In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months?
Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction.
To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans.
So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit.
yes, Obama is holding the country hostage.
False. The exact opposite is true, since right now the Republicans are refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts for people earning less than 250.000$ as long as the Bush tax cuts are not also extended. That is holding the middle class hostage.
On November 29 2012 08:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: he refuses to cut anything, and refuses to budge on taxing the rich.
Again, completely false. In fact, it's so false I wonder if you're deliberately lying your ass off or if you're simply completely uninformed.
On November 29 2012 08:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: he's obviously not interested in compromise
False, as evidenced by the previous document.
On November 29 2012 08:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: or he would start talking about cutting programs and spending
He's done that, as evidenced by the previous document.
On November 29 2012 08:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: and would be fine with expanding the tax base and lowering rates. that would be a compromise, and one that doesn't favor Republicans all that much.
That would actually be adopting the Republican plan - the exact opposite of compromise.
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months?
Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction.
To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans.
So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit.
yes, Obama is holding the country hostage. he refuses to cut anything, and refuses to budge on taxing the rich. he's obviously not interested in compromise or he would start talking about cutting programs and spending and would be fine with expanding the tax base and lowering rates. that would be a compromise, and one that doesn't favor Republicans all that much. telling us to give him 50% and we get nothing in return is not compromising, and he is clearly trying to push this more and more toward the fiscal cliff to try to force Republicans to give in. that is the definition of holding the economy hostage.
he has all the power because 1) the Senate will follow his lead and 2) he can veto any bill. he's the one who won the election, so now he has to actually lead. but leading doesn't mean forcing the other side to give up everything and giving up nothing himself.
You obviously have not followed what has gone on (and you obviously have not read the posts in the other thread providing proof of the conciliatory positions of the Obama Administration), but really, it does not matter now.
All I can say is... hah. Why in the world should the Democrats give an arm and a leg to appease a bunch of rigid Republicans? Let us fall off the fiscal cliff. All the Democrats would have to do then is rally the public to re-lower the tax rates for the middle class and to save popular programs. A good majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the wealthy, and it's going to happen one way or another, whether it be through limiting deductions or raising income taxes.
Republicans got their major tax cuts during the Bush Administration. Democrats do not have to compromise anymore if it means keeping taxes as they currently are.
One also has to remember, while the House remained in Republican control, they lost the popular vote in EVERY election. They are in power through a technicality, and I think many of them see that. As of now, people are more likely to side with the Democrats on many issues. It's a little funny in a way, because I heard one Republican describe the election results that the people mandated a "divided" government, because that's the best compliment he could honestly give Republicans right now.
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months?
Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction.
To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans.
So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit.
yes, Obama is holding the country hostage. he refuses to cut anything, and refuses to budge on taxing the rich. he's obviously not interested in compromise or he would start talking about cutting programs and spending and would be fine with expanding the tax base and lowering rates. that would be a compromise, and one that doesn't favor Republicans all that much. telling us to give him 50% and we get nothing in return is not compromising, and he is clearly trying to push this more and more toward the fiscal cliff to try to force Republicans to give in. that is the definition of holding the economy hostage.
he has all the power because 1) the Senate will follow his lead and 2) he can veto any bill. he's the one who won the election, so now he has to actually lead. but leading doesn't mean forcing the other side to give up everything and giving up nothing himself.
So basically winning the presidential election is still not enough to do what you were elected for... interesting.
On November 29 2012 08:37 aksfjh wrote: Thanks Souma!
One also has to remember, while the House remained in Republican control, they lost the popular vote in EVERY election. They are in power through a technicality, and I think many of them see that. As of now, people are more likely to side with the Democrats on many issues. It's a little funny in a way, because I heard one Republican describe the election results that the people mandated a "divided" government, because that's the best compliment he could honestly give Republicans right now.
they won more governorship's. Thats still a series of elections that's got to say something. And its not like they won the congressional popular vote by more or even anywhere near the amount that they won the presidential election by.
People don't just blindly vote a party line and endorse whatever that party wants to do. Just look at how painful it was for the democrats having "blue dog" democrats in their majority. The same problems are facing the republicans in the tea party candidates.
Just because they lost an election by a few points don't make their opinions any more valid in the long run politically. The republican gambit of the fiscal cliff failed as obviously as it could. They should and/or going to have to swallow a bad hit now beacuse of it. the cards are all in the dems and obamas favor right now. They can just as easily let the country go off the cliff and they can easily get the blame for it on the republicans. The victory that it will gain them only benifits them to let the country go off the cliff and it will probably happen. GOP has to hold onto some control to the tea party and so they won't just throw away control of the future of their party over an issue that doesn't benifit them even.
neither side has any reason to stop the country from going off the "cliff". Expect them to just let it happen and blame it on eachother. Welcome to democracy.
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months?
Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction.
To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans.
So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit.
yes, Obama is holding the country hostage. he refuses to cut anything, and refuses to budge on taxing the rich. he's obviously not interested in compromise or he would start talking about cutting programs and spending and would be fine with expanding the tax base and lowering rates. that would be a compromise, and one that doesn't favor Republicans all that much. telling us to give him 50% and we get nothing in return is not compromising, and he is clearly trying to push this more and more toward the fiscal cliff to try to force Republicans to give in. that is the definition of holding the economy hostage.
a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt.
I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation.
it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence.
Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked.
Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly.
Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause.
the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent.
Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up).
John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can."
Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption.
except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video.
bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care.
Do you understand that what she said was what the intelligence community gave her to say? Yes or no?
do you understand that there was a classified report, which she had access too, which contradicted every one of the assertions made by her on her Sunday circuit? yes or no?
no one is saying that the Obama administration didn't push the intelligence community to help cover it up, we're just saying that Susan Rice either didn't review the information/read her security briefings, or she knew that she was telling an untruth and told it anyway. the first is incompetent, the second is dishonest.
You didn't answer the question. Her role was to deliver a message to the public based on what the intelligence community felt could be said at that point about the attacks. What she said was exactly what the intelligence community told her could be said.
so is she claiming that she was told, by the intelligence community, to tell a lie to the American people? that's the crux of the question here: did she know that there was no protest going on? did she know that it was premeditated? we do know that the intelligence community had already sent out a classified memo saying that it was, and that there was no protest. did she review that information before going in front of the country, or did she not review the report and only read the lines given her by the intelligence community?
if she is a yes-man who doesn't bother to read the reports she has access too before going up in front of the country and saying something that everyone already knew was untrue, and that those reports will tell her is untrue, than I would argue that this shows a lack of competence that would preclude her from being Secretary of anything.
if, on the other hand, she did read the reports, and is competent; than she knows that she was told to lie to the American people, than she should definitely come clean about that and say: "I was ordered to tell a lie." Which is all republicans want from her, is for her to come clean so we can move on to the real problem here, which is the administration.
Fox news had been reporting for days before she came on that it was terrorism. survivors of the attacks were saying that there was no demonstration. no one actually thought it was about the video, except, apparently Susan Rice. even the intelligence community, which apparently told her an obvious falsehood, had already reported in secret that it was premeditated, that there was no demonstration, and that it was most likely not motivated by the video.
and I don't think there is any excuse for her knowingly lying just because she was ordered to, which is what you seem to be suggesting. I don't care what the intelligence community, which is highly suspect in all this, determines is okay to lie about and not lie about, she has a responsibility to tell the truth. if she lied, than she needs to come clean and admit it. if she was duped, than she needs to come clean and admit it. as of now, she's showing a serious lack of moral character by helping stonewall Congress and the American people.
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
Out of all the links in that post one was relevant and valid as a source. The first one. They conclude that there is cca 5% difference that might be explained by some other factors or it might be actual "wage gap". That number is pretty similar to numbers that I saw from other sources. The rest is a case of cherry-picking sources and bad ones at that, or irrelevant. If you want to cite sources do not cite newspapers, but if they include link to actual research, link that instead.
I do not want to spend too much time on this, as if you noticed I did not actually argued for his position. I argued against your argument. My main issue was that you claim your post debunked something, whereas it did nothing of the sort.
The burden of proof is on feminists to establish that there is a wage gap. They make that claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. On top of that, the sources I provide quickly dismantle the commonly repeated feminist propaganda that women make 77 cents to the male dollar. Each of the individual sources (and the sources cited by news articles) deconstructs a separate aspect of common feminist lies. The first one in particular concludes that there is no compelling evidence of any wage gap, and that the tiny 5% gap could easily be due to uncontrolled nondiscriminatory factors or statistical error.
If you have a separate argument for why the wage gap exists, then feel free to advance it so I can tear it apart.
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote: Being criminal or homeless is a choice of the individual in question.
Typical gender role bullshit: men are agents (everything that happens to them is their fault) and women are objects (everything that happens to them is beyond their control).
In reality, men are far more likely to be convicted of a crime than a woman, and there is a huge sentencing gap between the two. This gap far outweighs the gap between white men and black men. Would you argue that the reason more blacks are criminals is a choice of the inviduals in question?
The reason why most homeless are men is because there are far fewer resources available to men than there are to women. Government spending disproportionately favors women by significant amounts, especially in areas such as providing women's shelters. Similar to the above, would you argue the reason more blacks are homeless is a choice of the individuals in question?
First stop misrepresenting my post. I did not say homeless women or women criminals did not do it by choice also. Never did I use any gender roles bs that you claim. There are men that are discriminated against in wages, the same applies to them that does to women. My claim was nothing about roles or some nonsense. I was arguing that the statistics you see are result of biology (possibly enhanced by cultural influences that use existing biological predispositions).
And my argument is that feminists like you consistently blame any difficulty suffered by men on men themselves, while blaming difficulty suffered by women on men. Discrimination against men = men are biologically inferior and predisposed towards crime and homelessness. Discrimination against women = patriarchy/male oppression. I call BS.
On November 29 2012 02:21 mcc wrote: Can you give me some reliable source for the conviction rates ? On this I could actually believe you, but I would like to read some actual research. So if it is actually true I concede this point. US justice system is shitty and I think in this area other countries are maybe not much better thus showing actual societal influence you claim. But if anyone else knows something more optimistic, post it also.
On November 29 2012 02:21 mcc wrote: As for homelessness, in any other first world country I would easily say that it is a choice. And even if not quite so clear I think it is still a choice (as far as any possibility of choice exists) in US. Also for blacks. That does not mean that there are no environmental influences. But this does not change the fact that noone has to be homeless. So even if there are more resources targeted at women (which I agree should be rectified) I doubt this has significant influence on the ratio. Here most homeless are also men, yet everyone is guaranteed enough money to be able not to be homeless. I would expect to see similar statistics all over Europe. So the reasons are probably beyond resources provided by the state. Does not mean it is not caused also by societal pressure.
Check your goddamn privilege and go do some basic reading on homelessness. Many homeless are mentally ill. The vast majority of them are male while around half of them are mentally ill. A significant fraction of mentally ill females are held under the Mental Health Act (another example of how the government spends significantly more to protect women than men) while the remainder are cared for by family members, often children. The mentally ill males, a significant number who are military veterans with untreated related issues, are basically all homeless.
Let's not even get into the fact that homeless women are far better cared for by the state and NGOs (there are far, far more women's shelters than men's shelters) which skews the actual number of people sleeping on the street even further. Simply put, males have less intrinsic value to society and are discarded by when they break, while women have a larger social safety net simply by virtue of being born with a vagina.
On November 29 2012 02:21 mcc wrote: But the fact remains that homelessness and "wage gap" are qualitatively different beasts and using one to balance each other is bad logic.
I'm not using them to "balance" one another. The point I'm making is to debunk the ridiculous notion that our society systematically discriminates against women. The reality is that society only engages in de jure discrimination against men while de facto discrimination exists against both men and women.
The burden of proof here is on you to prove that society is biased against women. All I'm doing is providing basic compelling examples showing that you have a huge burden of proof to overcome, and so far your BS arguments don't cut it.
On November 29 2012 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This has to be one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. Its an article about a report recently issued from the CBO titled "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers" where 'tax rates' include government benefits. Basically the gist is that the current system of social spending creates many income cliffs where a person is better off staying at a job that pays less than moving up into a better paying job.
The ill effects of taxation -- the "distortions" -- depend on the total, marginal rate including transfers. If I earn an extra dollar, how much more stuff do I get, or how much more of someone else's services can I receive? That calculation has to including all taxes, federal, payroll, state, local, sales, excise, etc. and phaseouts.
And, if you receive a benefit from the government that phases out with income, so every dollar of income above (say) $30,000 reduces your benefit by 50 cents, then you face a 50 percent marginal tax rate even if you pay no "taxes" at all. Taxes and benefits -- both in level and on the margin -- need to be considered together.
There's a few charts in the CBO report and the article, but I thought this one made the point most clearly:
To me this looks like an area where major reforms could do a lot of good. The individual who is supposed to be helped by the social programs is often trapped by them. A small raise or promotion will often not cut it (won't fully offset the loss of the benefit), and big pay raises or promotions are hard to come by. The system is also a drain on government resources - encouraging people to remain at lower paying jobs reduces tax revenues and increases program costs. For the economy as a whole its also bad for people to stay at a lower paying job when a higher paying job is available.
Is that nationally, or just with PA? Also, a great deal of that cliff comes from housing help dropping off, and a little from food. The other programs seem to be quite gradual in their cutoff.
That graph is specific to PA, though the article and CBO report mainly deal with national statistics. I used this one because I felt it was more intuitive to read and I didn't want to post all the graphs.
This one here is national and shows marginal "tax" rates (fed and state tax, plus benefits):
If I'm not mistaken this one shows fewer benefit programs than the PA graph, hence the marginal tax rate never exceeds 100% (as happens in the PA graph).
Mankiw had this interesting bit to say about it:
The U.S. has a flat tax (in effect)
The Congressional Budget Office has a new study of effective federal marginal tax rates for low and moderate income workers (those below 450 percent of the poverty line). The study looks at the effects of income taxes, payroll taxes, and SNAP (the program formerly known as Food Stamps). The bottom line is that the average household now faces an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. In 2014, after various temporary tax provisions have expired and the newly passed health insurance subsidies go into effect, the average effective marginal tax rate will rise to 35 percent.
What struck me is how close these marginal tax rates are to the marginal tax rates at the top of the income distribution. This means that we could repeal all these taxes and transfer programs, replace them with a flat tax along with a universal lump-sum grant, and achieve approximately the same overall degree of progressivity.
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
@Johnny: that is a fascinating report, I think this sums up what it says on a very understandable level: "Cliffs are particularly pernicious incentives. Even if people overlook marginal incentives for a while, "if you take this job you'll lose your health insurance" really focuses the mind." (from Cochrane's blog)
On November 29 2012 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This has to be one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. Its an article about a report recently issued from the CBO titled "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers" where 'tax rates' include government benefits. Basically the gist is that the current system of social spending creates many income cliffs where a person is better off staying at a job that pays less than moving up into a better paying job.
The ill effects of taxation -- the "distortions" -- depend on the total, marginal rate including transfers. If I earn an extra dollar, how much more stuff do I get, or how much more of someone else's services can I receive? That calculation has to including all taxes, federal, payroll, state, local, sales, excise, etc. and phaseouts.
And, if you receive a benefit from the government that phases out with income, so every dollar of income above (say) $30,000 reduces your benefit by 50 cents, then you face a 50 percent marginal tax rate even if you pay no "taxes" at all. Taxes and benefits -- both in level and on the margin -- need to be considered together.
There's a few charts in the CBO report and the article, but I thought this one made the point most clearly:
To me this looks like an area where major reforms could do a lot of good. The individual who is supposed to be helped by the social programs is often trapped by them. A small raise or promotion will often not cut it (won't fully offset the loss of the benefit), and big pay raises or promotions are hard to come by. The system is also a drain on government resources - encouraging people to remain at lower paying jobs reduces tax revenues and increases program costs. For the economy as a whole its also bad for people to stay at a lower paying job when a higher paying job is available.
Is that nationally, or just with PA? Also, a great deal of that cliff comes from housing help dropping off, and a little from food. The other programs seem to be quite gradual in their cutoff.
That graph is specific to PA, though the article and CBO report mainly deal with national statistics. I used this one because I felt it was more intuitive to read and I didn't want to post all the graphs.
This one here is national and shows marginal "tax" rates (fed and state tax, plus benefits):
If I'm not mistaken this one shows fewer benefit programs than the PA graph, hence the marginal tax rate never exceeds 100% (as happens in the PA graph).
The Congressional Budget Office has a new study of effective federal marginal tax rates for low and moderate income workers (those below 450 percent of the poverty line). The study looks at the effects of income taxes, payroll taxes, and SNAP (the program formerly known as Food Stamps). The bottom line is that the average household now faces an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. In 2014, after various temporary tax provisions have expired and the newly passed health insurance subsidies go into effect, the average effective marginal tax rate will rise to 35 percent.
What struck me is how close these marginal tax rates are to the marginal tax rates at the top of the income distribution. This means that we could repeal all these taxes and transfer programs, replace them with a flat tax along with a universal lump-sum grant, and achieve approximately the same overall degree of progressivity.
Just to be clear, that's the marginal taxrate on each additional dollar earned. I think that gives pretty strong evidence that we need to deliberately increase the progressiveness of tax policy, at least in my eyes. At the same time, do a better job of making the welfare programs phase out gradually with income. I imagine this would require more administrative costs for welfare execution, but could be offset by reducing tax code complexity (and thus enforcement/administration costs). That's my input anyways.
I found this on the internet. Its the national election results by county. I think its pretty interesting.
The chart appears to show that the country is very Republican, but it's misleading by ignoring population density. Many of the red counties are sparsely populated, while the blue counties are cosmopolitan.
On November 29 2012 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This has to be one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. Its an article about a report recently issued from the CBO titled "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers" where 'tax rates' include government benefits. Basically the gist is that the current system of social spending creates many income cliffs where a person is better off staying at a job that pays less than moving up into a better paying job.
The ill effects of taxation -- the "distortions" -- depend on the total, marginal rate including transfers. If I earn an extra dollar, how much more stuff do I get, or how much more of someone else's services can I receive? That calculation has to including all taxes, federal, payroll, state, local, sales, excise, etc. and phaseouts.
And, if you receive a benefit from the government that phases out with income, so every dollar of income above (say) $30,000 reduces your benefit by 50 cents, then you face a 50 percent marginal tax rate even if you pay no "taxes" at all. Taxes and benefits -- both in level and on the margin -- need to be considered together.
There's a few charts in the CBO report and the article, but I thought this one made the point most clearly:
To me this looks like an area where major reforms could do a lot of good. The individual who is supposed to be helped by the social programs is often trapped by them. A small raise or promotion will often not cut it (won't fully offset the loss of the benefit), and big pay raises or promotions are hard to come by. The system is also a drain on government resources - encouraging people to remain at lower paying jobs reduces tax revenues and increases program costs. For the economy as a whole its also bad for people to stay at a lower paying job when a higher paying job is available.
Is that nationally, or just with PA? Also, a great deal of that cliff comes from housing help dropping off, and a little from food. The other programs seem to be quite gradual in their cutoff.
That graph is specific to PA, though the article and CBO report mainly deal with national statistics. I used this one because I felt it was more intuitive to read and I didn't want to post all the graphs.
This one here is national and shows marginal "tax" rates (fed and state tax, plus benefits):
If I'm not mistaken this one shows fewer benefit programs than the PA graph, hence the marginal tax rate never exceeds 100% (as happens in the PA graph).
Mankiw had this interesting bit to say about it:
The U.S. has a flat tax (in effect)
The Congressional Budget Office has a new study of effective federal marginal tax rates for low and moderate income workers (those below 450 percent of the poverty line). The study looks at the effects of income taxes, payroll taxes, and SNAP (the program formerly known as Food Stamps). The bottom line is that the average household now faces an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. In 2014, after various temporary tax provisions have expired and the newly passed health insurance subsidies go into effect, the average effective marginal tax rate will rise to 35 percent.
What struck me is how close these marginal tax rates are to the marginal tax rates at the top of the income distribution. This means that we could repeal all these taxes and transfer programs, replace them with a flat tax along with a universal lump-sum grant, and achieve approximately the same overall degree of progressivity.
Just to be clear, that's the marginal taxrate on each additional dollar earned. I think that gives pretty strong evidence that we need to deliberately increase the progressiveness of tax policy, at least in my eyes. At the same time, do a better job of making the welfare programs phase out gradually with income. I imagine this would require more administrative costs for welfare execution, but could be offset by reducing tax code complexity (and thus enforcement/administration costs). That's my input anyways.
It's not really the marginal tax rate - it's the marginal tax rate plus treating the loss of a benefit as a tax. So it really has nothing to do with the progressiveness of the tax code.
Sunprince, most reasonable feminists do not believe that the reason that men are homeless and commit crime is because they are biologically inferior.
I don't know the exact reason that more men are homeless, or more men commit crime, I actually do think that current gender roles on society encourage violence by men. Also men are looked down upon if they ask for help, so someof the male homeless that don't have mental disabilities might be scared of asking family/friends for help or their friends/family are unlikely to help them because they don't view them as the weak dainty female that needs their help to survive. This is just speculation though.
As for the violence, i watched a documentary "tough guise" recently, recommend you watch that and get back to me. It's not perfect but it made me think about men in our society.
Well, actually, men are more biologically predisposed to exert aggressive behavior (crime), aren't they? Haven't looked up any studies but it's what I assume (they are, at the very least, more biologically endowed with the physical attributes to commit crimes which may explain why they actually engage in violent crime more than women).
On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote: I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period.
Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it.
Meritocracy doesn't require a level playing field, it is one. Meritocracy reflects a lack of bias. That's what it is. Your statement basically says we can't strive for meritocracy because we need to have meritocracy first. It doesn't make sense.
Meritocracy should reflect something else : that someone who would be best at something assuming even starting point actually succeeds and becomes the best and is rewarded for it. So no there is no logical cycle that you claim, for meritocracy to actually exist you need as even as possible starting conditions for the participants. On societal level it basically means that no children should suffer lack of nutrients, education should be independent of parent's wealth, same goes for healthcare. And that is basically it. Of course perfectly equal starting positions are nonsense, but that does not mean we cannot get close to it. And funnily countries closer to this situation actually have better social mobility which is pretty good indicator of meritocracy.
You're not talking about meritocracy then. It can exist just fine without even starting positions. It is, by definition, about favoring the person with the most ability. Not about a hypothetical of who would have the most ability if their life was a little different. But you effectively changed the subject of your post, because before you were talking about bias against women and minorities, which wouldn't exist in meritocracy, and now you're talking about bias against people who don't have as much ability due to life circumstances, which is perfectly consistent with meritocracy.
I think what you meant was meritocracy wouldn't be fair without even starting positions. Which is obvious because life itself isn't because of that. And what about all the circumstances after people start? Psychological trauma due to a traumatic event could lessen someone's success considerably I would think. You did say everything being perfectly equal would be impossible though. The point is, none of this is an argument against having a policy of promoting and hiring the best person for the job.
Also, I haven't addressed your assertion that people should start out on an even playing field. Milton Friedman can argue it better than I can though.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_-6Fsycanmw/ULO_5kk3fxI/AAAAAAAAAU4/y1PbUElDS34/s640/marginal-tax_6.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KDCWaXisjWI/ULE53oAfoaI/AAAAAAAAATg/KQtR3F2GzCk/s640/marginal_tax_1.PNG)
