2016 US election predictions.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ok, that worked, so let me try the serious post again:

this country did just fine before permanently instituting the income tax (16th Amendment, 1909; rat.1913) so why can't we do that now?

-tg

We did just fine before permanently instituting the income tax and we had a military that numbered a few tens of thousands of men total. We ramped up to a war footing over the course of months, but after a war, military expenditures dropped down to a tiny amount. That isn't entirely possible anymore. Some of the high-tech systems that we use require a fairly steady stream of trained personnel to keep them functioning, and ramping up that knowledge base for a war footing may not work. Still, we have never seriously tried it. We have military spending that is larger than the next twelve countries combined. Better yet, even though Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down, Romney was promising to increase military spending as a percentage of GDP, so there isn't even the intention of reducing.

I wouldn't suggest a plan of tax the rich and give to the poor under any circumstances....except one, but leave that for now. The issue I would be looking at is that in our particular situation, we have a MASSIVE deficit which concerns me. The solution that the R have come up with is simply belt-tightening. The problem is that the government budget doesn't work like an individuals budget. The amount of income is a percentage of the economy, so if the economy shrinks, so does the income. The expenditures don't shrink when the economy shrinks though. Instead, they may grow or remain the same. So, belt-tightening can have the opposite of the desired effect, because it could cause the deficit to increase if the austerity decreases the economy. If the deficit is the problem we are trying to solve, then that is where taxing at a higher rate would be justified. Furthermore, greater outlays for the poor could also be justified. That does effectively amount to a wealth transfer, but the goal isn't a wealth transfer for the sake of a wealth transfer, the goal is reduction of the deficit using the two pronged approach of increasing revenue on some that can afford it, and increasing spending on those that will do it, together combining to grow the economy, which will increase the revenue and doubly drive down the deficit.

However, that would have to stop once the deficit was driven down to where we want it (no government debt wouldn't be good, but no deficit and a smaller debt would be). Unfortunately, politicians don't take the long view. They don't have the lifespan to take the long view, so anything implemented as a fix to a specific problem will tend to perpetuate even once the problem has been solved (see military expenditures).

The one place I feel that a true wealth transfer is going to be necessary is in health care. I've said it before, and it's totally pessimistic, but I believe that the advance of technology will, on its own, result in a neeed for a single-payer universal health system, or will result in the collapse of our civil society. Since I've ranted about that before, I won't again, I only mention this because it is the exception where I see wealth transfer as being eventually essential.

@SJW: We can never have too many udder jokes, so leave that flying cow alone.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I guess it's just going to be one of those days.

I'm going for a walk.

[FunkyDexter]

I am not going to limit myself to YOUR narrow meaning when a different meaning provides the opportunity for greater humor

I have a freind who's really a bit weird on the hoarding front. He's actually kept every bit of fat he's ever used for cooking. He's got hundreds of jars of the stuff filling every cupboard in his kitchen. He's a rich man indeed.

No one... seriously... no one is "deserving" of extra money... what people deserve is to keep their money they've earned.

That's fine as long as you understand that you have still defined a class of people as "deserving". In this case that is the class of people who will produce the goods and services that the market is willing to pay most for; the very essence of capitalism. Wealth is still being redistributed to them, it's just being done so via the mechanism of the market rather than a government run or philanthropic mechanism. If that's your definition of "deserving" then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the position you've taken. You're setting the system up so that the money goes directly to where you feel it's "deserved".

I personally disagree somewhat with that definition of "deserving" for a number of reasons but that's a different debate. My point is this, don't argue (and I don't think you are) that we should, for example, prop up national industries in the hope that the wealth of that will feed back to the class you defined. To take a more "grey area" example, don't call for government investment in transport infrastructure on the basis that it will help companies sell the goods and services that they produce. If the market is your only yardstick to judge "deserving" then it's also your only mechanism of restribution.

[techgnome]

I think we crossed paths here... when I was thinking of wealth redistribution, I'm thinking specifically governmental redistributions, ala the "tax rebates" or tax hikes, etc... all the things government does in the name of spurring on the economy... market and societal redistribution is a different matter, and if Romney wants to infuse $25M somewhere where he thinks it will do something (hopefully) good, well, then that's just fine and dandy, I won't hold that against him. I have issues with the government, specifically the federal government, doing that. And I completely agree that we shouldn't propup national industries... This was something I learned in my last life, where the company I worked for despite being a national company - it was a major construction company with job sites all over the place, coast to coast and then some - HQ was merely an umbrella... comprised of a bout a dozen or so smaller regional companies. The organization was decentralized enabling each company to bit and manage jobs as they see fit. The philosophy was that how one might bid a job in Colorado is going to be different from how you're going to bid in Hawaii... and yes, it sometimes meant that we'd compete against ourselves... in a way it's good because it ensures each regional company is running as efficiently as it can.

I personally believe that we'd be better off if Congress would tighten its belt, cut out all the crap spending and lowered taxes. But that's never going to happen...mostly because I know that it's not that simple... it never is. That's why I hate people who sometimes bad mouth their legislatures (not jsut Congress but at the state level too) for being "Career" politicians and call for term limits... I've seen what term limits can do... sure, it had its intended effect (which was to get a couple of specific somebodies out of the state house) ... but the unintended consequence is that over a 4 year period the entire state legislature was then replaced by new blood... and then the find out that the salary is a paltry 12,000/yr (which is why I never ran, I can't be away from my regular job for the amount of time that would require on that amount)... so they write up a bill to increase the salary, bumping it to something liked 30k/yr... but it has to go before the voters, which all they see is the 150% salary increase... 10 years later and they're STILL trying to get the bill past the voters. Just another example of how things are never simple.

-tg

[FunkyDexter]

I think we crossed paths here

Yeah, I was aware of that. That's why I found myself saying things like "Don't Argue (I know you're not)". I was trying to get across that my point wasn't necessarily in conflict with yours.

I've been trying to avoid nailing my political colours to the mast up till now because I didn't want to muddy the waters around the whole trickling issue but since that's the way the thread's heading:-

I personally think the capitalist model is a good place to start. If I work hard, am talented and diligent, and produce things that people actually want then I do good for society and should be rewarded for that. That behaviour would define me as deserving.

However, I do think it's also a simplistic view that overlooks all sorts of things:-
1. I have a freind who is self employed teaching climbing to severely autistic kids as a form of therapy. She earns a pittance. The market will never pay her much because her customers have generally had to make big sacrifices for their kids (including giving up dual incomes). But does that make her less deserving than me, a well paid computer programmer. I think I'd actually take the view that she's more deserving than me but the market alone will never recognise that. I'd like to see her get subsidies for what she does and would be happy to be taxed to pay for it. The caring professions are, on the whole, grossly undervalued by all of us until we really need them... at which point we usually can't afford to pay what they're really worth.
2. The market tends to demand not what it needs but what it desires, and those with great resources can manipulate what the market wants. Marketting is called marketting for a reason, it's about manipulating the market. I'm not conviced there's anything particularly worth about selling mp3 players or designer trainers but the market believes they're a "must have" (which is a pretty odd concept when you think about it) so will reward it in spades.
3. There are a great many things (transport infrastructure is a pretty good example) that should be a collective responsibility. I don't believe individuals will spontaneously club together to fund those things unless they are made to. They might do a bit, but I doubt they'd do enough.
4. I think that we're all better off if everyone has a quality of life that is at least decent, even they're lazy and don't really deserve it.

Those are a few exceptions, I'm sure I could up with plenty more if I could be bothered. You could argue that those things would be handled by philanthropy but I don't buy it. One of the things I most admire about you Americans is your philanthropic tradition which is far stronger than our own but I'm not sure you'd really want to rely on it when the proverbial hit the fan. People often talk about the charitable traditions of Victorian Britain but I'm not sure you'd want to live there if you were an ethnic minority or disabled... and there wasn't alot of social mobility back then either. I think there is a role for governments to redistribute wealth to some extent. For me the debate is really about how much.

[techgnome]

I think you pretty much hit it all on the head there... my concern is with the definition of "deserving" -not necessarily yours or mine... but in general... you think your friend is deserving because of the work she does... and I see that, I value that... meanwhile I know of someone else who I think is deserving because of something else they do... and that's where the problem comes in... it is highly subjective... who is to say who is more deserving? Someone else may decide that neither of our friends are deserving at all because they aren't doing cancer research. Where we part ways is I don't think I should be taxed to subsidize things that are the subject of someone else's whims, desires and own definition of deserving. *I* want to be able to control my money in where it goes... if I think a cause worthy enough, I'll donate. Yes, that does mean that I'm creating a deserving class... but that's *MY* choice... clearly the government's method of choosing isn't all that great *koff*Solyndra*koff**koff*

Also... I'm not saying that taxation in general goes away... I jsut think that at the federal level it needs to be re-evaluated... yes, thigns like infrastructure need to be maintained... but for the most part that's all done at the state level now... the federal DOT doesn't do that any more... and yet we're still paying into that... for what reason?

That's all I'm saying... things that are currently at the federal level needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps passed off back to the state.. it's the federal government I have issues with... not government in general.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have a freind who's really a bit weird on the hoarding front. He's actually kept every bit of fat he's ever used for cooking. He's got hundreds of jars of the stuff filling every cupboard in his kitchen. He's a rich man indeed.

Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?


@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.

[FunkyDexter]

who is to say who is more deserving?

The government, they're elected after all. I'm sorry because that's a frankly flippant answer to what's actually a very good question but it's the best one I've got. While I like the idea that we should decide as individuals the answer, too often, would be: "me". I think it has to be some body that can step back and be a bit more objective and I can't think of a better one than the government - even if they're not actually a particularly good one.

I'm guessing we've got different definitions of government though. You seem to be using it to refer to centralised national government wheras I'm using it to include local councils as well. I think you're arguing for as much decentralisation as possible an I'd line right up alongside you there. Decisions should be taken at the most local level possible. Inevitably there are some decisions which belong at a national level but national governments to tend to want to centralise everything and I don't think that's healthy.

Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?

There no use trying to butter me up with cheap puns at this late stage. Oh alright, yours were clever while mine was more "I can't believe it's not funny". I was on something about it being margeinally funny but I just couldn't get the wording right.

@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.

I think issues around MP pay are really quite interesting. I like to think that low pay would mean only the committed would serve but I suspect it would mean only the indepentently wealthy would.

[techgnome]

Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?


@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.

I think issues around MP pay are really quite interesting. I like to think that low pay would mean only the committed would serve but I suspect it would mean only the indepentently wealthy would.

What it ends up meaning (at least it did in Nebraska where I used to live) is that business owners and people who have income regardless if they show up or not (because they either own the business or the ranch, or have some other kind of automatic income some how) end up being the ones that run... because they are the only ones who can afford to do it.

I haven't had the chance to figure out how it works here in SC yet...

-tg

[SJWhiteley]

...

I'm guessing we've got different definitions of government though. You seem to be using it to refer to centralised national government wheras I'm using it to include local councils as well. I think you're arguing for as much decentralisation as possible an I'd line right up alongside you there. Decisions should be taken at the most local level possible. Inevitably there are some decisions which belong at a national level but national governments to tend to want to centralise everything and I don't think that's healthy.

....

I don't think so: this issue in the US is a federal issue - that they are taking far too much responsibility (sic) for things that are not required to regulate. The needs of individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, and so on up become extremely divergent across the country. Many of the 'big issues' exist directly because of federal government. We pay taxes to fund the Federal Governments obligation to regulate (i.e. make regular/uniform), provide for the defense of the country and provide mechanisms to prevent the infringements of rights. However, there are more and more fees associated with regulations - which we are already paying for. With all these additional fees, and taxes, and the threat of taxes going up, we still don't have enough money in the federal coffers.