|
On February 05 2009 13:37 oneofthem wrote:
killing the teachers union will also kill teacher motivation.
So you think that teachers in private schools aren't as motivated like teachers in public schools?
faced with structures like school districts, obviously labor suffers from an organizational deficiency.
The same could be said of workers at enormous car plants. And yet American workers in Japanese car factories here in the states are doing just fine with their "organization deficiency". And teachers at private school are doing just fine without unions.
The truth is that the idea that unions have to step in to make things fair, is most tempting when it is accompanied by a lack of understanding of how markets function. Unions did some good a long time ago when companies could collude and essentially create a monopoly (market failure) of jobs. However, anti trust law has come a long way and this type of collusion is prosecuted now a days so we don't see the same problems arise when companies could cheat the market through collusion.
In other words, unions had their time. Now we get only the problems they bring and none of the benefits they brought back when we needed them.
|
On February 05 2009 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote:
Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. Edit: It's shocking that people find Obama's policies shocking. He made them pretty clear throughout the campaign.
Back in the campaign, people were too caught up in his pretty face and "hope" (or was it "change") to bother listening to his actual policies. 
|
ya, I was POed about the Buy American provision. what a load of shit. the senate version is even worse.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
So you think that teachers in private schools aren't as motivated like teachers in public schools?
lol? teacher unions are a plus for teachers, taking them away will have to be compensated for. the desired objective is raising teachers' compensation, and unions are not in the way of that.
unions are not designed structures imposed from the outside, they are something that people do. the argument is labor rights, not efficiency. just like the autoworker example, you see detroit unions as a problem because they exist while japanese companies play with the advantage of not dealing with unions. but the problem could be precisely the reverse, that the japanese should deal with the same type of labor power. this argument can be replicated in case of international labor standards.
|
On February 05 2009 09:31 Jibba wrote:About the stimulus plan thing, I just want to point this out for you, Savio. Show nested quote +Republicans are calling for a plan with more tax cuts and less spending. They also want more emphasis on helping homeowners. One Republican proposal could double the tax credit for home buying from $7,500 to $15,000. That's the welfare directed at the upper-middleclass I was talking about. We can debate all day about whether the poor or middle class deserve it more, but that's what that statement represents. Spending = welfare for poor, tax credit = welfare for middle/upper
You are completely wrong. There's an AGI phaseout for the $7500 tax credit and by the time you hit upper middle, you don't qualify for anything. Plus the fact that this is ONLY for first time buyers purchasing primary residences, so this does in fact favor people who are not wealthy. Most affluent individuals/families already have a primary residence. Lastly, it's not even a tax credit. It's just a $7500 cash upfront loan by the government that the couple has to pay off over 15 years at no interest.
If you're talking about in general, you are also completely wrong. The "tax break to 98% of americans" Obama spouted during his campaign is calculated from Obama considering tax credits as "tax breaks." To have 98% of the population fit into his tax cutting scheme, he included tax credits for a lot of random shit--even for really affluent individuals/families--so that he could call it a "tax break." Look it up. Bottom line is that tax credits are merely one way to control cash flow by the government regardless of wealth.
|
On February 05 2009 14:05 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote:
Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. Edit: It's shocking that people find Obama's policies shocking. He made them pretty clear throughout the campaign. Back in the campaign, people were too caught up in his pretty face and "hope" (or was it "change") to bother listening to his actual policies.
That and Mccain was mired with the anti-Bush stigma.
Personally, I voted Obama because (1) my vote doesnt really matter (I live in California), and (2) he's young and smart enough to learn, make decisions on the current situation, and not be completely rigid about his policies. Fortunately this is turning out to be somewhat true with his opposing stance on the Buy American provision and stalling his proposed tax hikes.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 05 2009 15:33 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 09:31 Jibba wrote:About the stimulus plan thing, I just want to point this out for you, Savio. Republicans are calling for a plan with more tax cuts and less spending. They also want more emphasis on helping homeowners. One Republican proposal could double the tax credit for home buying from $7,500 to $15,000. That's the welfare directed at the upper-middleclass I was talking about. We can debate all day about whether the poor or middle class deserve it more, but that's what that statement represents. Spending = welfare for poor, tax credit = welfare for middle/upper If you're talking about in general, you are also completely wrong. The "tax break to 98% of americans" Obama spouted during his campaign is calculated from Obama considering tax credits as "tax breaks." To have 98% of the population fit into his tax cutting scheme, he included tax credits for a lot of random shit--even for really affluent individuals/families--so that he could call it a "tax break." Look it up. Bottom line is that tax credits are merely one way to control cash flow by the government regardless of wealth.
I'm not talking about Obama's tax proposal, I'm talking about tax breaks in general and how they've operated in the last few decades. If you have a friend who's an accountant, ask them where people are getting the most money back. It's on things for homeowners like replacing windows, or the environment, and so on. Most are designed for the people in the middle and up because we want the strong middle class.
BTW, the Senate is going to lighten the Buy American clause.
It's fucking ridiculous that CNN has Trump on to talk about this stuff. What a joke of a news station.
|
Jibba, I am an accountant. Tax credits were originally created as another way to implement in the tax structure things that the government wanted done (ie. create incentive to get higher education, polution reduction, have more children, etc). Since then, they've been a method for the government to withold giving out cash as tax breaks as soon as possible (much like electronics rebates). It's not so bad at the federal level, but at the state level, most states manipulate credits and deductions so that they can get cash in as quickly as possible while giving out rebates and credits as late as possible. This happens regardless of wealth.
In fact, of the tax credits that do have clauses in them for wealth related reasons, most have an income phaseout against wealthy people (that is, they get less and less of the credit if their income is increasingly higher than a certain threshold). Take a look at the child tax credit--phase out begins for individuals making mor ethan $75,000; homebuyer's credit--$75,000; hope and lifetime education--$48,000; childcare--$43,000; and the list goes on. From a psychological standpoint, you could even argue that tax credits favor the poor through giving lower income individuals/families cash without their even realizing it. Higher net worth taxpayers generally have a loose idea about what things they can get credits and deductions for and they incorporate this into their tax planning in the beginning of the year; lower net worth taxpayers a lot of times have no idea what things are irrelevant in taxation--they just look at, at the end of the day, whether they are getting back cash or giving back cash. Thus, when the government gives back money to them through credits or rebates, they look a lot more positively at it. I know this from first hand experience working both with high net worth taxpayers and low income taxpayers.
Yes, there are certain credits for things like the environment that loosely correlate with more wealth individuals, but they were not created for the purpose of giving back money to the wealthy. They were created, much like most credits are, because the government wanted to do something about an important topic to the public regardless of who it would affect. Tax credits are just one of the easier ways to implement it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they are functionally welfare for the wealthy. it is a rather common way of looking at things and i am surprised that you've never encountered it before.
|
On February 06 2009 03:01 oneofthem wrote:
they are functionally welfare for the wealthy. it is a rather common way of looking at things and i am surprised that you've never encountered it before.
Evidence?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
eh, jibba certainly didn't invent it. just google the thing
|
^^
LoL, gchan just threw down the accounting on you and that was your best response?
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On February 05 2009 14:05 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote:
Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. Edit: It's shocking that people find Obama's policies shocking. He made them pretty clear throughout the campaign. Back in the campaign, people were too caught up in his pretty face and "hope" (or was it "change") to bother listening to his actual policies.
Obama IS against it.
His speech tonight was pretty awesome. Not because it was soaring or beautiful, but basically it was "You guys are being retards delaying this super important bill to score political points. Stop being retards"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
accounting has nothing to do with the way he misunderstood the phrase. it is not that they are intentionally designed as a reverse robin hood scheme, but that it works the same way. whether the scale of that transfer is large or small does not matter. libertarians frequently employ the same rhetoric, that should be familiar enough if welfare state does not ring a bell.
i could walk into a bookstore and grab you a few sensationalist books with the phrase plastered on the cover.
|
I just took a cursory glance at the articles, but it seems to be that there is a misunderstanding about what are "tax credits"--as you originally argued was for the wealthy--and tax deductions. The things you listed, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, medical expenses, etc are deductions, not credits. That is, amounts you spend on them reduce how much income can be taxed. Tax credits, on the other hand, are essentially checks the government gives out to the people. In this case, then yes, I would agree with you that tax deductions favor the wealthy, but tax credits certainly do not. Most high networth do intentionally try to get into a lower tax bracket by having lots of deductibles, but something to keep in mind is that Congress has largely changed the ability for these individuals/families to do that. There's actually a separate tax code written for something called alternative minimum tax which essentially puts a 25% or 28% flat tax rate on the richest 25% in the country.
|
On February 06 2009 11:53 oneofthem wrote:
accounting has nothing to do with the way he misunderstood the phrase. it is not that they are intentionally designed as a reverse robin hood scheme, but that it works the same way. whether the scale of that transfer is large or small does not matter. libertarians frequently employ the same rhetoric, that should be familiar enough if welfare state does not ring a bell.
i could walk into a bookstore and grab you a few sensationalist books with the phrase plastered on the cover.
It's not so much as I "misunderstood the phrase" as it is you misunderstand how taxes work. See my previous post about tax credits and tax deductions. And yes, tax deductions do end up favoring the wealthy, but the government also creates them to encourage spending in things that the government thinks is important (like charity, health care, house purchases, capital investments, and so on). That doesn't seem so bad to me. Most of these things provide an immediate domestic benefit and if charities were truly reliant on only the charity of people (without the tax benefits), I'm sure there would be a lot fewer charities around.
But before this whole thread got derailed to how the tax code works, /my/ point is that the original post about how taxes are welfare for the wealthy simply isn't true. The tax code is simply a means for the government to encourage/discourage spending on specific things important to that specific administration. The argument /should/ be about what policies the party in power want and whether they will be effective--not about the tax code.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i understand the stated purpose just fine, you are just too impatient with the reading business. calling the credits welfare is typically a response to those who think that only the poor and unproductive receive welfare, or that only these people rely on the government. you can call them benefit packages if you like, the point is that a vast portion of government 'welfare' outlay is for the well off, and people benefit from special treatment by the government more often than they'd like to admit. given that pretty much everyone's income is taxed, and the government is heavily involved in healthcare education financial security etc, whether the government is giving out directly or adjusting the rate of taking away ceases to be a meaningful distinction. we would just call lessening the tax burden welfare, and so on. given how political these decisions are, it is no surprise that the well off are leveraged to fight for more benefits. just ask the aarp and social security.
make no mistake, regardless of behavioral incentives, the recipients of tax credits are benefiting from government largess. using the term welfare is just a technical designation for special benefits, it is not necessarily to say that they should be abolished or that they are perverse.
|
Ok, firstly, never did I once say that credits were welfare. The very first argument I made was that I thought the tax code as an entity by itself, is simply a mechanism, not an end solution (like welfare).
And secondly, your definition of welfare is absurdly broad. You're basically saying that any form of "benefit" is "welfare." I'm not even going to argue this point as it completely derails from the topic and it is a matter of semantics.
Thirdly, with your definition of welfare, you simply state the obvious. Of course people benefit from the government. Thats why it's there. They're called "public goods."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
since you are responding to jibba and his usage of welfare, a sense with which you are apparently unfamiliar, whatever you believe it to mean is irrelevant. the only thing you can do is to ask for a clarification of what he meant, and only then can you even disagree. i just said that you are misunderstanding what he meant by welfare, and i ventured a guess to the general direction of that meaning.
i have no idea how you manage to produce three separate and nonsensical responses to the situation. im done with this for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
