Earned Income Tax Credit/Making Work Pay

[Politico]

So, instead of businesses paying a living wage, you, me and everyone else should cough up extra cash in the form of higher taxes so people can afford to eat?

Why should we pay someone who doesn't work for us? Why not the employer who can and should???

It doesn't increase anything unless you are churning out babies. For the responsible folks it does nothing. And the program should be ended.

It doesn't matter if she has a baby every year - the IRS allows a maximum of three (3) children for the EIC.

Exactly. Babies. That was the point. The number is not relevant.

 

[Papageorgio]

Does anyone realize that these programs already increase the minimum wage? The current debate is nothing more that an election year political ploy to paint Republicans as big meanies, even if it further harms the economy. Carry on...

This program helped one of my workers, his wife and he both work, she just had a baby, she quit her job, stays home, with what they save in daycare, Obamacare covering part of the insurance and EIC, she would only make $2 bucks an hour if she worked, after all is factored.

 

[Andylusion]

Nice try; but still no cigar. I've been on record for almost forty years supporting an end to minimum wage and replacement with public employment, starting when I was teaching labor economics. While a lot of knee-jerk students dismiss it out of hand like you do, I have yet to run into a labor economist who doesn't have to think about it quite a bit more and most end up agreeing a case can be made.

I notice that you don't address any of the arguments for such a proposal. I assume you simply don't understand enough to make any response. Your only rejoinder is that welfare programs are persistent and never go away. This is not only factually incorrect on a massive scale, it is a logical fallacy. Economists have some expertise to express opinions as to the probable economic consequences of public policy; they have no necessary expertise or responsibility for what political processes do or not do in formulating public policy. The fact that the United States has the highest levels of teenage pregnancies in the developed world is not the fault of the public health system, but of the political processes that determine public health policy. Similarly it's my job to predict the outcome of economic policy alternatives, but I'm not responsible for the mess political hacks create when they decide to divvy up the pork.

If anyone is to blame for what you are complaining about, it is the conservative economic tradition from Milton Friedman onward. EITC has always been a libertarian/fiscal conservative baby as I mentioned before and which you apparently accept. This is your own mess, which you refuse to deal with and blame on other people. But then again, the definition of a conservative is someone who blames every bad outcome of their policies on someone else rather than modify their positions in light of evidence. If it was good enough for the Statutes of Edward III, there is no reason to change it now, right?

Replacing welfare with public employment?

So you have more public employees, the tax rate would have to dramatically increase to pay for all of them, requiring even more money from working people like me, which would be driven more and more into impoverishment, until we quit, and join public employment, which would drive higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment, driving more into public employment, driving higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment.

Soviet Union anyone? There's a reason they don't exist anymore. There's a reason Pre-78 China had 63% of the population living below the Chinese poverty line of $2 a day.

No, that's a horrible plan.

It's an unworkable pipe dream.

Some people can never be taught higher job skills, which makes the unskilled labor pool unsustainably large. There could never be enough jobs for everyone, particularly in any level of economic downturn.


But anyway, the OP is like one of those nutty relative's e-mails. It's a sensationalized fabrication.

Here's something that's true: General Electric, which made BILLIONS of dollars, has used tax loopholes for years. They pay ZERO dollars per year in taxes. they receive $MILLIONS in subsidies. Why not go after them instead of a poor woman making minimum wage?

Sadly, I would disagree with everything you said lol.

First, it's not a pipedream, if you mean it can't be done. Of course it can be done. We could very easily employ all of the poor in government jobs. The problem isn't that its a pipedream that can't be done. The problem is that it would drive up taxes, making more impoverish, driving more into government jobs. The problem is, it would harm the entire country.

Second, I completely disagree with the idea that people 'can't' be taught job skills. They most certainly can. So why do people not learn job skills? Three simple reasons... They don't want to, they don't have to, and they are told they deserve better regardless.

If you tell people they are entitled, and deserve a good wage.... why work for it?
If you give people all kinds of assistance, so that all their basic needs are met... what motivation do they have to work for their basic needs?
Flat out, most don't want to put in the effort. Period.

Back in the 1990s, we had welfare reform, which kicked tens of thousands off welfare, and food stamps, at the same time. What did those people do? THEY WENT TO WORK. It's that simple. Stop telling people they deserve anything. They don't. Stop giving them money. They'll work.

Thirdly, General Electric is not paying zero tax. Just not true. That entire myth was built on one bad journalist, who found an SEC statement, saying the company received money from the government. This "reporter" deceptively ignored the companies IRS filings, which had the additional information containing how much money the company paid in tax. The SEC filing had a tax over payment, included in it, because the money was reported as income.

But it was an over payment. Money paid to the government, OVER the millions in taxes they already paid. Just like if you over pay, you get a tax return at the end of the year. GE pays millions in taxes. Not your fault. The report was intentionally deceptive.

Besides that... you really want our government with more money? You really want a company that provides products, and jobs, and wealth to our country, with less money?

You really think the government is going to use that money more wisely, than GE?

 

[OnePercenter]

I had a patient the other day. Single mother, worked minimum wage job. I can't remember what she was in the ER for, but it was a minor thing (free healthcare = overuse of ED). I fixed whatever thing she had wrong, and then started talking to her about smoking. She smokes over 1 pack per day. Here that's about $5 per pack, or $1825 a year. I try to use that as an another reason for her to stop smoking...she doesn't really "get" it.

She works minimum wage. $7.25 X 50 hour work week X 52 weeks a year = $18,850. I tell her she spends almost 10% of her income in cigarettes....she still doesn't "get" it.

So I try to relate the cost of smoking to how much she got back in tax returns. Stupid me, I figured she probably got a couple of thousand bucks back on taxes, so I would try to relate her stopping smoking to getting a "double" tax return every year...so I ask her how much she got for a tax return.......

I was forcefully, and visibly, stunned when she said she got back almost TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Single mom. I don't know how many kids. Minimum wage job. Working 50 hours a week that nets $18,850 a year in wages, but she gets an additional TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS every year from Uncle Sam.

This was on the same day that I did my taxes and sent a HUGE check to the IRS. Now I realize why I pay soooooo damn much in taxes.

If you sent a HUGE check to the IRS, perhaps you should hire a CPA to do your taxes.

 

[editec]

Does anyone realize that these programs already increase the minimum wage? The current debate is nothing more that an election year political ploy to paint Republicans as big meanies, even if it further harms the economy. Carry on...

Do you realize that if MINIUMUM WAGES are increased those workers incomes will come from their employers instead of YOU and ME?

I don't really think Republicans are big meanies in this case, Jwoodie.

In this case I just think they're stupid as hell.

 

[jwoodie]

Nice attempts at trying to hijack this thread. Honest Knee Jerks (oxymoron) would be willing to REPLACE EITC/MWP with a minimum wage increase (or vice versa). Instead, they want to keep and expand ALL welfare programs in their attempt to enforce income equality regardless of ability or effort.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Nice try; but still no cigar. I've been on record for almost forty years supporting an end to minimum wage and replacement with public employment, starting when I was teaching labor economics. While a lot of knee-jerk students dismiss it out of hand like you do, I have yet to run into a labor economist who doesn't have to think about it quite a bit more and most end up agreeing a case can be made.

I notice that you don't address any of the arguments for such a proposal. I assume you simply don't understand enough to make any response. Your only rejoinder is that welfare programs are persistent and never go away. This is not only factually incorrect on a massive scale, it is a logical fallacy. Economists have some expertise to express opinions as to the probable economic consequences of public policy; they have no necessary expertise or responsibility for what political processes do or not do in formulating public policy. The fact that the United States has the highest levels of teenage pregnancies in the developed world is not the fault of the public health system, but of the political processes that determine public health policy. Similarly it's my job to predict the outcome of economic policy alternatives, but I'm not responsible for the mess political hacks create when they decide to divvy up the pork.

If anyone is to blame for what you are complaining about, it is the conservative economic tradition from Milton Friedman onward. EITC has always been a libertarian/fiscal conservative baby as I mentioned before and which you apparently accept. This is your own mess, which you refuse to deal with and blame on other people. But then again, the definition of a conservative is someone who blames every bad outcome of their policies on someone else rather than modify their positions in light of evidence. If it was good enough for the Statutes of Edward III, there is no reason to change it now, right?

Pseudo-intellectual non-response. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Papageorgio]

I had a patient the other day. Single mother, worked minimum wage job. I can't remember what she was in the ER for, but it was a minor thing (free healthcare = overuse of ED). I fixed whatever thing she had wrong, and then started talking to her about smoking. She smokes over 1 pack per day. Here that's about $5 per pack, or $1825 a year. I try to use that as an another reason for her to stop smoking...she doesn't really "get" it.

She works minimum wage. $7.25 X 50 hour work week X 52 weeks a year = $18,850. I tell her she spends almost 10% of her income in cigarettes....she still doesn't "get" it.

So I try to relate the cost of smoking to how much she got back in tax returns. Stupid me, I figured she probably got a couple of thousand bucks back on taxes, so I would try to relate her stopping smoking to getting a "double" tax return every year...so I ask her how much she got for a tax return.......

I was forcefully, and visibly, stunned when she said she got back almost TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Single mom. I don't know how many kids. Minimum wage job. Working 50 hours a week that nets $18,850 a year in wages, but she gets an additional TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS every year from Uncle Sam.

This was on the same day that I did my taxes and sent a HUGE check to the IRS. Now I realize why I pay soooooo damn much in taxes.

If you sent a HUGE check to the IRS, perhaps you should hire a CPA to do your taxes.

You want the rich to pay huge sums of money in taxes. It is obvious you are not as rich as you seem to claim, otherwise you'd put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Andylusion]

I had a patient the other day. Single mother, worked minimum wage job. I can't remember what she was in the ER for, but it was a minor thing (free healthcare = overuse of ED). I fixed whatever thing she had wrong, and then started talking to her about smoking. She smokes over 1 pack per day. Here that's about $5 per pack, or $1825 a year. I try to use that as an another reason for her to stop smoking...she doesn't really "get" it.

She works minimum wage. $7.25 X 50 hour work week X 52 weeks a year = $18,850. I tell her she spends almost 10% of her income in cigarettes....she still doesn't "get" it.

So I try to relate the cost of smoking to how much she got back in tax returns. Stupid me, I figured she probably got a couple of thousand bucks back on taxes, so I would try to relate her stopping smoking to getting a "double" tax return every year...so I ask her how much she got for a tax return.......

I was forcefully, and visibly, stunned when she said she got back almost TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Single mom. I don't know how many kids. Minimum wage job. Working 50 hours a week that nets $18,850 a year in wages, but she gets an additional TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS every year from Uncle Sam.

This was on the same day that I did my taxes and sent a HUGE check to the IRS. Now I realize why I pay soooooo damn much in taxes.

If you sent a HUGE check to the IRS, perhaps you should hire a CPA to do your taxes.

I've heard you say this a number of times now. Is this your default response to anyone who suggests that they pay too much taxes? Do you just assume that everyone who isn't the 1%, has magic tax deductions?

 

[Andylusion]

Does anyone realize that these programs already increase the minimum wage? The current debate is nothing more that an election year political ploy to paint Republicans as big meanies, even if it further harms the economy. Carry on...

Do you realize that if MINIUMUM WAGES are increased those workers incomes will come from their employers instead of YOU and ME?

I don't really think Republicans are big meanies in this case, Jwoodie.

In this case I just think they're stupid as hell.

Noooo...... It won't come from the employers. It will come from you and me.... or they won't have a job.

I don't understand why people can't grasp this.

IF you wanted to hire me to mow your lawn, and I offered to do it for $30 a mow, you might go for that.

But if the government stepped in and said the minimum wage for lawn mowing was $100, would you hire me then? Not likely. For one months mowing, you could buy your own mower, and enough gas for the whole summer.

Now what's the difference is, I'm the employer, and I send a guy to mow your lawn for $30, and then the government makes the minimum wage for a mow $100?

Every single job that exists, only exists from the willingness of the customer to pay for the labor of that job.

No company has even a PENNY, that does not come from the customer.

So every minimum wage increase, is passed right on to the customer.... that's YOU AND ME.

I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s, when Clinton increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.25.

The FIRST THING that Wendy's did was lay off three employees. That happened immediately.

The SECOND THING that Wendy's did, was shrink portion sizes. Remember the Wendy's "Biggie"?

They shrank the portion sizes. The small, got smaller, and the medium replaced the small. The large got smaller and replaced the medium. The Biggie became the large.

The prices stayed the same, but the portions shrunk.

Similarly the burgers shrank in size, and if you remember, they came out with the "Classic Single" and "Classic Double". The "classic" version was the original size burger, with a new larger price. While the regular burgers got smaller, and fewer toppings.

That's the round about way, of passing on the minimum wage, to the customers. Again.... ALL taxes.... ALL fees.... ALL Health care mandates.... and ALL minimum wages, are passed right on to the customers.

There is no exception. This is how it always works.

 

[Pop23]

Does anyone realize that these programs already increase the minimum wage? The current debate is nothing more that an election year political ploy to paint Republicans as big meanies, even if it further harms the economy. Carry on...

So, instead of businesses paying a living wage, you, me and everyone else should cough up extra cash in the form of higher taxes so people can afford to eat?

Why should we pay someone who doesn't work for us? Why not the employer who can and should???

So the government mandates my everyday expenses increase so minimum wages increases. The difference between that and the increase in taxes to fund the EIC is?

Thought so

 

[Shrimpbox]

I see people who don't work and they have plenty.............Merle Haggard

This subject gets regurgitated more than a cows cud. Most of the posters just reinforce the claim that nobody is really hurting. There are so many govt. benes. And spare me the living wage sob story. Apparently no one reads the breakdown of who really receives the min wage and how many people we are talking about.

Additionally, business does pay a lot in payroll taxes which increase dramatically with increased pay. Does anyone think if a business had to increase its payroll 50 per cent that there would be any jobs. How about entry level jobs where the employer offers training for a higher position. And always the low end workers are portrayed as saints and innocents that are always abused, a notion that one would soon be disabused of if they ever ran their own businesses.

I have posted this before, if you really want to help the low end worker raise the min wage to ten dollars an hour and take no taxes out for govt or from business, but stop trying to make the perception more valid than the reality.

 

[oldfart]

Nice attempts at trying to hijack this thread. Honest Knee Jerks (oxymoron) would be willing to REPLACE EITC/MWP with a minimum wage increase (or vice versa). Instead, they want to keep and expand ALL welfare programs in their attempt to enforce income equality regardless of ability or effort.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Nice try; but still no cigar. I've been on record for almost forty years supporting an end to minimum wage and replacement with public employment, starting when I was teaching labor economics. While a lot of knee-jerk students dismiss it out of hand like you do, I have yet to run into a labor economist who doesn't have to think about it quite a bit more and most end up agreeing a case can be made.

I notice that you don't address any of the arguments for such a proposal. I assume you simply don't understand enough to make any response. Your only rejoinder is that welfare programs are persistent and never go away. This is not only factually incorrect on a massive scale, it is a logical fallacy. Economists have some expertise to express opinions as to the probable economic consequences of public policy; they have no necessary expertise or responsibility for what political processes do or not do in formulating public policy. The fact that the United States has the highest levels of teenage pregnancies in the developed world is not the fault of the public health system, but of the political processes that determine public health policy. Similarly it's my job to predict the outcome of economic policy alternatives, but I'm not responsible for the mess political hacks create when they decide to divvy up the pork.

If anyone is to blame for what you are complaining about, it is the conservative economic tradition from Milton Friedman onward. EITC has always been a libertarian/fiscal conservative baby as I mentioned before and which you apparently accept. This is your own mess, which you refuse to deal with and blame on other people. But then again, the definition of a conservative is someone who blames every bad outcome of their policies on someone else rather than modify their positions in light of evidence. If it was good enough for the Statutes of Edward III, there is no reason to change it now, right?

Replacing welfare with public employment?

Yes, that's the proposal. No employer is forced to hire anybody and is free to offer whatever wage they want. No worker is required to accept any job. That's what is commonly referred to a a "free market". Maybe you have heard of it?

So you have more public employees, the tax rate would have to dramatically increase to pay for all of them, requiring even more money from working people like me,

Oh come on! You can't possibly be that stupid. What makes you think that public employees automatically cost more than they produce? How lazy is your fire department? How bad was your kindergarten teacher? I take the last back, she obviously failed you.

which would be driven more and more into impoverishment, until we quit, and join public employment, which would drive higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment, driving more into public employment, driving higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment.

Pure poppycock and balderdash. This is the best you can come up with? Bathos? Oh, the humanity...!

Soviet Union anyone? There's a reason they don't exist anymore. There's a reason Pre-78 China had 63% of the population living below the Chinese poverty line of $2 a day.

I wasn't going to discuss the Soviet Union, but since you bring it up, I have some familiarity with the subject. But perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you believe that removing restraints on labor markets is tantamount to central planning.

Your argument might be dangerous if you thought it through and did more than spout slogans. I see no danger of that happening.

You seem to be entirely satisfied with America's roads and bridges, health statistics that make third world countries blush at double the cost of ones like Switzerland that actually work, a justice system that incarcerates more than the Chinese without any visible effect on crime, and a financial system that can accomplish nothing without crashing the world economy. With a record like that, there is obviously no need to try anything better.

Now answer me one question: Are you a poor put upon worker struggling to make ends meet, or are you a rich capitalist defending the 400 families? I wish you would make up your mind.

 

[oldfart]

Nice try; but still no cigar. I've been on record for almost forty years supporting an end to minimum wage and replacement with public employment, starting when I was teaching labor economics. While a lot of knee-jerk students dismiss it out of hand like you do, I have yet to run into a labor economist who doesn't have to think about it quite a bit more and most end up agreeing a case can be made.

I notice that you don't address any of the arguments for such a proposal. I assume you simply don't understand enough to make any response. Your only rejoinder is that welfare programs are persistent and never go away. This is not only factually incorrect on a massive scale, it is a logical fallacy. Economists have some expertise to express opinions as to the probable economic consequences of public policy; they have no necessary expertise or responsibility for what political processes do or not do in formulating public policy. The fact that the United States has the highest levels of teenage pregnancies in the developed world is not the fault of the public health system, but of the political processes that determine public health policy. Similarly it's my job to predict the outcome of economic policy alternatives, but I'm not responsible for the mess political hacks create when they decide to divvy up the pork.

If anyone is to blame for what you are complaining about, it is the conservative economic tradition from Milton Friedman onward. EITC has always been a libertarian/fiscal conservative baby as I mentioned before and which you apparently accept. This is your own mess, which you refuse to deal with and blame on other people. But then again, the definition of a conservative is someone who blames every bad outcome of their policies on someone else rather than modify their positions in light of evidence. If it was good enough for the Statutes of Edward III, there is no reason to change it now, right?

Replacing welfare with public employment?

So you have more public employees, the tax rate would have to dramatically increase to pay for all of them, requiring even more money from working people like me, which would be driven more and more into impoverishment, until we quit, and join public employment, which would drive higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment, driving more into public employment, driving higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment.

Soviet Union anyone? There's a reason they don't exist anymore. There's a reason Pre-78 China had 63% of the population living below the Chinese poverty line of $2 a day.

No, that's a horrible plan.

It's an unworkable pipe dream.

You bring up some valid concerns, so I'll try to give you the best counterarguments.

Some people can never be taught higher job skills, which makes the unskilled labor pool unsustainably large. There could never be enough jobs for everyone, particularly in any level of economic downturn.

At one time, it was argued that since 80% of the labor force was undisciplined farm labor, the inevitable result of the industrial revolution would be mass unemployment and starvation. This was a mixture of Malthusian population theory, Ricardian theory of distribution, and later some social Darwinism with a dose of Charles Dickens thrown in for flavor. It didn't happen. The remedy was public education, Bismarkian social insurance, and the replacement of a near feudal social and economic order with a robust explosion of economic mobility resulting in the modern middle class and the greatest period of economic expansion in history.

If we have a pool of unskilled and untrainable labor, it will only exist a generation, then it will die out. For such a situation to persist, we must have an educational system and labor training that produces a new crop of functional illiterates and unemployables in each new generation. In that, American society has been highly successful. Such an outcome raises a question as to why we would do so, and the answer is just as obvious; because as a society we like such an outcome and therefore support organizing society to produce disposable children and the dregs of society. The civilized world is aghast at what we have done; Europe and the developed Far East do not look like this. We prefer to live in a vicious, violent, racist, brutal, backward society with institutions that do not work for any but the most wealthy, and we are proud of it.

Yes, we are very proud of it. If we ever turn loose this self-destructive world view, reform our institutions, and join the civilized world; we will not have a huge underclass of unemployed and unemployable citizens. We would not be warehousing them in private corporate prisons for profit at huge expense, or gutting public education to make more money for profit motivated educational corporations.

It is not the results of this false ethos which prevents us from doing better; it is that false ethos itself.

But anyway, the OP is like one of those nutty relative's e-mails. It's a sensationalized fabrication.

Here's something that's true: General Electric, which made BILLIONS of dollars, has used tax loopholes for years. They pay ZERO dollars per year in taxes. they receive $MILLIONS in subsidies. Why not go after them instead of a poor woman making minimum wage?

From your keyboard to God's ear.....

 

[Andylusion]

Nice try; but still no cigar. I've been on record for almost forty years supporting an end to minimum wage and replacement with public employment, starting when I was teaching labor economics. While a lot of knee-jerk students dismiss it out of hand like you do, I have yet to run into a labor economist who doesn't have to think about it quite a bit more and most end up agreeing a case can be made.

I notice that you don't address any of the arguments for such a proposal. I assume you simply don't understand enough to make any response. Your only rejoinder is that welfare programs are persistent and never go away. This is not only factually incorrect on a massive scale, it is a logical fallacy. Economists have some expertise to express opinions as to the probable economic consequences of public policy; they have no necessary expertise or responsibility for what political processes do or not do in formulating public policy. The fact that the United States has the highest levels of teenage pregnancies in the developed world is not the fault of the public health system, but of the political processes that determine public health policy. Similarly it's my job to predict the outcome of economic policy alternatives, but I'm not responsible for the mess political hacks create when they decide to divvy up the pork.

If anyone is to blame for what you are complaining about, it is the conservative economic tradition from Milton Friedman onward. EITC has always been a libertarian/fiscal conservative baby as I mentioned before and which you apparently accept. This is your own mess, which you refuse to deal with and blame on other people. But then again, the definition of a conservative is someone who blames every bad outcome of their policies on someone else rather than modify their positions in light of evidence. If it was good enough for the Statutes of Edward III, there is no reason to change it now, right?

Replacing welfare with public employment?

Oh come on! You can't possibly be that stupid. What makes you think that public employees automatically cost more than they produce? How lazy is your fire department? How bad was your kindergarten teacher? I take the last back, she obviously failed you.

Really. So your claim is that a fire department employee produces just as much wealth for society, as someone who builds cars, or provides health services?

which would be driven more and more into impoverishment, until we quit, and join public employment, which would drive higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment, driving more into public employment, driving higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment.

Pure poppycock and balderdash. This is the best you can come up with? Bathos? Oh, the humanity...!

Lot's of empty talk. Zero supporting evidence or even a rational counter argument.

Soviet Union anyone? There's a reason they don't exist anymore. There's a reason Pre-78 China had 63% of the population living below the Chinese poverty line of $2 a day.

I wasn't going to discuss the Soviet Union, but since you bring it up, I have some familiarity with the subject. But perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you believe that removing restraints on labor markets is tantamount to central planning.

Your argument might be dangerous if you thought it through and did more than spout slogans. I see no danger of that happening.

Removing restraints on one specific aspect of the market, is not a 'free-market'. Determining prices and demand for specific products, is central planning.

You seem to be entirely satisfied with America's roads and bridges, health statistics that make third world countries blush at double the cost of ones like Switzerland that actually work, a justice system that incarcerates more than the Chinese without any visible effect on crime, and a financial system that can accomplish nothing without crashing the world economy. With a record like that, there is obviously no need to try anything better.

We have the best health care in the world. If you get sick, you are more likely to survive it here in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Not sure your claim about that is true.

Originally, all roads and bridges were built with private money. Just as they could be today. Further, government has driven up the cost of both, to far greater levels than would have happened under a free-market system. Lastly, many super expensive road building projects, are redundant, and a waste of money.

The Switzerland health care system, is anything but cheap, or socialized. You obviously know nothing about the Swiss health care system. Let me guess.... you read one single report on it, and without consulting any other sources of information, concluded all your views based on one report?

According to the OECD, the Swiss system spends 7.4% of GDP on health care, while the US spends 8.5%. Our relative spending is very comparable to Switzerland.

Further, the levels of Socialized Public Government spending, compared to Capitalist private spending, in Switzerland is skewed towards the Capitalist private spending. 67% of all health care spending in Switzerland, is all premium payments, to private insurance companies. 5% of the cost is co-pays, and deductibles. And another 19% is all other out of pocket costs, like buying medication.

In other words, 91% of Switzerlands health spending is all private. Only 9% of the total health spending in Switzerland, is government socialized spending.

Public and Private hospitals, and doctors, and specialists, all compete on a price basis for customers. The majority operate under a negotiated fee schedule, but the rest operating under their own prices. Many Swiss, purchase voluntary insurance, that covers more expensive doctors, and services, that operate outside the negotiated fees.

While the system does have government regulation, which no one disputes, the fact is, the system is extremely free-market Capitalist. Not socialized.

Now answer me one question: Are you a poor put upon worker struggling to make ends meet, or are you a rich capitalist defending the 400 families? I wish you would make up your mind.

I'm both.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Touché Androw

Grandma I am disappointed in you saying some people are untrainable. If you were to say that some people are forever irresponsible, undisciplined, and yes lazy I would agree with you. But all those drawbacks are a function of the environment they grew up in and can be remedied. As someone who deals with the dregs of society every day, it can tell you that everyone, including the worst drug addicts, have something they can teach you and many have a gift for something. From women with potential who stay in abusive relationships to boys who just don't have the self esteem to follow their dreams the problem is with an entitlement society that preaches surrender instead of an American society that preaches individualism and self reliance. Will they all make it? No. But that is life. Our job is to give everyone a chance not a check, but the majority are all capable of economic redemption.

Now on to you Oldfart. I get all the name dropping to prove your bono fides as an intellectual elitist and good for you, but you also seem to reinforce the stereotype of the academic liberal drowning in his own ideology and pretty much disconnected from reality and reason.
If we have a pool of unskilled and untrainable labor, it will only exist a generation, then it will die out. For such a situation to persist, we must have an educational system and labor training that produces a new crop of functional illiterates and unemployables in each new generation. In that, American society has been highly successful. Such an outcome raises a question as to why we would do so, and the answer is just as obvious; because as a society we like such an outcome and therefore support organizing society to produce disposable children and the dregs of society. The civilized world is aghast at what we have done; Europe and the developed Far East do not look like this. We prefer to live in a vicious, violent, racist, brutal, backward society with institutions that do not work for any but the most wealthy, and we are proud of

Let's first posit some facts. We became the greatest country in the world and brought more people into the middle class than any country in the world. Now while I don't have a graph handy, I believe we can chart a direct correlation between the rise in welfare payments of all kinds and the decline of our country. The decline in education, the destruction of the family, the decline of our standing in the world, the decline of a healthy economy, the decline of our morals, the waning of so much of the greatness of our nation.

You also seem to think we are in decline,but you fail to acknowledge the real reasons why instead focusing on very unacademic rants about conservatives and their cro-mag on ways. The educational system is failing because it has been taken over by your liberal agenda and is no longer educating people on how to think but telling them what to think. In your world of education everything is valid so therefore nothing rises to the level of a waste of time. We are training everyone to be eligible for the faculty lounge as opposed to real life. So go back to what worked, the educational system that made us the greatest nation in the world.

"The civilized world is aghast at what we have done" I am laughing my ass off at that comment. Yeah the Marxist and socialist world is aghast that we have been so successful. Let's see, china adopted just a smidgen of capitalism and it's economy took off. Europe's economy will never have the vitality ours does, and you should know that, hello cnbc. Their debt and ability to get out of it is worse than ours. Have you forgotten Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy? I thought so. Oh yeah, who has been paying to protect Europe for the last fifty years, guess you conveniently passed over that too.

And I hope you don't believe that we live in a viscous, backward, violent, and you couldn't forget racist society in your heart of hearts. If so , why haven't you left for Europe or those far eastern shangri-las. Angola, Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, and on and on should all be on your bucket list of places to move to.

As far as big business goes, I think we may have some common ground here. I am a firm believer in getting rid of welfare on both ends of the spectrum. Everybody should pay something and there should be minimum payments for all.

But Oldfart, you can't really hate this country that much, and you can't really believe the light at the end of the tunnel is held up by Obama and company. We need to go back to what made us great and dispense with these failures to remake America. As Obama likes to say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[oldfart]

Oh come on! You can't possibly be that stupid. What makes you think that public employees automatically cost more than they produce? How lazy is your fire department? How bad was your kindergarten teacher? I take the last back, she obviously failed you.

Really. So your claim is that a fire department employee produces just as much wealth for society, as someone who builds cars, or provides health services?

How much wealth survived the great fires in San Francisco and Chicago? By your reasoning, all financial services produce no wealth and should be abolished. On second thought, that's not a bad idea, but I still prefer to have fire, police and emergency services.

It's this kind of thoughtless comment that convinces me that you are not a serious poster. Again, no one is stupid enough to make the comments you are making.

Removing restraints on one specific aspect of the market, is not a 'free-market'. Determining prices and demand for specific products, is central planning.

First you are factually incorrect. Second, you never answer the argument. More evidence that you post before thinking.

You seem to be entirely satisfied with America's roads and bridges, health statistics that make third world countries blush at double the cost of ones like Switzerland that actually work, a justice system that incarcerates more than the Chinese without any visible effect on crime, and a financial system that can accomplish nothing without crashing the world economy. With a record like that, there is obviously no need to try anything better.

We have the best health care in the world. If you get sick, you are more likely to survive it here in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Only if you are rich. Look up the life expectancy, infant mortality, and death rates from preventable diseases and you find us in the lower third of the OECD, usually outperformed by some of the better third world nations. I assume that you know how to find this figures and are just too lazy to ever look them up.

Originally, all roads and bridges were built with private money.

Again completely false. In the 1760's America had virtually no road system. The first efforts were directed by Benjamin Franklin with a royal charter. The Constitution mentions post roads as a specific enumerated power. All of the major long distance roads such as the National Roads (both of them, in Maryland/Pennsylvania and the Gulf Coast) and the Natchez Trace were public roads. Your ignorance is showing.

Just as they could be today. Further, government has driven up the cost of both, to far greater levels than would have happened under a free-market system. Lastly, many super expensive road building projects, are redundant, and a waste of money.

So you want to sell off the highway system and make everything a toll road? Lots of luck with that.

The Switzerland health care system, is anything but cheap, or socialized. You obviously know nothing about the Swiss health care system. Let me guess.... you read one single report on it, and without consulting any other sources of information, concluded all your views based on one report?

No, I have friends and relatives who live in Switzerland. One of my grandfathers was born there. My second cousin runs a bank in Bern. We are from the Frutigen. Where does your superior information come from?

According to the OECD, the Swiss system spends 7.4% of GDP on health care, while the US spends 8.5%. Our relative spending is very comparable to Switzerland.

Further, the levels of Socialized Public Government spending, compared to Capitalist private spending, in Switzerland is skewed towards the Capitalist private spending. 67% of all health care spending in Switzerland, is all premium payments, to private insurance companies. 5% of the cost is co-pays, and deductibles. And another 19% is all other out of pocket costs, like buying medication.

In other words, 91% of Switzerlands health spending is all private. Only 9% of the total health spending in Switzerland, is government socialized spending.

Public and Private hospitals, and doctors, and specialists, all compete on a price basis for customers. The majority operate under a negotiated fee schedule, but the rest operating under their own prices. Many Swiss, purchase voluntary insurance, that covers more expensive doctors, and services, that operate outside the negotiated fees.

While the system does have government regulation, which no one disputes, the fact is, the system is extremely free-market Capitalist. Not socialized.

I'm familiar with the Swiss system. The provision of medical care is private. The financing is part public and part private. You have butchered the OECD data. We pay double what the Swiss spend per capita for health care as a percentage of GDP. Of course since you never bother to source claims like this, no one can check anything.

Now answer me one question: Are you a poor put upon worker struggling to make ends meet, or are you a rich capitalist defending the 400 families? I wish you would make up your mind.

I'm both.

Which is why no one can take you seriously.

It's obvious to me that this is a form of intellectual masturbation for you and you don't take any economic subject seriously, so you can respond in any manner you wish; for my part this discussion between us is over.

 

[oldfart]

Now on to you Oldfart. I get all the name dropping to prove your bono fides as an intellectual elitist and good for you, but you also seem to reinforce the stereotype of the academic liberal drowning in his own ideology and pretty much disconnected from reality and reason.

You seem offended that anyone who actually is an economist would dare to post on economics. Get over it. You are too full of yourself. I treat every poster with respect and assume good motive until they indicate otherwise.

As to my disconnect from reality, you know nothing about me, my profession, my academic career, my publishing history, or my business enterprises. You project your biases onto me. We can exchange audited personal financial statements if you wish, but that seems silly. I prefer to judge other posters on the quality of their thought, where you seem to want to make everyone fit you preconceived notions. How sad for you.

Let's first posit some facts. We became the greatest country in the world and brought more people into the middle class than any country in the world.

Define "greatest country in the world". And what does it have to do with economics specifically? If you want to measure economic success by the size and vitality of the middle class, I suggest economic history has not been very good in America on this score since the late 70's. Do you really want to debate economic performance on those grounds?

Now while I don't have a graph handy, I believe we can chart a direct correlation between the rise in welfare payments of all kinds and the decline of our country. The decline in education, the destruction of the family, the decline of our standing in the world, the decline of a healthy economy, the decline of our morals, the waning of so much of the greatness of our nation.

Well you seem to have expanded from economics to the decline of civilization as we know it. "Decline of our morals"? Really? This is your idea of economics? If I were the hack you portray me to be, I would be forced to note that the decline of business ethics and the increasing rapacity of the rentier class coincides with the decline much more than any part of public expenditures for the poor. If family life is suffering, perhaps the cause is the requirement of two incomes for most families to achieve even a lower middle class life style.

Now it's your choice. We can have a discussion about economics or an ideological discussion about the decline of America. I can tell you that you can't have both at the same time.

You also seem to think we are in decline,but you fail to acknowledge the real reasons why instead focusing on very unacademic rants about conservatives and their cro-mag on ways.

First I am too pedantic, ivory tower, and divorced from reality. Now you don't like it when I take a broader view. Who appointed you arbiter of what I write?

Again, I am happy to have an ideological debate with you. I am also happy to have a discussion on economic theory and policy. Chose one and stick with it, but don't perpetually change ground and whine. It's unseemly.

The educational system is failing because it has been taken over by your liberal agenda and is no longer educating people on how to think but telling them what to think. In your world of education everything is valid so therefore nothing rises to the level of a waste of time. We are training everyone to be eligible for the faculty lounge as opposed to real life. So go back to what worked, the educational system that made us the greatest nation in the world.

I wish we could go back to that educational system that existed with good public schools and no for-profit educational corporations. And WHERE THE HELL do you get off telling me what educational theories I subscribe too? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what I believe and teach.

I'm not even going to ask what your teaching background is, it's irrelevant. I hope to God you are not a teacher.

"The civilized world is aghast at what we have done"

I am laughing my ass off at that comment. Yeah the Marxist and socialist world is aghast that we have been so successful. Let's see, china adopted just a smidgen of capitalism and it's economy took off. Europe's economy will never have the vitality ours does, and you should know that, hello cnbc. Their debt and ability to get out of it is worse than ours. Have you forgotten Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy? I thought so. Oh yeah, who has been paying to protect Europe for the last fifty years, guess you conveniently passed over that too.

I'm glad you find it funny. The rest of your reply is simply a mixture of chest-thumping American exceptionalism and bad economic analysis. "Europe's economy will never have the vitality ours does"; really? For ever and ever?

And I hope you don't believe that we live in a viscous, backward, violent, and you couldn't forget racist society in your heart of hearts. If so , why haven't you left for Europe or those far eastern shangri-las. Angola, Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, and on and on should all be on your bucket list of places to move to.

Ah yes. America the Beautiful. I hear the violins now. You know how this plays in the rest of the world? This attitude is why America is in a decline.

And I see you play the "America love it or leave it" card. I have spent a lifetime fighting to make America a better place for all and have no intention of leaving. It's only the right wing whiners who talk about succeeding when they don't get their way. Are you a Rick Perry whiner too?

As far as big business goes, I think we may have some common ground here. I am a firm believer in getting rid of welfare on both ends of the spectrum. Everybody should pay something and there should be minimum payments for all.

But Oldfart, you can't really hate this country that much, and you can't really believe the light at the end of the tunnel is held up by Obama and company. We need to go back to what made us great and dispense with these failures to remake America. As Obama likes to say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You are correct that I love America. Unfortunately many Americans do not. They would rather chase their own financial interest to the detriment of all and lust after the "Good Ol' Days" of unbridled power which never existed. You are carrying the water for those who are destroying the American dream and eventually America with it. I hope you are happy in the racist, violent, totalitarian garrison state without opportunity, justice, or decency which you are building.

 

[OnePercenter]

I see people who don't work and they have plenty.............Merle Haggard

Spoken like a true onePercenter with something to sell whom is out of touch with reality.

This subject gets regurgitated more than a cows cud. Most of the posters just reinforce the claim that nobody is really hurting. There are so many govt. benes. And spare me the living wage sob story. Apparently no one reads the breakdown of who really receives the min wage and how many people we are talking about.

Additionally, business does pay a lot in payroll taxes which increase dramatically with increased pay. Does anyone think if a business had to increase its payroll 50 per cent that there would be any jobs. How about entry level jobs where the employer offers training for a higher position. And always the low end workers are portrayed as saints and innocents that are always abused, a notion that one would soon be disabused of if they ever ran their own businesses.

I have posted this before, if you really want to help the low end worker raise the min wage to ten dollars an hour and take no taxes out for govt or from business, but stop trying to make the perception more valid than the reality.

As a business owner let me tell you the truth about employee costs. My lowest waged employee is $23.50/hr + 32% + company paid health and supplemental nets at $13.70/hr.

 

[Grandma]

Replacing welfare with public employment?

So you have more public employees, the tax rate would have to dramatically increase to pay for all of them, requiring even more money from working people like me, which would be driven more and more into impoverishment, until we quit, and join public employment, which would drive higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment, driving more into public employment, driving higher taxes, driving more into impoverishment.

Soviet Union anyone? There's a reason they don't exist anymore. There's a reason Pre-78 China had 63% of the population living below the Chinese poverty line of $2 a day.

No, that's a horrible plan.

It's an unworkable pipe dream.

Some people can never be taught higher job skills, which makes the unskilled labor pool unsustainably large. There could never be enough jobs for everyone, particularly in any level of economic downturn.


But anyway, the OP is like one of those nutty relative's e-mails. It's a sensationalized fabrication.

Here's something that's true: General Electric, which made BILLIONS of dollars, has used tax loopholes for years. They pay ZERO dollars per year in taxes. they receive $MILLIONS in subsidies. Why not go after them instead of a poor woman making minimum wage?

Sadly, I would disagree with everything you said lol.

First, it's not a pipedream, if you mean it can't be done. Of course it can be done. We could very easily employ all of the poor in government jobs. The problem isn't that its a pipedream that can't be done. The problem is that it would drive up taxes, making more impoverish, driving more into government jobs. The problem is, it would harm the entire country.

No the government can't support that many people. Do you understand where the money comes from? Taxes. There isn't enough tax money to pay millions of workers a liveable yearly wage.

Second, I completely disagree with the idea that people 'can't' be taught job skills. They most certainly can. So why do people not learn job skills? Three simple reasons... They don't want to, they don't have to, and they are told they deserve better regardless.

You're wrong. There are people that can't be taught HIGHER job skills. I specifically said higher. How many burger flippers does the country need? Most government jobs require specialized training/ experience.

If you tell people they are entitled, and deserve a good wage.... why work for it?
If you give people all kinds of assistance, so that all their basic needs are met... what motivation do they have to work for their basic needs?
Flat out, most don't want to put in the effort. Period.

Blame the poor for being poor. Drink that wingnut koolaid. The welfare queen story was debunked DECADES ago. No one EVER told a welfare recipient that they were "entitled."

Back in the 1990s, we had welfare reform, which kicked tens of thousands off welfare, and food stamps, at the same time. What did those people do? THEY WENT TO WORK. It's that simple. Stop telling people they deserve anything. They don't. Stop giving them money. They'll work.

Nice revisionism there. People went to work because there were lots of jobs available. There are no jobs now that are full-time at a living wage.

Thirdly, General Electric is not paying zero tax.Just not true. That entire myth was built on one bad journalist, who found an SEC statement, saying the company received money from the government. This "reporter" deceptively ignored the companies IRS filings, which had the additional information containing how much money the company paid in tax.The SEC filing had a tax over payment, included in it, because the money was reported as income.

But it was an over payment. Money paid to the government, OVER the millions in taxes they already paid. Just like if you over pay, you get a tax return at the end of the year. GE pays millions in taxes. Not your fault.The report was intentionally deceptive.

GE hasn't paid taxes in years. Are you suggesting that the same mistake has been made every year?

Besides that... you really want our government with more money? You really want a company that provides products, and jobs, and wealth to our country, with less money?

You really think the government is going to use that money more wisely, than GE?

*shakes head in disbelief*

You own a large amount of GE stock, don't you?

 

[oldfart]

I know I'm jumping into the middle here, but I want to address a couple of issues raised.
I'm not sure that these quotes are your direct statements or they were embedded in your reply. Sometimes the process of quotes inside quotes gets confusing.

No the government can't support that many people. Do you understand where the money comes from? Taxes. There isn't enough tax money to pay millions of workers a liveable yearly wage.

The government supports millions of people now. At any time over a million are incarcerated at a cost substantially above what would provide a liveable income, 60% of them non-violent offenders, who often are sentenced to lengthy terms as part of a failed policy on drugs. The criminal justice system offers little drug rehabilitation or job training, educates them in criminal enterprise by contact with violent offenders, and renders them unemployable when released. All this is a dead weight loss on society.

We spend about one trillion dollars a year on tax breaks and subsidies to rich individuals and corporations, most of it industry specific so it benefits politically powerful interests. Add to this the amount spent on defense contractors and the garrison state/intelligence operation, and it adds up.

A nation that built possibly the best infrastructure, public education system, and research universities in the world cannot now afford to properly train and employ its workforce? I don't see how it can afford not too. We simply have allowed narrow interests to capture our government and sell our society a false bill of goods.

You're wrong. There are people that can't be taught HIGHER job skills. I specifically said higher. How many burger flippers does the country need? Most government jobs require specialized training/ experience.

I agree that not everyone can become a high skill worker. But as I have noted before, a large part of the problem is that we have an educational system that produces too many functional illiterates and unemployables. This can be fixed. We could also do a better job of integrating public education and job training for many who have low skill levels. Finally, we could pay low skill employees in necessary jobs better.

I have a real problem with the idea that 98% of German kindergarten students will become productive workers producing and earning more per hour that American workers while we are lucky if 80% of a similar American kindergarten class can do so. Why do we accept that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Germans, French, Swedes, Danes, Finns, and a raft of other nationalities are doing a better job of preparing their work forces?