Fight Poverty! Raise taxes?

[Rau]

people who are born into it [poverty] can rise above it by:

Getting a high school education (which is free)
a job ( no matter how lowly)
not having a child outside of marriage

While there is some truth in that, it is also true that the social status/education level of one’s parents is statistically a strong indicator of the path of the children. This is probably not hard to understand given the significance of parents to children. So while children can break away from the path of their parents, it is a source of advantage/disadvantage which leaves its mark (statistically) on society.

 

[EndTimes]

While there is some truth in that, it is also true that the social status/education level of one’s parents is statistically a strong indicator of the path of the children. This is probably not hard to understand given the significance of parents to children. So while children can break away from the path of their parents, it is a source of advantage/disadvantage which leaves its mark (statistically) on society.

Economics. The tale of two approaches

In the early 2000’s Banks were handing out money left and right - creating enormous Debt

Things hit the fan circa 2007 and Banks tightened up lending…

10’s of Millions of Americans were in trouble… Lost jobs and houses as businesses folded.

Big Time Recession… Debt via no way to get out of Debt…

IF the FED had but bailed out those Americans instead of bailing out the Banks,
the Americans could have paid off the Banks. A WIN-WIN

But no… They would never do that.

_

 

[Rau]

While I’m not sure how that relates to my post, the idea of bailing out households is a valid economic approach - though not commonly accepted as such.

 

[Rau]

We will eventually end up raising taxes in order to remain financially solvent, but that isn’t going to fight poverty, it is only going to decrease the standard of living for more Americans.

A rise in taxes at the very top end would make no direct adverse impact on anyone’s standard of living.

 

[Rau]

Huge swaths of the service industry- people with jobs - live in poverty.

Yes. I have heard a figure quoted about the % of Americans who have less than $400 saved. It was shocking.

 

[Peeps]

here are 3 causes of poverty:

lack of education
refusal to work
children out of wedlock or abandoned by a parent.

taxes won’t fix those problems. Anyone who works hard enough to amass a fortune, legally, deserves to keep their fortune and not have it stolen by the government or by a mob who vote to take their money.

So much truth here.

I do think we have to look at the reasons for “lack of education”, “refusal to work,” and “children born out of wedlock” and it’s possible that some guv’ment aid might be necessary to tackle those reasons.

E.g., I’ve already mentioned that one reason people refuse to work is addiction. It’s often impossible to work when you are addicted to something. I have a friend who has to have a smoke every few hours or she gets too nervous to function. And in a stressful situation (like a JOB!), she has to smoke even more often. Obviously, she is pretty much unemployable. (She’s now 65, so it’s no longer an issue. And for at least 30 years, she has been part of a mental illness program in our city that provides a home, food, health care including meds, etc–paid for mainly by private donations, but also through a network of agencies funded by taxes).

One of my brother’s friends was addicted to food. He kept gaining and gaining, contracted Type II Diabetes, and eventually had to quit work by the time he was in his 30s and apply for disability. He was too fat to get out of bed (over 500 pounds). In his last days, no one except my brother came to see him, and it was my brother who found him dead one day. So sad. Food should be a joy, not a monster.

Anyway, that’s just one example. There are REASONS why people don’t get an education, don’t work, and have children out of wedlock or abandon children. We need to study to learn about these reasons and what can be done.

 

[Peeps]

I can see why you say this “isn’t really a tax issue.” It is obviously an income inequality issue.

Do you think that there’s something immoral about making more money than others?

My brother works many hours every day at several jobs. His “addiction” is work!

And he has the income that results from this kind of work ethic. He owns many properties that produce income. It’s definitely true that the more money you have, the more you make! Just his investments alone bring him enough income to quit all his other jobs, but he doesn’t quit because he loves to work!

And he is so generous with his money. And it seem that the more he gives away, the more he makes!

There’s absolutely nothing immoral about this. He works very very hard at wealth-producing jobs–he’s a welder and a mechanic, both “professions” that require a minimum post-high school education and a maximum “aptitude.” (In other words, I could never be a mechanic–I can’t even figure out how to turn on a TV with certain mysterious remote controls!)

MANY rich people are rich because they work their butts off. One example of this is entertainment professionals who make millions. Now I have to admit that I have a problem with someone being paid 20 million dollars for walking onto a movie set and saying two lines! BUT…most entertainment professionals have to work very very hard, and continue to work hard–long hours, lots of travel, little at-home time, packed schedules, working out to stay thin, etc.

Drew Barrymore is a good example. She is the 5th generation of a successful acting family, and it seems that she should just step into fame because of her famous family and name. But no–she is one of the hardest-working actors in Hollywood, and often takes chances by trying new venues of entertainment (and they sometimes fail).

And keep in mind that although the actors make millions, their work provides jobs for tens of thousands of others who are never seen on screen or written up in People Magazine. My daughter is one of these people–she works in the entertainment industry and has supported herself (with no supplements from Mom and Dad!) since 2004.

The point of this post is to make sure we all understand that many wealthy people work long hours every day and totally EARN their large incomes, and also provide work for many others who work for them. Nothing immoral about that. St. Paul didn’t condemn the wealthy people who supported his ministry.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

And no wonder. Your upbringing instills your paradigm.

How do you think we can reorient the system to help address that major issue, a lot of people may simply don’t have family to fall back on or are handicapped or set back by their experiences with family like growing up in a dysfunctional household? Policy wise, what can be done for that?

There is no silver bullet to the problem because it involves getting the horse to drink once you’ve led them to the water. But the public education system is absolutely, 100000% your best bet.

Kids with slimeball parents are there exposed to the occasional teacher that might actually give a dam* about them. They’re exposed to alternative life choices than the ones they see at home.

The overwhelming majority of the time, if you don’t get them on “The right path” by the time they’ve concluded puberty, there is a tragically high chance they’ll never get there.

There are exceptions, true. But exceptions are exceptions because they are exceptional.

 

[Hume]

Yes… more taxes is the way to go. Far too much wealth is concentrated among the few. There is no good reason for not having great healthcare and no poverty in the US. Tax the top, close the loopholes

Indeed.

Most of the outrage is spent against the poor because the social programs have a cost that you can actually see.

The breaks and cuts in our tax code may cost even more and benefit much fewer and wealthier people. But these economic expenses that everyone pays through higher taxes can only be estimated rather than plainly seen. It is the subsidization of wealthier folks by poorer folks, so I smile when I see the relatively wealthy complain about taxes.

True, professionals are taxed through the nose. But the effective tax rate peaks in those income ranges. As you obtain more wealth and strategize on how to capture the deductions and exemptions other wealthy folks have lobbied for on their/your behalf, their effective tax rate falls.

 

[Crocus]

I rather be judged on what I did to help others rather than what I have accumulated. I am not trying to brag. I just want us to keep our value system and pass it to my son.

You are doing well in your duty towards God and your neighbor. You have a great legacy to pass on to your son, as you received from your parents, and may I assume they received from theirs. God bless you and those you love.

 

[Hodos]

A rise in taxes at the very top end would make no direct adverse impact on anyone’s standard of living.

It will also make no direct impact on the deficit at this point since we are blowing out the budget. I personally am unwilling to raise taxes on anyone regardless of tax bracket until spending is addressed, particularly when the recent tax cuts actually have helped the middle class and spurred the economy more than previous tax reductions have done in the past. I am not a big fan of the politics of coveting.

 

[Metis1]

I would like to see data that shows people are not better off today. My sense is that the standard of living is better for even poor people today compared to one or two generations ago!

I just saw the data on Fareed Zakaria’s program a week or two ago, and you are correct when we look at this internationally.

 

[Metis1]

If we cut taxes, we either have to cut programs or ramp-up the deficit, and the latest tax cuts have done and are doing both.

 

[Hume]

Crocus:

The poor don’t buy stuff.

My wife’s family is pretty poor and they have more unnecessary things than we do. Her whole family spends money they don’t have on things they don’t need to make themselves feel better about being poor. It’s quite the trap they put themselves in.

Quite right. I once saw a poor man at Mcdonands order a combo meal.

I was appalled by the nerve… He should have ordered off the dollar menu, or bought bologna at a grocery store and ate it undressed, that animal.

 

[Hume]

If we cut taxes, we either have to cut programs or ramp-up the deficit, and the latest tax cuts have done and are doing both.

If that’s a call for balanced budgets then “hear hear!!!”

Inflation provides room for some imbalance (3-5%), but not our present 40% or so.

 

[Metis1]

In Neo-Keynesian economics, one must balance the budget except in cases of recession, depression, or national emergency. However, once the problem is over, not only must the deficit acquired be eventually reduced to 0, there must also be a creation of a “rainy-day fund” to prepare for the next problem(s).

 

[Hume]

In Neo-Keynesian economics, one must balance the budget except in cases of recession, depression, or national emergency. However, once the problem is over, not only must the deficit acquired be eventually reduced to 0, there must also be a creation of a “rainy-day fund” to prepare for the next problem(s).

I’m with you for the most part except the last bit, as a reality of human nature.

Politicians, both democrat and republican, can’t stay out of public monies that aren’t explicitly earmarked for something - as at least the Kentucky pension crisis partially shows.

It would still be technically underfunded if the state paid back everything it’s ever “borrowed” from it, but it wouldn’t be the crisis it is.

I’ll bet a shiny silver nickel that most states are in a similar boat.

 

[Peeps]

The implication was that when you make nine TIMES as much as the median income, you are in a better position to pay taxes than those who make far less in spite of their hard work. You would have no just reason to resent it, provided the funds are used for the general welfare.

I can agree that the fabulously wealthy–those who make tens of billions, are in a good position to pay taxes.

But many of the wealthy are far from fabulously wealthy. A million dollars is really not that much money, and if it’s taxed at around 55% (which is what it is currently taxed at), you have around $500,000 left. It sounds like a lot of money to those who make under $20,000, but it’s really not that much when a house in certain areas of the country (Chicago suburbs) costs around $250K. If that $500K is taxed at 55%, too, then only $250K will be left, and that means the “wealthy person” can barely afford a house. Of course, they could move further away from the Chicago suburbs, but they would literally have to live an hour or more away from their job (e.g, Belvidere, a small town) and that means a huge commute (and they are not rich enough to move to Poplar Grove into one of the homes that has an airplane hangar and fly into work every day). Besides–when you have a family, you really don’t want to spend a couple of hours commuting into the City every day.

And one more thing–YES, there is reason to resent higher taxes. Many of the wealthy are very happy to open up their purses and fund community projects, schools, charities, outreaches, church projects, or to establish a scholarship or build a park, and they can do all these kind things with very little overhead, as they are able to help select the contractors and administrators who will make their giving bear good fruit. When they are forced to hand it over to the guv’ment instead, they know that much of their tax money will be lost to bureaucracy and not help any of the people who need help.

I resent that, and I’m not even somewhat wealthy!

 

[Hume]

Lack of impulse control is a major factor in debt accrual.

Sure, and medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy.

 

[Hume]

And one more thing–YES, there is reason to resent higher taxes. Many of the wealthy are very happy to open up their purses and fund community projects, schools, charities, outreaches, church projects, or to establish a scholarship or build a park, and they can do all these kind things with very little overhead, as they are able to help select the contractors and administrators who will make their giving bear good fruit. When they are forced to hand it over to the guv’ment instead, they know that much of their tax money will be lost to bureaucracy and not help any of the people who need help.

I resent that, and I’m not even somewhat wealthy!

Just wanted to chime in and mention an article I read where 60% of American millionaires supported a tax on wealth over 50 million dollars. So your claim isn’t particularly accurate.

When the rich transition into the “super rich”, they become more focused on philanthropy than making the next million, as the marginal utility of legacy is much more important to them at that point than the next buck. It’s why in the highest levels of wealth you’ll see as many Democrats as Republicans. Many switch, like Bloomberg in New York (20-30 years ago he was a die-hard Reagan-er).

They see the picture from the top and see that the redistribution of income is fundamental to a society with any hope of equality.

2 cents.