Yes, I thought about how my post wasn’t worded clearly. I could have incorrectly inferred a message being made in the post I responded to.
So…if you don’t “claim” it, how does the government find you to decide if you meet requirements? Do they have an investigative group roaming the country looking for potential SSDI recipients?
SSI is given to folks regardless to whether they have ever worked and tops out at a given level of around 700 dollars I think.
Thanks I’ve only encountered SSI in our patient population. I wasn’t aware of how/why this “account” is in worse financial shape than regular SS. Apparently a combo of more utilization and diminishing funding sources.
Yes SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is welfare and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) is not, but both are related to disability.
I am not aware (but will look) for a study relating the incomes of lowest-wage workers and high employment, though i made no representation concerning that. It may, however, be observed that the percentage of national income going to labor is maximized at full employment. Whether the high tide raises all boats is a different question, of course.
There has been an upsurge in SSDI cases by my observation since the recession began. I really do think a lot of it is related to lack of jobs and lack of belief in the future. It’s like the people who “drop out” of the unemployment lines. Some dropouts from the labor force resort to SSDI. Probably most of them will never re-enter the work force, no matter what happens. People get “deconditioned” both mentally and physically when they stop working and start sitting around.
Compared to other western countries, the US has a very low tax burden as a percentage of GDP. Now, when it comes to how that tax burden is distributed, I very much doubt that the US puts a high strain on the higher brackets. That is actually contrary to evidence. However, I would not think it fair that people earning $50k should pay the same percentage as people earning $200k. So, if that is true, one might consider a different progression.
You’re not even engaging the argument, yet you think you have spotted a fallacy. What a joke. You claim that I want to force equality. I have not made that argument. You claim that I want equality of outcome. I have not made that argument, but made it clear that differences in outcome could be necessary to motivate productive behavior. You claim that America’s level of inequality is necessary to allow people to succeed, implying that it results in high economic and social mobility. Most western countries have better mobility than the US. The Scandinavian countries, with the lowest income inequality, again feature at the top. That is, it’s easier to move from poor to rich in those countries than in the US. Why don’t you look into what countries consistently perform best on international comparisons? The US is not one of them. Why do you think that is?
There are several reasons for deindustrialisation - globalization being one of the most important. International corporations, being amoral entities only worried about the bottom line, tend to go where the labor is cheapest. Unless you want to be cheapest - and you don’t, since that would effectively make you poor - something else has to be done. One could look to Germany, the western country with the strongest manufacturing industry. They have strong unions, plenty of regulation and high taxes (compared to US taxes). They focus on high-quality and well-trained workers with unique apprenticeship-programs. I am not saying that their model could be implemented in the US. There might be insurmountable cultural differences, rendering that project unrealistic. But to simply accept lower wages, poor benefits and dangerous regulation (which is Asian manufacturing in a nutshell) is no solution at all. That means a race to the bottom, and is a terrible idea.
Two things to say:
I am sure there is a difference here, but there is no doubt that red states seem to be worse off on all relevant metrics, even though they might have a lower cost of living. The lower cost of living doesn’t seem to make up for it.
Perhaps, but intergenerational mobility in the US is not very good compared to other western countries (with significantly higher wages for the lower classes), implying that (i) even though Americans might intend to be upwardly mobile, they are not so compared to several other western countries, and (ii) higher wages for Walmart employees would not hurt mobility (since comparable countries have better mobility but higher wages for the lower classes).
Note your entire argument is based on pulling DOWN the top rather than raising the bottom. I’ve inserted and bolded your initial statement. You have succumbed to the temptation to adopt the cry of the French Revolution rather than the American…
This is not an issue of taste. There are facts about this that matter. So, you say that I’m interested in pulling down the top. This is a simplistic and ultimately mistaken interpretation of what I’ve said. I haven’t said that I am particularly worried about fairness either, although I think it matters.
Source?
Sorry Persuader (interesting name but it’s not working) your “solution” to perceived unfairness is to “equalize” or to “reduce the income of high earners” which you suggest should be distributed to the single mom checking at WalMart. I suggest that instead of me “not having arguments” you are simply refusing to acknowledge what you wrote and the challenge you extended.
What I said in bold was that pretax-income should be closer. But this is not achieved by government action by itself. It’s an issue of societal attitude, union power and other relevant factors. But I haven’t advocated that the government force equality of income. Nor have I advocated that people should earn the same.
It’s not an opinion. Here are three studies about it – one from Princeton, one from the University of Bonn and one from OECD. They respectively conclude:
You would think I was talking quantum physics here, you are so prone to misinterpret whatever I say. I asked if you thought it would be easier for a poor person to go to college if he could go there without paying for it. Are you going to answer the question?
No, I don’t. I asked you a question.
Again, you’re not answering the questions. Do you think it’s easier to raise children with paid maternity leave? If it is, do you think that increase in freedom is outweighed by the decrease in freedom we might have by a modest increase in taxes? You seem to default into this simple black-and-white world in which no one lives.
No.
The articles you posted were old and the first one was merely an overview with the usual fluff of sociologists as a conclusion. I prefer to judge opportunity through the economic freedom index and in that area the US is diving fast. Too many taxes and regulations. Also I didn’t see any extensive study demonstrating social mobility country to country. But aside from that if we don’t have more social and income mobility why not? How much is simply the result of personal choices rather than some evil oppression (those rich guys again…I take it you won’t be voting for Romney?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
You will notice that there are two sources - Heritage Foundation and OECD. They correlate pretty well, and there are no western countries with a lower burden than the US. It’s interesting to note that the European countries struggling most in the financial crisis have relatively low numbers.
What I said in bold was that pretax-income should be closer. But this is not achieved by government action by itself. It’s an issue of societal attitude, union power and other relevant factors. But I haven’t advocated that the government force equality of income. Nor have I advocated that people should earn the same.
It’s not an opinion. Here are three studies about it – one from Princeton, one from the University of Bonn and one from OECD. They respectively conclude:
“In international comparisons, the United States occupies a middle ground in occupational mobility but ranks lower in income mobility.”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844789
“We view this as a challenge to the popular notion of an “American exceptionalism” in economic mobility. Indeed, the combination of a high probability of American sons of the poorest fifth of fathers remaining in the lowest quintile group, the lower probability of “rags-to-riches” (poorest to richest) and slightly lower probability of “riches-to-rags” (richest to poorest), places the notion of American exceptionalism in a new light.”
zew.de/en/publikationen/dfgflex/workshop_06/Bratsberg.pdf
“Mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in France, southern European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. By contrast, such mobility tends to be higher in Australia, Canada and the Nordic countries.”
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
The reasons for US immigration are many and complicated, but you should notice that other countries also experience immigration. It’s also funny to be able to tell you that net immigration from Mexico has reversed.
You would think I was talking quantum physics here, you are so prone to misinterpret whatever I say. I asked if you thought it would be easier for a poor person to go to college if he could go there without paying for it. Are you going to answer the question?
No, I don’t. I asked you a question.
Again, you’re not answering the questions. Do you think it’s easier to raise children with paid maternity leave? If it is, do you think that increase in freedom is outweighed by the decrease in freedom we might have by a modest increase in taxes? You seem to default into this simple black-and-white world in which no one lives.
No.
Your source does not include any state income tax, property tax or sales tax.
You use verifiable facts from credible sources in your arguments about the economic reality in the USA, that compared to all other western countries the tax burden in the USA is low, that the rich are taxed less, the tax code is regressive, the higher education system to be prohibitively expensive and that these forces and others are causing the rich to get richer and everyone else to stagnate or lose. You argue that this is overall bad for the country and show models from democratic, capitalist countries that do a better job and have a better system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
You will notice that there are two sources - Heritage Foundation and OECD. They correlate pretty well, and there are no western countries with a lower burden than the US. It’s interesting to note that the European countries struggling most in the financial crisis have relatively low numbers.
What I said in bold was that pretax-income should be closer. But this is not achieved by government action by itself. It’s an issue of societal attitude, union power and other relevant factors. But I haven’t advocated that the government force equality of income. Nor have I advocated that people should earn the same.
It’s not an opinion. Here are three studies about it – one from Princeton, one from the University of Bonn and one from OECD. They respectively conclude:
“In international comparisons, the United States occupies a middle ground in occupational mobility but ranks lower in income mobility.”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844789
“We view this as a challenge to the popular notion of an “American exceptionalism” in economic mobility. Indeed, the combination of a high probability of American sons of the poorest fifth of fathers remaining in the lowest quintile group, the lower probability of “rags-to-riches” (poorest to richest) and slightly lower probability of “riches-to-rags” (richest to poorest), places the notion of American exceptionalism in a new light.”
zew.de/en/publikationen/dfgflex/workshop_06/Bratsberg.pdf
“Mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in France, southern European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. By contrast, such mobility tends to be higher in Australia, Canada and the Nordic countries.”
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
The reasons for US immigration are many and complicated, but you should notice that other countries also experience immigration. It’s also funny to be able to tell you that net immigration from Mexico has reversed.
You would think I was talking quantum physics here, you are so prone to misinterpret whatever I say. I asked if you thought it would be easier for a poor person to go to college if he could go there without paying for it. Are you going to answer the question?
No, I don’t. I asked you a question.
Again, you’re not answering the questions. Do you think it’s easier to raise children with paid maternity leave? If it is, do you think that increase in freedom is outweighed by the decrease in freedom we might have by a modest increase in taxes? You seem to default into this simple black-and-white world in which no one lives.
No.
The studies are not old, but they are historical (they have something to say about intergenerational mobility) and needs specific kinds of data that is not necessarily available for every generation. Unless you want to make the argument that something has changed over the last couple of years, the studies are still relevant. Actually, we can be pretty sure that the US performs worse now given the recession.
I don’t see any reason to take your suggestion seriously, that’s for sure. In the US, it seems that you would have more motivation to move socially and economically given the stark income inequality (settling for less is a lot easier in the countries that perform better than the US). So, I would speculate that it’s more likely that Americans try harder than any other westerner, but perform worse because institutions make it more difficult (harder to get an education for poorer people, say).
Re-distribution can occur by having powerful unions demanding that more of the economic growth goes to increasing wages. I have also mentioned a study showing that increasing minimum wage will increase wages in general (by pushing the cart). And when it comes to setting salaries in the first place, they partly reflect the attitude of the population. People in the US don’t seem perturbed by (non-investors) earning hundreds of times more than others. This is socially unacceptable in many places - it would be seen as disgustingly selfish, egocentric, unfair and overindulgent. People wouldn’t think it was right. But in the US, the real religion is the religion of money. And Catholics seem as taken by it as everyone else.
But since the economic factor impacts how easy it is to go to college, it makes it easier. And if it’s easier, you’re more likely to do it. If it’s easier for rich kids to go to college because their parents pay their way, they are more likely to do it, aren’t they? So, if tuition was free for everyone, then the advantage held by rich kids would be less, wouldn’t it? This is pretty straightforward.
Many western countries have paid maternity leave for a year. You don’t think that has an impact? You don’t think the mother prefers to stay at home with her infant instead of being stressed at work, feeling that she is neglecting her child? You don’t think the infant should stay home with a parent in his first year? There is extensive research on child development when it comes to the importance of bonding for infants (especially first six months). And again, rich people will have more of an opportunity to stay at home, whereas the working poor and lower middle-class will find it difficult.
Why should a person be forced to hand over money for anything? Shouldn’t taxes be zero? No police, no firemen, no hospital, no education, no nothing. Every man for himself.
No, although I doubt that you know what it is.
That’s wrong. They measure total tax revenue (the totality of central and sub-central (state and local governments) taxes of all kinds). OECD includes all the taxes you mention – they add it all up. You are free to look into it, the stats are readily available on their site.
If you can blame what is said on something you have made into the Big Bad Wolf, you feel more justified in brushing it off.
Aha! You think “powerful unions” are the answer. Now I get it. Basically what you propose is the tyranny of the elites, led by you and those of your persuasion who have the right to extract money from one class and give it to another. Seems like I’ve heard of that system before. That’s not a country I’d like to live in and as I look at the demise of the Soviet Union it appears that not too many of those folks liked it very much either.
So, you’re suggesting people take responsibility for their actions? I’m shocked!
