why are the American poor refused to do jobs that are there?

whynot_31 said:

Aren't lower wages and high taxes a primary reason for companies locating elsewhere?

Sometimes. There are a lot of government policies that encourage companies to do so. We could consider retooling gov policy to help Americans, not help wealthy American investors.

As for the second part of my statement, raising wages can actually be a boon for the economy and for business, as it creates more disposable income. But companies currently shy away from seeing this logic. It's exactly where the gov can step in to bridge the perceived gap between what's best for business and best for American workers.

Please reverse globalization, and bring back a need for labor to the degree that we can demand wage increases. If you were to take the billions from the billionaires, would it be enough to balance the trade deficit and raise wages? (answer: It might help a little, but the big problems would remain)

The trade deficit and whether Walmart workers are paid a living wage are related but different.

Globalization is not some immovable force which we are incapable of influencing.

Currently we influence to the benefit of the 1%.

BG-

We seem unable to tax the 10% to help the 90%, and even if we did, it would not eliminate the effects of globalization. So, I believe the question is how far do you think we should let the standard of living of the 90% fall?

Again the effective tax rates for the wealthy have stayed the same, while their income has skyrocketed. This is a new development.

It's unclear to my why some new developments are ok, and some are not.

We taxed the 10% and 1% differently as recently as 10 years ago.

We are fully capable of it.

Boygabriel said:

Perhaps. But income and assets have skyrocketed recently while our tax rates have stayed the same or regressed. So we're working within a structure that was largely developed for a situation that has changed dramatically.

This is what has changed our distribution of wealth. (I use the term as a simple reference to who has what % of wealth, not who is stealing form who)

What would be the purpose of raising tax rates in response to rising incomes if the goal is not to cap income?

Again I agree that tax rates in general are too low, but you do realize that as income goes up, given a constant tax rate, so would revenue, correct?

Boygabriel said:We have a lot of bad policy, but a lot of that is dictated and controlled by the 1-10%.

The gov shares blame, but so do the people calling the gov's shots.

This just got really boring, because I agree with you one hundred percent here.

Bottom line, you squash corporate influence on gov't, good things will happen for the avg American. The only thing though is it has to happen through [i]policy,[i] not arbitrary tax hikes. Taxes and spending should be dictated by our fiscal goals, not a means of controlling growth in certain segments- and that goes for the goofball Reaganites who suggest lower taxes = higher economic growth. The last 4 years have shown that is simply not true. So I think tax hikes should happen, but only because tax rates are unreasonably low, and because we have a huge deficit. Even though our outlays are within the range of historical norms, we still should make temporary cuts to help get the deficit under control. Our fiscal policy pendulum has swung the wrong way.

Shifting the cost of healthcare and training onto employees wouldn't be so bad if the cost of healthcare and training didn't also become prohibitively expensive

Cool The Kid said:

What would be the purpose of raising tax rates in response to rising incomes if the goal is not to cap income?

Again I agree that tax rates in general are too low, but you do realize that as income goes up, given a constant tax rate, so would revenue, correct?

True, but when you have weird tax codes like your $200,000th dollar gets taxed the same as your $1,000,000th dollar, then it becomes problematic.

Or when so many people are gaining wealth that gets taxed as capital gains.

Cool The Kid said:This just got really boring, because I agree with you one hundred percent here.

noooooooooo

Cool The Kid said:So I think tax hikes should happen, but only because tax rates are unreasonably low, and because we have a huge deficit.

Agree big time.

Boygabriel said:

True, but when you have weird tax codes like your $200,000th dollar gets taxed the same as your $1,000,000th dollar, then it becomes problematic.

I don't see how that is problematic. It's no different from your $20,000th dollar being taxed the same amount as your $30,000th. If the gov't can tax a millionth dollar at the same rate as the two hundred thousandth and meet its financial obligations, what's the problem? I don't agree that the tax curve has to be more progressive... tax rates should go up for EVERYONE, including the middle class Americans who deduct their way out of paying any income tax.

Boygabriel said:Or when so many people are gaining wealth that gets taxed as capital gains.

Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to acquire wealth through capital gains? I agree that the tax rates on them now are unreasonably low, but they are set to come back to reality with the Bush tax cut expirations (which I really hope actually do expire). There's a big diff between taxing at a level that enables the gov't to function well, and taxing at a level that... neutralizes wealth? I still think you are needlessly hung up on income/wealth discrepancies. The way to fix that is through policy that brings the cost of necessities back within the reach of the avg American, NOT the mindless tax hikes on those arbitrarily deemed to have "more than they need". That's a slippery slope not worth exploring... we are seeing the failure of socialism in Europe as we speak. The cracks did not start forming until the Bush tax cuts & various other changes in policy that affected the costs of basics (housing, healthcare, higher education).

Cool The Kid said:

I don't see how that is problematic. It's no different from your $20,000th dollar being taxed the same amount as your $30,000th.

Given general costs of living, it is very much different, IMO.

I don't agree that the tax curve has to be more progressive... tax rates should go up for EVERYONE, including the middle class Americans who deduct their way out of paying any income tax.

The only people who do that are making so little money that income tax might push them into poverty or something. These people are still paying a significant portion of their income to taxes.

Cool The Kid said:Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to acquire wealth through capital gains? I agree that the tax rates on them now are unreasonably low, but they are set to come back to reality with the Bush tax cut expirations (which I really hope actually do expire). There's a big diff between taxing at a level that enables the gov't to function well, and taxing at a level that... neutralizes wealth? I still think you are needlessly hung up on income/wealth discrepancies. The way to fix that is through policy that brings the cost of necessities back within the reach of the avg American, NOT the mindless tax hikes on those arbitrarily deemed to have "more than they need". That's a slippery slope not worth exploring... we are seeing the failure of socialism in Europe as we speak. The cracks did not start forming until the Bush tax cuts & various other changes in policy that affected the costs of basics (housing, healthcare, higher education).

I hold both opinions:

we need to address various costs of living

we need to reform our tax code

Cool The Kid said:

I strongly disagree...

You blame the corporations... I blame the gov't that allowed itself to be bought by them. 9 times out of 10 if you look at a problem the avg American is facing, some how, some way it was borne out of misguided public policy. The 3Hs are the easy biggies I can point to.

I blame both.

Not to mention, gov't is generally pretty inefficient in operation as well... for example, I think a simple payer system would work well for healthcare, but I shudder at the thought of enabling the gov't to handle its administration.

I agree that single payer is the way to go, but to respond to your example, do I fear gov run health care more than I dread dealing with my health care now? No. Not by a long shot.

"inefficient" can refer to a lot of things. Currently our private health care system is massively inefficient in terms of cost to user, and also to providing good care. What it IS efficient at is profits.

Cool The Kid said:Again, the progressive movement's biggest oversight is in expecting the same people who sell representation to the highest bidders to wake up one day and decide to take an interest in the people.

This is a sweeping generalization that I don't have any thoughts on beyond this:

There are tons of progressive groups out there doing exactly what you are saying, and working on local levels to make real changes, from social services to keeping people in their houses.

Cool The Kid said: There is a gross hypocrisy in the idea that the gov't is wrong for putting corporate interests ahead of the people, but "progressive" for putting poor people's interests ahead of everyone else. Its still biased representation and it's not good for the country.

That is a largely philosophical statement. Which I strongly disagree with.

The govt is there to help the broadest number of people possible, and offer help to the less privileged, advantaged, and wealthy.

If we get to a point where our problem is that the govt is too helpful to poor people (HA!), then we'll be doing pretty well, IMO.

But I personally can't equate the problems of favoring the wealthy or corporations too much, and favoring the poor too much.

whynot_31 said:

BG wrote: we need to address various costs of living

I do want to live in a place wherein the government if the primary force behind setting prices or the availability of goods and services.

Um, you already do.

Boygabriel said:

Given general costs of living, it is very much different, IMO.

Again the disconnect. How does raising taxes on income above $1,000,000 help ease the cost of living burdens on the avg American?

Boygabriel said:The only people who do that are making so little money that income tax might push them into poverty or something. These people are still paying a significant portion of their income to taxes.

Yes, these people prob pay a sizable amount of their income to SS & sales tax. But the mortgage interest, child help and other "normal people" deductions go much further for people at the bottom of the curve than the top. This is all proven by the progression along the income line on what people pay in income tax.

So the question here becomes, looking at all taxes, at the end of the day who pays more? Lets compare... the 50% line is at $32K as of 2009 for individuals... the top 50% paid at a rate of 12.5% avg, bottom paid 1.85%. SS/MC amount to about 7.5% and cap at 110K (which is the top 10%- IOW 90% of Americans pay 7.5% of their income to SSI/MC). So what does all this gibberish mean? Even if the bottom 50% spent all its income on goods subject to sales tax (we can take NYC's 8.75%), 1.85% + 7.5% + 8.75% = 18.1%, which is MUCH less than the 24% that the top 1% pay. So I'm confused as to how 18% is significant, but 24% is not enough. ESPECIALLY when you consider that many in the bottom 50% are living on benefits that often times are exempt to SS/MC taxes. The "fairness" angle is bunk.

Boygabriel said:I agree that single payer is the way to go, but to respond to your example, do I fear gov run health care more than I dread dealing with my health care now? No. Not by a long shot.

Systems in which there is no incentive for good performance over bad generally fail... and that is the case w/most gov't administrations (and for that matter many people perpetually on benefits)

Why do you think a gov't run system would work any harder to optimize your healthcare experience more than a for profit entity that wasn't able to buy its way out of doing the right thing?

Boygabriel said:"inefficient" can refer to a lot of things. Currently our private health care system is massively inefficient in terms of cost to user, and also to providing good care. What it IS efficient at is profits.

I think some of this comes from a breakdown in our expectations of what care should provide. If you buy car insurance and are a bad driver, your rates correspondingly go up. Americans generally make pretty unhealthy choices, but because there are no discounts or penalties for lifestyle choices, there is no financial incentive for living healthier which would do far more to bring costs down than any reform. I agree that there is a lot of needless red tape, but at the same time it's kind of silly to talk about healthcare reform for a country where more than half the people are overweight.

Boygabriel said:That is a largely philosophical statement. Which I strongly disagree with.

The govt is there to help the broadest number of people possible, and offer help to the less privileged, advantaged, and wealthy.

If we get to a point where our problem is that the govt is too helpful to poor people (HA!), then we'll be doing pretty well, IMO.

But I personally can't equate the problems of favoring the wealthy or corporations too much, and favoring the poor too much.

The bolded is your opinion. I disagree because it sets us down a slippery slope, to where people (like you) argue that it is the gov'ts job to provide a base standard of living for every American, at the expense of those (you or some other interested/biased entity) deemed as having "too much". Being poor in and of itself does not dictate being in need... I think it is the job of the gov't to provide an environment where people are able to take care of themselves as best as they can, and intervene in situations where people can't (i.e., the disabled). But painting all poor people as victims of society is counterproductive and not at all what the US gov't's intention was. This is the land of opportunity, not entitlement

Cool The Kid said:

Again the disconnect. How does raising taxes on income above $1,000,000 help ease the cost of living burdens on the avg American?

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about easing cost of living burdens.

I was stating objective truth. The difference between a middle class person's 20,000th and 30,000th dollar is far more significant than the difference between a wealthy person's 200,000th and 1,000,000th.

That is why different tax rates and tiers exist already.

Systems in which there is no incentive for good performance over bad generally fail... and that is the case w/most gov't administrations (and for that matter many people perpetually on benefits)

The same is true of private health care. I don't see how you can single government out.

We have the least cost efficient health care in the western world, and virtually the only one that is almost entirely private.

This would seem to counter your argument that the gov is inherently less efficient, esp. in health care.

I think some of this comes from a breakdown in our expectations of what care should provide. If you buy car insurance and are a bad driver, your rates correspondingly go up. Americans generally make pretty unhealthy choices, but because there are no discounts or penalties for lifestyle choices, there is no financial incentive for living healthier which would do far more to bring costs down than any reform. I agree that there is a lot of needless red tape, but at the same time it's kind of silly to talk about healthcare reform for a country where more than half the people are overweight.

That's a tough comparison to make. Health care is there to keep you healthy, not solely mitigate costs in the event of disaster, which is what auto insurance is.

The bolded is your opinion. I disagree because it sets us down a slippery slope, to where people (like you) argue that it is the gov'ts job to provide a base standard of living for every American, at the expense of those (you or some other interested/biased entity) deemed as having "too much".

I thought wealth and quality of life weren't a zero sum game?

Being poor in and of itself does not dictate being in need... I think it is the job of the gov't to provide an environment where people are able to take care of themselves as best as they can, and intervene in situations where people can't (i.e., the disabled). But painting all poor people as victims of society is counterproductive and not at all what the US gov't's intention was. This is the land of opportunity, not entitlement

It's supposed to be a land of opportunity but as we agree, due largely to corporate influence, that concept rings pretty hollow.

whynot_31 said:

It's supposed to be a land of opportunity but as we agree, due largely to corporate influence, that concept rings pretty hollow.

To be fair, the "land of opportunity" of both corporations and individuals is similarly constrained by having to pay taxes.

I'm glad corporations provide a force that effectively constrains government.

It's all moot given the disproportionate power of corporations and the weakness of our gov.

Boygabriel said:

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about easing cost of living burdens.

I was stating objective truth. The difference between a middle class person's 20,000th and 30,000th dollar is far more significant than the difference between a wealthy person's 200,000th and 1,000,000th.

That is why different tax rates and tiers exist already.

What is the value of making the tax curve more progressive than it already is? I.e. if we can meet our fiscal obligations at pre-Bush tax cut rates, why do we need to go further?

Boygabriel said:That's a tough comparison to make. Health care is there to keep you healthy, not solely mitigate costs in the event of disaster, which is what auto insurance is.

No, the analog is 100% valid. Insurance is, as Chris Rock put it, "in case shit happens". You get car insurance to cover the costs in case you get in an accident. You get health insurance in case you get sick. If you put yourself in situations where you are more likely to get into an accident, your premiums are higher. So why shouldn't health insurance premiums be higher for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices?

Boygabriel said:I thought wealth and quality of life weren't a zero sum game?

It's not... i.e., Bill Gates becoming a billionaire from inventing Windows doesn't make poor people poorer. So why the well being of the poor suddenly becomes his responsibility upon crossing an arbitrary income threshold is unclear to me.

I don't care one way or another as I am not and prob never will be a billionaire, which is fine. But I am just trying to understand why you feel it is imperative to make the tax curve more progressive (beyond repealing Bush tax cuts). It won't help the avg American. It won't address the issue of gov't overpromising and overspending. It won't get the economy going again. So why the insistence?

Years ago I was briefly acquainted with farmers in Central New York - they would work with a state agency (sorry, don't remember which one) that would arrange to have agricultural workers brought in from, say, Jamaica, to do the farm work. They were paid minimum wages but the money came as a big relief to those poor workers. State agencies and farmers can do the same for poor workers from cities today. But many such agencies have been closed down and there is no organized group to transport people who would like these jobs. If the government was to recreate the CCC it sure would help many farmers and greatly reduce unemployment among the young.

whynot_31 said:

To avoid transportation problems, some of the farmers (either alone or in cooperation with other farmers) provide housing to the workers. NYS Homes and Community Renewal even has a small program in which funds are provided to the farmers to keep the housing up to code.

Things might be ok in NY State (that's a big assumption itself), but in Florida, for example, or Texas, workers are regularly found to be living in shacks that resemble little more than shanty towns with no running water.

whynot_31 said:I think good, honest work like this would do some of our citizens a world of good.

....but, as we have established, US citizens will likely only consider this work if all of the other alternatives available to them were worse.

Or if there's livable wages and things like health care.

But we'll never know if that would work b/c that will never happen.

Rent subsidies to folks residing in public housing authorities are also being discussed.

I'd like to think that these folks will then be forced to accept low paying jobs, but I've got to agree with the author: The folks this policy will affect are so low skilled and unemployable that many are likely to simply end up homeless.