Care Speech

dgandhi says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: To owe $6,000 or so in deductibles or $200,000 for the fully monty?

So, now you are claiming I will be an outlier. I refer you to your own response to that argument.

And I personally know literally hundreds of co-workers, friends, family members, and associates who have never had a single trouble in getting medical coverage. EVER.

And I personally know literally hundreds of people who have never needed it. This argument is also a wash.

Yes they have for over 86% of the country.

So anything that 86% of the population believes is right? Need I list all the stupid things most people do? You have probably posted such a list here at some point yourself.

It is unfortunate that your inaction that results from your delusion is burdening the rest of society though.

Your commute puts a burden on the rest of society. You are putting others in harms way as a consequence of your decision(delusion?) that you should drive a ton+ of steel at hight speed down an asphalt byway twice a day. All decisions have externalized costs, in all likelihood my life has fewer than yours.

Your apparent outrage at the "burden" I place on society sounds like a call for imposed universal coverage if ever I heard one. You want "freedom", but you are offended that I use mine. I don't want it either, I'm just not willing to volunteer for the system as it currently exists.

Well - not to put to fine a point on it - but what is working in your house doing for you?

Oh, where to begin.. I:

- have free time coming out my ass.
- have an exposure to automotive health risks at least an order of magnitude lower than average.
- can pay all my bills.
- have no debt.
- don't have a boss.
- do something I enjoy.

Getting a job with a commute might increase your travel expenses... But - you know - it just MIGHT increase your monthly income to the point where you don't have to worry about it.

That's the thing, I don't have to worry about it, I don't need another red cent than I have, I don't expose myself to risk unnecessarily.

You have exposed yourself to risk, and then decided to mitigate that risk by paying somebody who promises to take care of you in spite of your decision to put yourself in harms way. I have simply elected not to put myself in as much risk.

How much earning income have you 'given up' to be that poor?

How much freedom have you 'given up' for more money? You want money, I don't, I want my time. I address my risks in a different way than you do, but that does not mean that my non-insurance-mitigated risk is, on balance, greater than your insurance-mitigated risk.

Congressman Yells "Liar" At Obama During Health Care Speech

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

So you suggest that my GF and I each increase our monthly income/expenses by 30% to purchase a policy which, due to not being able to pay the deductible, we will never be able to collect on in the case of emergency? Do I need to reexplain why this would be stupid?

For major medical costs, what would you prefer? To owe $6,000 or so in deductibles or $200,000 for the fully monty? Do I need to reexplain why you'd have to be totally stupid to willfully choose to not have catastrophic medical insurance?

Lucky you. I have at least three friends who have had to spend days arguing to get polices to pay for their parents, who, due to their conditions, where not able to do it for themselves.

And I personally know literally hundreds of co-workers, friends, family members, and associates who have never had a single trouble in getting medical coverage. EVER. Playing duelling banjos over anecdotes is pointless. I rest my case on the statistics. Over 86% of this country is perfectly satisfied with their medical coverage. You CANNOT get those kinds of numbers if the problems you have imagined in your head are as rampant and wide-spread as you are claiming.

The last two criteria have not been met.

Yes they have for over 86% of the country. You - for some reason - are stubbornly refusing to accept the factual demonstration of that reality. That's your choice. It is unfortunate that your inaction that results from your delusion is burdening the rest of society though.

You also need to deal with the fact that buying insurance has opportunity costs. Making enough money to pay for meaningful coverage would probably require me working somewhere other than my house. Add a daily commute to my schedule and the probability of me becoming an outlier jumps considerably. Creating the conditions whereby I join the insurance pool constitutes a significant risk to my wellbeing.

Well - not to put to fine a point on it - but what is working in your house doing for you? Not much, by your own admission because you claim that you are too poor to even pay $60 a month for major medical. Getting a job with a commute might increase your travel expenses... But - you know - it just MIGHT increase your monthly income to the point where you don't have to worry about it. You're right. Everything has an opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of your working at home at a low-paying job? How much earning income have you 'given up' to be that poor?

MSNBC Host: "Socialist" is Becoming Code Word For The N-Word

Rotty says...

<rant>
How to waste a dollar: let the government double-tax it and piss away the money. Sorry, I cannot justify giving hard earned income to the biggest den of theives and criminals in this country (that would be Congress, by the way). These people have no idea how to effectively spend money other than propagating their existance.

As far as taxes, I repeatedly hear "Oh, yeah, who maintains the roads you drive on", "Who are you gonna call when your house is on fire"... I can tell you this, if road service is any indication, I might as well call on my dead grandmother to put out a house fire. At least she would have some conviction.

And thank you for convincing everyone they have a "right" to everything except responsibility.

I would like to see some tort reform as part of any "improvements" in healthcare. That asshat Bush talked about it, but never did a damn thing (surprise!!!). Limit what the parasites can possibly get and that would ripple though the system with regard to liability coverage and CYA medical procedures.
</rant>

Broken Window Fallacy (Blog Entry by jwray)

jwray says...

I agree with Farhad about infrastructure spending being absolutely necessary, and about productivity sometimes being hard to measure. Public Schools need to be improved, but throwing money at it isn't necessarily the solution, when sometimes lower-funded schools perform better than higher funded schools.

One could argue that public school students in better-performing, richer districts are performing better because of their parents' genes, prenatal environment, and lifestyle habits. The parents on average had some characteristics that increased their propensity to get a house in the richer district. Or you could argue that the performance of the school caused the high property values. Or you could argue that the extra money for the school from high property values accounts for some performance. All three are in play and positive feedback sustains the disparity.

The best way to help personal profit motives coincide with actual productivity is to tax negative externalities and subsidize positive externalities.

For example, all fossil fuels should be taxed at a very high rate, and the income from this tax should be rebated to everyone equally. Thus it provides the incentive to conserve without harming the poor in the way that has previously caused people to oppose such taxes.

The government should also subsidize the placement of copyrighted work into the public domain voluntarily by copyright holders.

Health computerization is a nice goal. Such a database would be a gold mine for research that could save millions of lives if only the privacy paranoia could be dealt with by anonymizing the data like Google Trends.

All subsidies and safety nets of the form "If x>y you get nothing, otherwise you get something greater than epsilon" (also, atomic tax credits and atomic scholarships) should be eliminated because they create local maxima where there is no incentive to earn slightly more. They should be replaced with smooth linear subsidies such as "take home income = 10k plus 3/5 of earned income".

One reason for the decrease in demand for goods is that most of the money is in the hands of those who use it least, and not in the hands of those who would use it. Supply side economics is crap when clearly there's an excess supply and not enough demand in most industries. The amount of money they've already spent on stimulus and bailouts is more than enough to send a flat $10,000 rebate to every adult citizen (perhaps split up into a smoother schedule), which would surely increase consumer spending back to pre-recession levels without negatively impacting anyone's profit motive. Mortgage-default bailouts conditioned upon being in default should be avoided because of the perverse incentives they create. More generally, any policy of help being conditioned upon something bad happening should be eliminated because of the perverse incentive to create the bad occurrence. Unconditional yet meager help is better because it keeps the incentives straight. Many forms of insurance should be abolished because of the perverse incentives they create.

People can only be really counted on to do the right thing when the the situation is such that doing the right thing is in their own personal interest. Primary purpose of all governance is to change the way the game is played so that individual interests become more congruent with each other (metaphorically, congruent with the public good). This includes punishment, which can only be justified as a disincentive to future crime.

The stimulus package contains less than $150 billion in infrastructure spending, out of over 3 trillion that has been spent on stimulus and bailouts. Most of the stimulus package consists of reckless tax cuts.

Fox Doesn't Know What to Do After the Election

Fox Doesn't Know What to Do After the Election

NetRunner says...

>> ^Duckman33:
Um, if I remember correctly. It was Fox News (Fair and Balanced) that started breaking all the negative news on Sara Palin after the election. Now all of a sudden it's a bad thing?


Fair and Balanced would've meant reporting it before the election, not after.

Fair and Balanced would've meant realizing that William Ayers barely knew Obama, or realizing that Gordon Liddy had both committed worse crimes, and had a closer relationship to John McCain than Ayers had to Obama.

Fair and Balanced would've meant admitting that a progressive tax system was implemented by Theodore Roosevelt (Republican), and the Earned Income Tax Credit was implemented by Ronald Reagan (the Republican "Messiah"), and that if either are socialism, then it was the Republicans who made us socialist a long time ago.

Obama - "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant"

jwray says...

Oil should be taxed heavily to bring its private cost in line with its public cost. People who commute 2 hours a day for a 20% higher paying job are enriching themselves at the expense of the entire world.

I wouldn't even consider living/working in such a situation that it would would be more than a 20 minute walk from home to work. Part of the problem is bad city planning that promotes long commutes.

When the real cost of oil, in terms of externalities, is reflected by its market price after taxes, and people see gas selling for $15 a gallon, they will think carefully about conserving it. As long as gas is cheap, people will inevitably waste it. High gas prices are the best way to conserve oil. Regressive-taxation effects of such a plan can be offset by the welfare state.

I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:

Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 * (Income before tax)

So there is a safety net that guarantees everyone a minimum standard of living, but earned income contributes linearly towards take-home income, unlike other welfare systems that create local maxima in the graph of earned income vs. take home income.

spoco2 (Member Profile)

thepinky says...

You don't have to explain all of that to me. I understand and agree with it. I know that the majority of people benefitting from social programs are wonderful, deserving people. I'm not rich, either. I know what it's like to earn nothing and survive on it. Even then I was not happy with taxes because my taxes weren't going where I wanted them to go. Were you listening to what I was saying? I would be happy to share my money with whoever needs it, and I do! If everything was all fuzzy wuzzy like you said; taxes going to poor little elderly folks, single mothers, disabled people, etc., it would be great! I would love and adore taxes if that were true. I would love taxes if they simply funded transportation and education and medicare and welfare and all of those good things, but I know that this isn't the case. Taxpayers (including single mothers) pay for government waste, pointless wars, and yes, the occasional freeloader. We pay for the National Wildlife Turkey Federation in South Carolina, for transit centers for minor league baseball teams, for halls of fame and a million other ridiculous things. Wouldn't t be better to fund those sorts of things at a more local level instead of wasting so much money on overhead? I just found an IRS study that says that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides about $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. Great! However, the IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount, nearly one-third, is wasted in overpayments each year. Ick.

My siblings and other family members have had to make use of "those services," and I very much appreciate their existence. I don't believe in the idea that people on Welfare are lazy drunks. I agree with Karl Marx about a lot of things. But Welfare IS abused and it needs to be a system where we encourage self-reliance and help people break the cycle of poverty instead of perpetuating it. And I think by "a couple of bad eggs" you mean tens of thousands.

I don't care about Joe Shmoe's birth control. It is not a neccesity. I don't care how good his sex is. I intend to use birth control pills. I never had my teeth straightened. I still have my wisdom teeth. I'm not complaining about my quality of life. A vasectomy is a luxury, plain and simple.

Gov. Mitt Romney Suspends Campaign for US President

Tofumar says...

GHeap,

You said: "I don't know what is greater, your ignorance or your aversion of the issue."

Almost certainly my ignorance, but it's not because of this issue. And I'm not avoiding anything. You made a claim about Romney's qualifications to serve under a Democratic president. I responded by pointing out that, in my opinion, most of his statements on the economy throughout the course of his campaign have been nothing but right-wing boilerplate. They haven't shown a nuanced understanding of the economy or a desire to be honest about our place in the world market (He's gonna bring all those auto industry jobs back to Michigan! Just you wait and see!). Moreover, I claimed that statements he made (in this video, no less!) about the Democrats and the war show him to lack sound political and strategic judgement. I'd say that lacking good judgement should pretty much disqualify you from having any cabinet position in any administration, but I guess that's just me trying to skirt the issue. Oh, wait...

The fact is, your suggestion was ill thought out. It would be as ludicrous as me saying that Romney, if he'd won, should've made Ralph Nader his Secretary of Labor.

"He's got the Reganomics thing going on. And despite how you feel about Regan, he did the economy justice."

First of all, his name was Ronald Reagan. Second, do you mean the "Reaganomics" that GHWB called "voodoo economics?" Or are you talking about the Reaganomics that no less a conservative than Mike Huckabee says is "more concerned with Wall Street than Main Street?" No, Ronald Reagan did not "do the economy justice" (mostly for the reasons Farhad points out above). And in the areas where he wasn't as awful as he could've been, it was largely because he had been embarrassed by the failure of his more ideologically driven first 2 years in office, and was forced to the left. As blogger Ezra Klein puts it:

"This is a guy who raised taxes six years in a row...passed a massive amnesty bill, wildly increased the size of the federal government, exploded the deficit, saved Social Security by instituting a large payroll tax, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. Not to say he didn't have his conservative dogma humming along quietly in the background, but the last seven years of his administration saw him somewhat chastened, and far more deal-oriented."

So more Reaganomics? If that term means "fucking the economy up for 2 years until the situation becomes so bad politically that I have to try to pass some half-assed fixes that wouldn't be nearly as good as what the Democrats would have done all along," then I'll pass. So will any Democratic nominee for president, thankfully.

Finally, I'd point out that even though I thought what you said was stupid, I didn't downvote your comment. It was pretty cheap that you did so to me, but it's your character and reputation at stake when you do such things, not mine.

Ron Paul is insane

moonsammy says...

BansheeX - so what you're saying is that you're against social security largely because it is being mis-used and is horrifically broken? The fact that congress "can and does raid it" goes against the best interests of the social security system - if the money was kept in it and it was invested intelligently, it should at *least* keep pace with inflation. I honestly don't know if the rules allow for the SSA to invest any portion of the held funds, but if not I would think a small modification to the rules to allow for a partial diversification of funds would be beneficial.

The argument that a sudden population increase will bankrupt the system is ridiculous, as the rate of funding the program could be adjusted *well* in advance of the bubble actually hitting retirement age. You'll primarily be punishing the people within the generation having all those bubble-causing kids, and that seems fair to me. Additionally, population growth of that type is typically the product of a secure and prospering economy / populace, so they should be able to afford to put some extra funding into the program.

I agree with you that poor people are more heavily impacted by this tax than others, which is why it is generally considered a regressive tax. Personally I'd love to see it made more progressive, so that more of the funding is provided by income earned over the current $90-something thousand limit. Millionaires benefit more than any of us mere plebes from the strength of this society, so they should be equally obligated to contribute to it's members well-being.

That's really the whole point of social security - it isn't to benefit the lazy and the worthless that are such a plague upon us upstanding citizens, but to preserve some degree of dignity and humanity amongst our fellow countrymen who have, totally or at least largely through no fault of their own (none of us are perfect), become unable to adequately maintain themselves.

You might not like having some portion of your hard-earned income diverted to people who haven't earned it (which is, admittedly, nearly impossible to avoid), but the portion that goes to those who really need it, and who did nothing wrong to deserve misery, really is money well spent. Don't assume you'll never need it, because no matter how careful you may have been in life to assure your future well-being it is *not* guaranteed. Shit, as they say, happens.

In terms of your suggested alternative to the social security system: I'd love to see that be practicable. Unfortunately it is almost certainly too utopian to have a real chance. Until all corruption, greed, and prejudice is eliminated from our society there will *always* be people who are unfairly screwed over in life. There just will be. If you're honestly arguing that anyone who couldn't, for whatever reason, manage to be successful in life should just suck it up and accept their fate then I commend you on your victory in completely eliminating any semblance of a moral code from your personality. Kudos!

If anyone can point me to a source where Ron Paul espouses beliefs on the social welfare system comparable to BansheeX's, I'd love to see it. I like the man and would not have any problem with him as president, but I don't really think he's as Objectivist as Banshee was implying. I assume he would want any program like Social Security managed at a state-run level if the state chooses to have one, but does he really advocate the elimination of any such program?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon