Will an economic stimulus package help us during recession?

[stinkcat_14]

and the mentioned 6% segment does not fill the bill.

Gee, where did I hear this before? You are repeating yourself. Let me ask the question again: What is your definition of rich?

 

[mary_bobo]

Hate to follow myself, and maybe the thread has run dry, so maybe I’m only talking to myself.

But I see the admin and congress have agreed on a stimulus package. To me, it’s typical American politics. Those whose income is over $75,000 (or couples over $150,000) won’t get a tax rebate. Those under that level will.

Both parties showed their true colors, exposing their rhetoric for what it is.

A. The Repubs adopted a clearly inflationary, deficit-increasing program that will only prolong the recession and weaken the dollar. “No fiscal responsibility here. Further, we would like to see everybody go out and buy more Chinese goods as fast as possible in order to make the balance of payments even worse.”

B. The Dems dropped extending unemployment benefits and increases in food stamps. “Who cares about the poor? It’s middle class votes we’re buying. Let’s give them money whether they need it or not.”

C. Both parties tacitly “adopted” the notion that anyone whose income is over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples) are members of “the rich”. My goodness! They determined that “the rich” would only SAVE any rebates they got, so nothing doing.

A miserable showing for both parties. And, of course, gold prices took off like a rocket. The politicians on both sides will give themselves rotator cuff tears patting themselves on the back before the tv screens, and the voters will believe the whole sordid mess is a good thing.

Sadly, this says more about the voters than the politicians. We, the collective we, keep re-electing the same old people, and when we elect someone new who has promised to do differently, we do not hold his/her feet to the fire. We get the government we deserve.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is your definition of rich?

My definition is, “Free to live your life as you wish.”

There are people who make a lot of money, but cannot live as they wish. There are others with little money who are completely free. I knew a couple who rebuilt an old sailboat and sailed it arund the world. When they needed privisions, they would work a while to get what they needed and sail on. They also wrote books and magazine articles. They didn’t make a lot of money, but they were free as the wind.

I know a fellow who has an old jeep which he got for just towing it away. He uses it as his electrical system. His water system consists of two 55-gallon drums. He fills one at the creek, hauls it to his cabin with a horse and wagon, then pumps it up to fill another in the crotch of a tree – and voila! running water!

I recall deer hunting with a friend on Big Walker Mountain in Virginia. Coming down the mountain, I came upon a log building, all grown over. Inside, I found a cast iron kettle, set in stone, and thousands of tin spouts – it was a “sugaring off” house, long unused. I would consider the people who built that sugaring off house, collected the sap, and made their own sugar (among many other things) to be “richer” than the people who lived on welfare just down the hillside.

 

[mapleoak]

Gee, where did I hear this before? You are repeating yourself.

Whoa? Shame on me.

Let me ask the question again: What is your definition of rich?

Read Vern’s definition. It is excellent.

Now answer my question. Do you consider someone making 10K rich? You have stated that one is rich based on how many other people that he has more money than.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Better to be poor in New York than rich in Alabama.

LOL! You said it!

 

[estesbob]

Whoa? Shame on me.

Read Vern’s definition. It is excellent.

Now answer my question. Do you consider someone making 10K rich? You have stated that one is rich based on how many other people that he has more money than.

Most peoples definition of “rich” is anyone who makes more than they do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gee, and here I thought we hill billies were a protected group under New York hate crimes laws.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Whoa? Shame on me.

Read Vern’s definition. It is excellent.

Now answer my question. Do you consider someone making 10K rich? You have stated that one is rich based on how many other people that he has more money than.

Rich is always going to be a relative definition. The problem is: what is the relevant basis for comparison? Certainly our peers should be a reasonable basis for comparison. I would argue that those who are in the top 1-2% of the worlds wealthiest individuals should be considered rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rich is always going to be a relative definition. The problem is: what is the relevant basis for comparison? Certainly our peers should be a reasonable basis for comparison. I would argue that those who are in the top 1-2% of the worlds wealthiest individuals should be considered rich.

What about those who are in the top 1-2% for intelligence? Surely they are smart enough to be “rich,” and if they are not, it’s a matter of choice, not inability.

So should we not tax them accordigly?

 

[stinkcat_14]

What about those who are in the top 1-2% for intelligence? Surely they are smart enough to be “rich,” and if they are not, it’s a matter of choice, not inability.

So should we not tax them accordigly?

If you want to make an argument that the only thing that determines a person’s value is what they earn in the marketplace, then yes we should tax them accordingly. There are some problems however with this argument.

1. My priest used to be a lawyer, should we tax him on what he makes as a priest or what he could make practicing law? If you say the latter, do we really want to discourage people in high paying professions from entering the priesthood?
2. I know a woman who earned a Ph.D in economics from the University of Chicago. She was an assistant professor for a couple of years, got married, left the labor market permanently. Should we tax her on what she could have earned as an economist? Do we want to discourage women from leaving the labor force to raise a family?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you want to make an argument that the only thing that determines a person’s value is what they earn in the marketplace, then yes we should tax them accordingly.

No, I don’t say that the only thing that determines a person’s value is what they earn in the marketplace.

But the law says that the thing that determines a person’s taxes is what they earn in the marketplace.

“Worth” is a word with many meanings, and as a professor of economics, you should know that to use that word to mean both “economic worth” and “human worth” in the same conversation is confusing and misleading.

There are some problems however with this argument.

1. My priest used to be a lawyer, should we tax him on what he makes as a priest or what he could make practicing law? If you say the latter, do we really want to discourage people in high paying professions from entering the priesthood?

How would they be discouraged? Was Saint Paul not both a wage earner and an apostle?

1. I know a woman who earned a Ph.D in economics from the University of Chicago. She was an assistant professor for a couple of years, got married, left the labor market permanently. Should we tax her on what she could have earned as an economist?

Why not?

Do we want to discourage women from leaving the labor force to raise a family?

Stop it, yer bringin’ tears to me eyes.

My wife has worked for over 40 years as a nurse. And raised a family at the same time. And in the process paid taxes to make up for what this Ph. D. didn’t pay.

 

[stinkcat_14]

My wife has worked for over 40 years as a nurse. And raised a family at the same time. And in the process paid taxes to make up for what this Ph. D. didn’t pay.

That of course was her choice. She could have chosen not to work and paid less taxes. Both are legitamite choices and we cannot say that one is morally preferable to another.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That of course was her choice. She could have chosen not to work and paid less taxes. Both are legitamite choices and we cannot say that one is morally preferable to another.

But one pays, and another skates. And we can make judgements about that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

But one pays, and another skates. And we can make judgements about that.

Where is the catechism does it say that one must work in the labor market and pay taxes?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where is the catechism does it say that one must work in the labor market and pay taxes?

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Saint Paul wrote, “Who will not work, let him not eat.”

But having answered your question, let me point out how deceptive it is. The Catechism** doesn’t** say we have to have an income tax, now does it? The Catechism doesn’t presume to set tax policy, that’s outside the church’s purview.

Now, to be fair, her husband should have put her on salary and paid her commensurately with the fair market value of her labor, taking into account her level of education and skills, and she should be taxed at that rate.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Which of course, she did. So like I said, we cannot make any
moral judgments about her behavior. We have two people, who were in similar situations, one chose to work and pay taxes and one chose to stay home and not pay taxes. Caesar says both are perfectly legitamite, so morally we cannot say one is preferable to the other.

But having answered your question, let me point out how deceptive it is. The Catechism** doesn’t** say we have to have an income tax, now does it? The Catechism doesn’t presume to set tax policy, that’s outside the church’s purview.

You were the one making a judgement, so naturally when one makes moral judgements, one should look to the church for guidance. You didn’t in this case.

Now, to be fair, her husband should have put her on salary and paid her commensurately with the fair market value of her labor, taking into account her level of education and skills, and she should be taxed at that rate

Only in your imagination. Like I said, you have no support from the Church that says a woman’s decision to stay home and pay less taxes is any less moral than her decision to work and pay more taxes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Better to be poor in New York than rich in Alabama.

As a resident of the upper south, a huge region that includes the northernmost part of Alabama, a surpassingly lovely place, I am sorely tempted to debate that, but it’s not the topic. (Rats!)

I totally agree that $150,000 in NYC is a whole different thing than it is in Alabama or, for that matter, where I live.I don’t think people that make $150,000 should have gotten a tax rebate. Nor do I think people who make less should get a tax rebate. What should have happened is the thing both parties dumped; extend the unemployment benefit period. But no, neither party could bring themselves to actually help people who indisputably would have needed help. Congress and the administration decided to give somewhere between $600 and $1200 (or whatever) to a huge number of people without any regard or evident concern as to whether they actually need it or not. The gal in NYC making $75,000 might need it much more than the guy in Alabama, making $40,000.00. It bears no relationship at all to actual need. It’s nothing but buying votes.

Now, one would have to be deaf and blind not to see all the polemics about “the rich” not paying their fair share; complaints about the Bush tax breaks for “the rich”, on and on and on. And, I suspect, in the next few years, we’re going to see a lot of attacks on “the rich”. We’re likely, depending on the composition of the administration and Congress, to see all kinds of tax increases for “the rich”. When they use that rhetoric, people think “Bill Gates”. But they’re not talking about the truly wealthy, many of whom pay no taxes at all, and never will. They’re talking about that guy in NYC who maybe makes over $75,000, but maybe can’t afford what a guy in Ala can buy making $40,000.00. They’re setting up a “class warfare” mentality without really telling us who is in “the class”, but intending the class to include a lot more people than we think it will, and a lot of people who really aren’t wealthy at all.

That’s why I hated to see that $75,000 cutoff. Not because I wanted them to get a rebate, but because I hate to see definitions like that get established. It’s a way of setting neighbor against neighbor by dangling some benefit in front of me and making me think somebody else is going to have to pay for it, and that it’s right he should have to do it. It’s despicable, and I just hate it.

 

[mapleoak]

Rich is always going to be a relative definition. The problem is: what is the relevant basis for comparison? Certainly our peers should be a reasonable basis for comparison. I would argue that those who are in the top 1-2% of the worlds wealthiest individuals should be considered rich.

Now its 1-2% eh? Also, once again, is someone making 10K rich? Relative to most people in the world, they have more money.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which of course, she did. So like I said, we cannot make any
moral judgments about her behavior. We have two people, who were in similar situations, one chose to work and pay taxes and one chose to stay home and not pay taxes. Caesar says both are perfectly legitamite, so morally we cannot say one is preferable to the other.

But one pays, and another skates. And we can make judgements about that.

You were the one making a judgement, so naturally when one makes moral judgements, one should look to the church for guidance. You didn’t in this case.

So it’s not moral to put up a red light, or set a speed limit? 'Cause I can’t find anything in the Catechism about red lights and speed limits.

Only in your imagination. Like I said, you have no support from the Church that says a woman’s decision to stay home and pay less taxes is any less moral than her decision to work and pay more taxes.

No, you have no support from the Church that says a woman or man who can work and won’t is making a morally acceptable choice.

I have Saint Paul, who wrote, “Who will not work, let him not eat.”

 

[stinkcat_14]

Now its 1-2% eh? Also, once again, is someone making 10K rich? Relative to most people in the world, they have more money.

Let’s see the data.