|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 January 06 2013 04:27 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On January 06 2013 04:15 oneofthem wrote:
no, that's what we call loss of labor bargaining power and policy disregard for unemployment. Why would that have an impact on anything? The same labor that people providing is worth less and keeps becoming worth less in the face of cheaper labor in other parts of the world. How can "labor bargaining power" change a fundamental economic problem that opening our markets to cheaper sources of labor caused? They are part of the same process... edit: Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:24 Souma wrote:
Junk food tax! Junk food tax! Junk food tax! <3
Its not even close. "policy disregard for unemployment" is because its more important to disregard unemployment in the face of inflation that hurts people a lot more. "loss of labor bargaining power" just sounds like the government is trying to weaken unions when its the unions themselves that shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to outpriceing themselves when it comes to labor negotiations.
On January 06 2013 04:33 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:Productivity became worth less as Jobs were sent off to third world countries in the name of "free trade" economics. ![[image loading]](http://www.dinocrat.com/wp-content/002p004.gif) Economists say that it makes our economy better that products start becoming a ton cheaper proportionally from before free trade economics came in. Small quibble You're putting scare quotes around free trade as if it is some sketchy out of the mainstream consensus idea. It's not and is quite mainstream for many reasons that will become pretty apparent if you spent maybe an hour studying the subject as a whole.
I'm sorry if my quotation marks gave the wrong impression. I don't have any real problem with the policy itself and it makes sense from every standpoint I can see. It just feels like it helps other people more then it does us.
How I feel about free trade is a lot like how I feel about wall mart. I know its logicaly the best place to shop and it'll help everyone if everyone shops there but it still doesn't make me feel good when I shop there.
|
On January 06 2013 04:32 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On January 06 2013 04:29 Souma wrote:On January 06 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:On January 06 2013 04:24 Souma wrote:
Junk food tax! Junk food tax! Junk food tax! Lol you take that California hippy normative tripe elsewhere  Psh, as if Seattle is any less hippy these days. Share some blunts will ya. Don't even remind me, I'm already waiting with bated breath to see what sort of "blunt tax" we end up with. Look dude, if I can support municipal services by getting high, I'll count that as a victory
Smoke for street cleaning and getting high for highway repair, I can dig it.
Also, relevant.
Taxes: A fee paid to the government enabling a person the rights of a citizen as well as partial ownership of all items purchased with portions of said fees.
Paying taxes allows one to be the boss of all government employees, with several qualifiers; state employees are only answerable to payers of taxes in that state, while federal employees are answerable to all of a country’s taxpayers.
When a government employee is in doubt over jurisdiction in regards to taxpayer demands, they should go ahead and do as the taxpayer says. After all, they probably pay your salary somehow.
A sense of entitlement is understandable in a taxpayer, and abuse of their rights as taxpayers should be forgiven on all but the most extreme accounts. After all, none of this would be possible without them. And their taxes.
In a Sentence: “If we hadn’t paid those taxes we wouldn’t be having this kegger in the police parking lot, that’s for sure; let’s go for a joyride on our firetruck when the burgers are done.”
|
On January 06 2013 04:33 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:Productivity became worth less as Jobs were sent off to third world countries in the name of "free trade" economics. Economists say that it makes our economy better that products start becoming a ton cheaper proportionally from before free trade economics came in. Small quibble You're putting scare quotes around free trade as if it is some sketchy out of the mainstream consensus idea. It's not and is quite mainstream for many reasons that will become pretty apparent if you spent maybe an hour studying the subject as a whole.
And if you spend more than an hour, it starts to get a lot less obvious.
edit: I'm pretty sure he put scare quotes BECAUSE it is a mainstream idea
|
On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." ![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/11-28-11pov-f1.jpg) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though.
A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps.
At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked.
|
On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked.
True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer.
|
On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer.
I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that...
|
On January 06 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer. I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that...
Is that not what you were on about with education. If I remember correctly schools get most of their funding from local property tax in the U.S. and as such having areas of high wealth individuals with good schools will naturally create a vacuum of capital around them where the schools are not nearly as good.
|
On January 06 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer. I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that...
Oh, I think it's the story of everything, more or less. But then you should really just read this book:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
And this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Capital-New-updated/dp/1844670953
|
Lol and here comes the marxist literature. Well done man well done.
|
He has yet to begin
|
On January 06 2013 05:14 Sermokala wrote:
Lol and here comes the marxist literature. Well done man well done.
Oh well, Marxism isn't any crazier than the Laissez-faire Capitalism that so many libertarians keep spouting so I don't see what the problem is. Other than the fact that so many in the U.S. support the crazy libertarians that is.
|
On January 06 2013 04:33 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:Productivity became worth less as Jobs were sent off to third world countries in the name of "free trade" economics. Economists say that it makes our economy better that products start becoming a ton cheaper proportionally from before free trade economics came in. Small quibble You're putting scare quotes around free trade as if it is some sketchy out of the mainstream consensus idea. It's not and is quite mainstream for many reasons that will become pretty apparent if you spent maybe an hour studying the subject as a whole.
"Free trade" is indeed an almost universal consensus among policymakers throughout the world--the scare quotes are presumably because it is about the free movement of capital rather than free trade.
|
On January 06 2013 05:07 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer. I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that... Is that not what you were on about with education. If I remember correctly schools get most of their funding from local property tax in the U.S. and as such having areas of high wealth individuals with good schools will naturally create a vacuum of capital around them where the schools are not nearly as good.
OK, though I'm not sure funding is the prime issue for education. I'm sure its an issue but is it the issue? My guess would be that poor communities (and by extension poorly funded schools) have existed for quite a while and yet my understanding is that the gap between good and bad schools has been growing. So there must be more at play than just funding.
If you or someone else has good info that funding is the main issue I'd gladly change my opinion here 
|
On January 06 2013 05:18 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 05:14 Sermokala wrote:
Lol and here comes the marxist literature. Well done man well done. Oh well, Marxism isn't any crazier than the Laissez-faire Capitalism that so many libertarians keep spouting so I don't see what the problem is. Other than the fact that so many in the U.S. support the crazy libertarians that is.
I would group the crazy libertarians in the same group as the marxists yes. They arn't apart of the republican party anymore so we don't have to show them any respect in turn. Like how democrats view the green party.
|
On January 06 2013 05:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer. I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that... Oh, I think it's the story of everything, more or less. But then you should really just read this book: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/And this one: http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Capital-New-updated/dp/1844670953
Too lazy
Besides, capital is separate from people. You can live in a rich area and invest in a poor one.
Ex. Live in a relatively rich suburb and work in a relatively poor city. Residential property taxes will be paid to the suburb and commercial property taxes will be paid to the city.
|
On January 06 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 05:07 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 04:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 03:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly. The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO. Sure (to an extent), but IMO the bigger problem isn't that the rich are getting richer - it's that the poor are not getting richer. The poor in other countries are getting richer though. A lot of our wounds regarding the poor are self inflicted. We've let poor performing schools get worse and created poverty traps. At the other end we've worked really hard to create little enclaves of privilege. Big time bankers are too big to fail (get fired) and certain government employees get to fleece the taxpayers unchecked. True, but you cannot honestly believe the majority of the rich will ever want live in the same neighborhood as your average Joe. Capital attraction is practically the 5th fundamental force of the universe, the rich tend to gravitate towards each other. They set up gated communities and top tier private schools for themselves, With this capital all going towards their areas it is natural that you would get areas that now lack the required capital and fall into poverty traps. The few hardworking individuals who do make it out of poverty though tend to themselves gravitate towards the other rich and simply bring their money into that area and the poor community never gets any richer. I'm not following. I can see that being an issue for local property taxes but beyond that... Is that not what you were on about with education. If I remember correctly schools get most of their funding from local property tax in the U.S. and as such having areas of high wealth individuals with good schools will naturally create a vacuum of capital around them where the schools are not nearly as good. OK, though I'm not sure funding is the prime issue for education. I'm sure its an issue but is it the issue? My guess would be that poor communities (and by extension poorly funded schools) have existed for quite a while and yet my understanding is that the gap between good and bad schools has been growing. So there must be more at play than just funding. If you or someone else has good info that funding is the main issue I'd gladly change my opinion here
http://www.governing.com/news/politics/gov-biggest-problem-for-public-education-lack-of-funding-poll-says.html
"Americans believe a lack of financial support is the biggest problem currently facing public schools, according to the 44th annual Phil Delta Kappa International/Gallup poll of public attitudes toward public schools released Wednesday, but they also say that balancing the federal budget is more important than improving the quality of education.
Funding was by far the most pegged problem with 35 percent of those polled saying it is the biggest obstacle for public schools in their community. The next ranking problem was lack of discipline at 8 percent. At the same time, though, 60 percent said it is more important for the federal government to balance its checkbook over the next five years than improve the quality of public education, which earned 38 percent."
At least in terms of public polling Americans seem to believe funding to be the biggest issue.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
For me I feel that parents are the biggest issue, but funding is definitely an issue for a lot of schools.
|
On January 06 2013 05:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 05:18 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 05:14 Sermokala wrote:
Lol and here comes the marxist literature. Well done man well done. Oh well, Marxism isn't any crazier than the Laissez-faire Capitalism that so many libertarians keep spouting so I don't see what the problem is. Other than the fact that so many in the U.S. support the crazy libertarians that is. I would group the crazy libertarians in the same group as the marxists yes. They arn't apart of the republican party anymore so we don't have to show them any respect in turn. Like how democrats view the green party.
Actually the libertarian faction is gaining a lot of clout in the GOP. Not sure where you get your information from... It's going to be a moderate/libertarian control going forward, while conservatives slowly get pushed out.
|
On January 06 2013 05:38 Souma wrote:
For me I feel that parents are the biggest issue, but funding is definitely an issue for a lot of schools.
It is without a doubt a combination of the two. And neither is minimal, they are both highly correlated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
