Welcome to PatsFans.com

Cutting entitlement programs

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    The reality is that entitlement programs put money into the hands of the poor, which passes through small business into large businesses and their shareholders. Thus, the higher taxes that wealthy people pay is recouped because the tax money benefits their interests.

    The reality is that there are countless extremely poor people. Some of these people are stupid, some lack social skills, some are physically ugly, some have serious illnesses, some are recovered addicts, some have CORIs, some are in abusive relationships, some have had horrifically bad luck, and so on. While a small number of these people game the system, most of them are simply struggling to live, let alone get ahead. How do you build up these communities if you cut benefits and services? Do you think jobs are going to appear out of nowhere? Or should we simply let these people rot on the vine?
     
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    OT: I don't think you can verify that claim, and even if it's true, some of us would rather not have the government deciding to take our money because of the claim that in the end it's a wash.

    There are good arguments for progressive taxation, just like there are good arguments for a flat tax, but this argument is a weak one.
     
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    You don't see a correlation between GDP and the stock market? You don't see a correlation between wealth and the stock market? I think the correlation is very obvious. Investors have an interest in government spending. They do recoup a substantial part of their tax dollars through the market. If the market was to lose a few trillion of government spending, I think it would hurt stock valuations.
     
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,150
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    The whole world is changing, there are to many people, our own country needs a new form of government, our leaders no longer care about their country they care only for themselves, the people we have today in Washington all belong in prison or thrown out of office as soon as possible ALL OF THEM but how is this done ‚ÄúRevolution, Riots‚ÄĚ you can see it coming, things get hotter and hotter each day soon the straw that breaks the camels back will come, America has become the country that our Immigrant relatives fled from, our city streets are no longer safe, millions of our children have no idea who their father is, we have been invaded by millions of Illegal Aliens while our Democrat & Republican leaders just look the other way, there is no work for poor people, homes are being foreclosed, silly stupid loony teachers are teaching some children how to f-ck instead teaching them how to read.

    Running your own home:
    If you take away decency, honesty, law and order, discipline and common sense your family and your home will fall apart you will no longer have a home and your family will be ruined.

    There is only one way left to save the country, FIGHT to save it, Remember Concord & Lexington, Remember Pearl Harbor but first Clean The Vermin Out Of Washington.

    GOD DAMN AMERICA (this guy would have been hung a few years ago)
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    Isn't the better question if you want to go that route whether there's statistical evidence of tax increases causing increases in the stock market?

    Even if there were -- which I'm confident there isn't -- there is the second part of my point, that if the justification for a tax is that you'll get it back through the benefits of the spending it's used for, many of us would rather just make that decision for ourselves.
     
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,110
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +486 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    I think if we are talking about increases taxes on the very wealthy and continuing to provide current levels of social welfare, the tax increase will definately pay out.

    Say we increase taxes on a household making over $1MM annually by $25k. I could almost guarantee that money is better off in the hands of the poor who will spend every dime of it. Whereas, the household paying that tax increase would not have spent it.

    I'm not a fan of raising taxes, just making a point about economics of the wealthy vs. the poor.

    Personally, I don't want our govn't to raise taxes to help the economy. I don't want gov't services to become MORE vital to our economy than they are now. I'd prefer to see improvements in the private sector of our economy. Once gov't gets too big, we become a purely socialist nation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    Define "better off." What I'm objecting to is the notion that the rich will get their money back from their higher taxes. I don't think it's true, and I don't think it's a valid justification for tax policy.

    (and btw, getting OT a bit, but how does the notion here that spending $ is desirable fit with anti-spending measures such as a consumption tax (something I am adamantly opposed to)?)
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,344
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +817 / 7 / -2

    By this logic we should increase entitlement programs since in the end, everyone ends up getting their money back. :rolleyes:
     
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,110
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +486 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    When our economy is doing well, ALL Americans are "better off". That's what I meant. So if a bunch of very wealthy Americans suddently decided to go on a spending spree, it would benefit the economy. My point was that it would benefit the economy more if wealthy people paid more taxes rather than hold onto it for themselves.

    BUT...I also stated I don't want our gov't becoming a vital part of the US economy (even though it already is). Patter's point is that the more consumer spending there is, the more profit companies make and the higher their stock values (Wall Street) go...thus benefitting those who have the most invested in the markets (wealthy people). And he's right...to a point.

    But no one can use that logic ad-infinitum because the statement;

    Higher taxes = More social welfare dollars = better economy is simply FALSE.

    So the "net/net" is that I agree with YOU, not Patters...if that makes any sense....:confused:
     
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    How can there not be evidence of that. If you took away government expenditures (other than interest on loans), isn't it obvious that certain industries would be hurt. For example, isn't it reasonable to suppose that if tax rates were cut, there would be increased savings by those who could afford to save and less spending by those who needed food stamps? While some savings might be reinvested, a substantial portion would not and reinvestment reduces the multiplier effect.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    I think you could make a historical case that more social welfare leads to a better economy. Look at capitalist nations around the world, including the U.S., for evidence. I'm sure there's a cutoff point, but I'm not sure what the logical basis for the cutoff point is.
     
  12. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    So where's the data?

    You're also now mixing up government spending with tax rates -- if the two were actually linked that would be OK, but clearly our government doesn't actually look at them together.
     
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    I think commonsense points to it. The GDP is generally considered an indicator of the strength of our economy, and government spending is part of it.

    I agree that taxes and spending don't go together, but if we were to link them (and I think we all agree that a case could be made for that), my point would still stand.
     
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    I think "common sense" arguments can be made for a lot of economic positions -- does a higher tax rate on people, particularly lower-income people, cause them to work less because they take home less of their income or more because they need to do so in order to generate more takehome pay?

    Your point absoluitely would be stronger if they were linked -- we couldn't have spending without taxes. But they're not.

    So just looking at taxes, if the justification for higher taxes is that the taxed get it back, let's see some data. Because I don't think that's a good justification, and I don't think it's true. It sounds to me, at best, like an explanation why higher taxes aren't really as bad as they seem.

    If you're going to tell me I have to pay higher taxes because I'll actually be better off as a result, shouldn't you be able to prove it since you're no longer leaving my best interests to me?
     
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    There would need to be study, I agree. I did a quick search on Google, but could not find one. But, I think it stands to reason that an investor is likely to include in their portfolios those business sectors that get some of the government largess, and the strength of those investments is likely to be somewhat dependent on government spending. Don't the bailouts also tend to support my point in that wealthy investors were protected from substantial losses with the help of our tax dollars?
     
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,110
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +486 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    The very, very LAST thing Americans need or want is for the United States Federal government to become THE GREAT EMPLOYER. No way that ever happens!

    If that were to happen, we might as well call our nation....

    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
     
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    I think we are currently

    The United States of America, a subsidiary of Inc.
     
  18. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Ratings:
    +342 / 7 / -4

    I'm not arguing that government spending can't help the wealthy. Clearly it can (just like it an help the poor and middle class).

    All I've been saying is that I don't buy an argument for higher taxation on the grounds that it will actually wind up helping those taxed -- I don't think it's a valid role of government and I don't think it's statistically borne out.

    If you want to argue for higher taxes for the rich because the tax revenue is needed, that particular form of tax increase is best and one reason why its harm is partially mitigated is that some of the money flows back to them, I may or may not agree with you, but I think it's far more likely to be sound policy and reasoning.
     
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +467 / 18 / -17

    Perhaps I could have stated my point more clearly by stating that tax expenditures have the result of mitigating the so-called "unfairness" of progressive taxation. Besides that, as I've said in the past, taxes are merely a tool of the economy and right now we need to raise taxes on the rich for a few years in order to get the economy back on track. In addition, we cannot afford to cut social services, since those expenditures not only have a huge effect on the lives of people, they have a huge effect on the economy. Personally, I think we need more social services, and an intellectual focus on what kind of jobs can be created for the hard-to-employ, and how will those jobs be funded.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,110
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +486 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Maybe you're right...but whose fault is that? Since we all can vote, I'd say it's our fault. That's why I keep saying gov't has no business trying to inflate the economy. It's not their job.

    I'm also fine with regulation, but today, you have do regulation on a world-wide basis. Otherwise, if we apply more stringent regulations, companies can move to India or Taiwan or wherever. So that means all nations would have to get together to ensure corporations don't end up controlling everything.

    I honestly wish all the countries would get together very soon to reign them in very soon. We don't want profit margins and stock values influencing our lives by corporations that need to increase profit every single year.

    I've said this before and I'll say/write it again....

    Corporations are given the right to exist to serve society. It's not the other way around. People, not governments and not corporations are the only power walking on this planet.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>