Working hard to get ahead [Makers and Takers]

[jmcrae]

Well, it’s like this – when people who **don’t **have jobs express contempt for people who do have jobs, and demand the latter be taxed more, what other motive can there be?

All of us have jobs and work hard. Some of us have jobs and are also running businesses from home to make ends meet. I don’t think there is anyone here who is asking for something they don’t feel they’ve earned through hard work.

The old way of working 8 hours a day for an employer, and expecting to keep that job, or expecting to be given a raise after a certain length of time on the job - those days have gone the way of the dodo bird, if they ever even really existed - I’ve worked all my life, but I’ve never actually encountered that scenario.

 

[vern_humphrey]

On a per week basis, the family of four would pay $575.65 in taxes ($29,993.81 total annual). The % of income would obviously be highly variable.

This presumes no deficit, of course.

As attractive as the notion of all citizens paying equally for the burden of government, Big Government has simply grown too big for this to be practical at the moment.

Turn that around and look through the other end – by allowing government to tax citizens differentially, we allowed government to grow out of control.

Note that the key driver of Big Government’s bigness is not national defense, as some critics would have it, but social services which were ballooned by the Great Society programs of the 60s.

Correct – and if everyone paid the same tax, not only would healthy, intelligent individuals have an incentive to work for promotion and more responsibility, but government would have an incentive to give every citizen the education necessary to pay those taxes.

Even Social Security takes up a much smaller segment of the budget than this.

Indeed, were we to judge what the purpose of Big Government is from its expenditures, we’d have to include that the federal government of the United States exists to provide education, healthcare, and welfare benefits first and foremost, then retirement benefits, then national defense.

Correct.

That formulation is what would have the Founders spinning in their graves.

I can hear them now, “What wimps our descendants have become!”

 

[Teflon93]

All of us have jobs and work hard. Some of us have jobs and are also running businesses from home to make ends meet. I don’t think there is anyone here who is asking for something they don’t feel they’ve earned through hard work.

The old way of working 8 hours a day for an employer, and expecting to keep that job, or expecting to be given a raise after a certain length of time on the job - those days have gone the way of the dodo bird, if they ever even really existed - I’ve worked all my life, but I’ve never actually encountered that scenario.

That’s the money portion—the “good ol’ days” never existed.

Just ask the elderly, who lived through them.

Nostalgia is the tonic of the presently disaffected.

 

[Teflon93]

One more thing—you get an entirely different perspective on loyalty when talking to someone who is in the business of hiring people.

Today, people are less tied to a given community or geographic location than ever before. It’s a seller’s job market as a result. Look at the resume of someone younger than 40 and you’re apt to see a surprising number of different companies in their background.

Indeed, the way one “gets ahead” in the current job market is often not through raises in salary over the long haul working for one company, but in the signon bonuses and bumps in salary that occur when one switches companies.

Moreover, the demographic shift now getting underway means that Generation Y in particular will have untold employment opportunities. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire, but also keeping their wealth in play, meaning that the folks filling the workforce behind them will likely never know what unemployment is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All of us have jobs and work hard. Some of us have jobs and are also running businesses from home to make ends meet. **I don’t think there is anyone here who is asking for something they don’t feel they’ve earned **through hard work.

I know people with no jobs at all who think they’ve somehow earned the right to be supported in style by the rest of us.

We aren’t disinterested judges of our personal desires, now are we?

The old way of working 8 hours a day for an employer, and expecting to keep that job, or expecting to be given a raise after a certain length of time on the job - those days have gone the way of the dodo bird, if they ever even really existed - I’ve worked all my life, but I’ve never actually encountered that scenario.

When were those days?

I’ve punched cattle from dawn to dark. I’ve worked 12-hour shifts, week on end. I’ve worked in places you wouldn’t believe, in swamps and jungles. I never expected an 8-hour day, with automatic raises, whether I deserved them or not.

 

[jmcrae]

I know people with no jobs at all who think they’ve somehow earned the right to be supported in style by the rest of us.

Well, none of them are posting to this thread, are they?

When were those days?

I’ve punched cattle from dawn to dark. I’ve worked 12-hour shifts, week on end. I’ve worked in places you wouldn’t believe, in swamps and jungles. I never expected an 8-hour day, with automatic raises, whether I deserved them or not.

And probably didn’t get paid near enough to live on, never mind save anything, right? Most of it, you probably did for free, in order to be allowed to get paid for the other hours you worked.

So, why are you advocating the 8 hour a day lifestyle, as though you expect that to work for other people?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, none of them are posting to this thread, are they?

You’re kidding, right?

And probably didn’t get paid near enough to live on, never mind save anything, right? Most of it, you probably did for free, in order to be allowed to get paid for the other hours you worked. e

Actually, I did save – I’ve always saved and invested.

So, why are you advocating the 8 hour a day lifestyle, as though you expect that to work for other people?

When did I advocate “the 8 hour a day lifestyle?”

 

[Teflon93]

Turn that around and look through the other end – by allowing government to tax citizens differentially, we allowed government to grow out of control.

Of course we did—the whole point was to shift income from the more productive to the less productive. We can call it “progressive taxation”, “income redistribution”, “reducing the gap between rich and poor” or whatever noble-sounding slogan one likes, but what we really did was to take a bunch of money and power from the private sector and put it under the control of Big Government. As Robert A. Heinlein noted (and as economists would heartily agree), “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”.

Correct – and if everyone paid the same tax, not only would healthy, intelligent individuals have an incentive to work for promotion and more responsibility, but government would have an incentive to give every citizen the education necessary to pay those taxes.

True up to a point, but the problem is that in the first year those taxes come due a lot of young and old people and a lot of large families would go bankrupt. The trouble is not that the principle is unsound, but that we have too few people who could bear the initial burden. With the Boomers retiring and not enough people behind them even to maintain current entitlements, and with life expectancy increasing, this problem only gets worse.

You would probably agree with me that the way it must be addressed is to turn Big Government into Small Government.

I can hear them now, “What wimps our descendants have become!”

Unfortunately, the arc is all too familiar for those who know their classical history, as the Founders certainly did.

Once the public realizes that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the crises begin to mount.

Why work hard when you can simply vote for more entitlements?

 

[Teflon93]

Maybe you have read somewhere that I personally know Buffet. lol I don’t know–I’m taking guesses as to why he doesn’t give back to government.

I understand, and you’re being quite charitable to him.

I am skeptical of people who point to great societal ills without taking simple steps on their own to walk their talk.

For example, I mouth off here at Catholic Answers pretty frequently, and recommend it to others.

When the request to support the site financially first arose, I’d be a mighty hypocrite if I didn’t walk that talk if able to do so.

It’s a question of character, I think.

 

[Teflon93]

I know people with no jobs at all who think they’ve somehow earned the right to be supported in style by the rest of us.

Indeed, I have had two brothers who thought this. Their lives have not been happy ones, by my reckoning, and they’ve left some awful messes behind as a result.

I wish such attitudes were rare. Among other things, these attitudes tend to reduce compassion for the truly poor.

It is after all one thing to help a brother or sister who are down on their luck, and another to enable the merely lazy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course we did—the whole point was to shift income from the more productive to the less productive. We can call it “progressive taxation”, “income redistribution”, “reducing the gap between rich and poor” or whatever noble-sounding slogan one likes, but what we really did was to take a bunch of money and power from the private sector and put it under the control of Big Government. As Robert A. Heinlein noted (and as economists would heartily agree), “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”.

Right – despite self-serving politicians who try to convince us there is.

True up to a point, but the problem is that in the first year those taxes come due a lot of young and old people and a lot of large families would go bankrupt. The trouble is not that the principle is unsound, but that we have too few people who could bear the initial burden. With the Boomers retiring and not enough people behind them even to maintain current entitlements, and with life expectancy increasing, this problem only gets worse.

That’s why we must have a migration plan to get us from where we are to where we should be.

I developed a computer model of such a plan – which basically raises the FICA tax to 8% but returns the extra money to the worker in the form of a Personal Retirement Account. It will take about 30 years to completely personalize Social Security under this plan, but at the end, everyone who has worked steadily will have a comfortable retirement – and the next generation will retire with true wealth.

You would probably agree with me that the way it must be addressed is to turn Big Government into Small Government.

Absolutely. We should start disassembling Big Government under the 10th Amendment. That which the Federal Government is not specifically authorized to do, it cannot do.

Unfortunately, the arc is all too familiar for those who know their classical history, as the Founders certainly did.

Once the public realizes that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the crises begin to mount.

Quoting Alexis de Toqueville, I see.

Why work hard when you can simply vote for more entitlements?

That’s why I say the motto of AARP is “Apre nous, le deluge!”

 

[Teflon93]

I developed a computer model of such a plan – which basically raises the FICA tax to 8% but returns the extra money to the worker in the form of a Personal Retirement Account. It will take about 30 years to completely personalize Social Security under this plan, but at the end, everyone who has worked steadily will have a comfortable retirement – and the next generation will retire with true wealth.

Something very like that approach will need to be done eventually; the Ponzi scheme of Social Security will collapse under the demographic reality of too many Boomer retirees drawing benefits with too few Gen X & Y workers to pay for them. (This is of course not the Baby Boomers fault, beyond voting for politicians who have used the revenue from Social Security as their personal vote-buying treasury).

Absolutely. We should start disassembling Big Government under the 10th Amendment. That which the Federal Government is not specifically authorized to do, it cannot do.

I’m an even bigger fan of the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This was intended to counter the risk that including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would lead to a federal government assuming all rights not specifically enumerated, a key anti-Federalist argument.

Unfortunately, the Court has largely chosen to ignore the 9th and claim that the 14th amendment effectively gives the federal government the power the anti-Federalists claimed it would seize at the expense of our liberty.

Quoting Alexis de Toqueville, I see.

A man who understood the uniqueness of America better than many an American did, or does.

That’s why I say the motto of AARP is “Apre nous, le deluge!”

And with the Boomers retiring, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

But this raises another aspect of Big Government’s impact on our labor—one limiting factor in working hard to get ahead is that the government can take the fruits of our labor from us without any doing any work at all.

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a champion of liberty and a foe of Big Government, which is why it’s a bit distressing when so many faithful Catholics feel that Bigger Government is the remedy to legitimate social justice concerns rather than Catholic charity.

Perhaps this will change when the Boomers don’t get the Social Security benefits they worked their entire lives to earn. I think most of Gens X and Y don’t believe we’ll see a dime of those benefits and thus are more skeptical of government “benefits”.

In the meantime, though, my savings and retirement plans do grow with sustained hard work over time, and I urge the less optimistic to keep plugging away until they realize the benefits of their toil.

 

[whatevergirl]

I understand, and you’re being quite charitable to him.

I am skeptical of people who point to great societal ills without taking simple steps on their own to walk their talk.

For example, I mouth off here at Catholic Answers pretty frequently, and recommend it to others.

When the request to support the site financially first arose, I’d be a mighty hypocrite if I didn’t walk that talk if able to do so.

It’s a question of character, I think.

True–one can’t support everything though. I give to a few charities, plus tithe, as I feel my family is called to do by God–but…we would be broke if we didn’t discern to where we feel God is calling us to give, the most. But, I hear what you’re saying about Buffet.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Something very like that approach will need to be done eventually; the Ponzi scheme of Social Security will collapse under the demographic reality of too many Boomer retirees drawing benefits with too few Gen X & Y workers to pay for them. (This is of course not the Baby Boomers fault, beyond voting for politicians who have used the revenue from Social Security as their personal vote-buying treasury).

The problem is, it’s a long-term effort. There are no get-rich-schemes, but there are plenty of successful get-rich-slowly plans. But to make such plans work, we have to be far-sighted. We have to save today for a payoff 30 or so years down the road.

The government is run by men who don’t plan to be in office by the time this plan will pay off. So why should they care?

I’m an even bigger fan of the 9th amendment:

This was intended to counter the risk that including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would lead to a federal government assuming all rights not specifically enumerated, a key anti-Federalist argument.

Unfortunately, the Court has largely chosen to ignore the 9th and claim that the 14th amendment effectively gives the federal government the power the anti-Federalists claimed it would seize at the expense of our liberty.

The courts and the government in general are too busy finding out that we don’t have rights – even those specifically enumerated – to look for unenumerated rights.

A man who understood the uniqueness of America better than many an American did, or does.

We had many wise men tell us what we should do – and we ignored them all.

But this raises another aspect of Big Government’s impact on our labor—one limiting factor in working hard to get ahead is that the government can take the fruits of our labor from us without any doing any work at all.

And by not imposing the income tax on 48% of the people (at present) they are able to convince a lot of people that the income tax is a good thing – since someone else pays it.

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a champion of liberty and a foe of Big Government, which is why it’s a bit distressing when so many faithful Catholics feel that Bigger Government is the remedy to legitimate social justice concerns rather than Catholic charity.

Perhaps this will change when the Boomers don’t get the Social Security benefits they worked their entire lives to earn. I think most of Gens X and Y don’t believe we’ll see a dime of those benefits and thus are more skeptical of government “benefits”.

In the meantime, though, my savings and retirement plans do grow with sustained hard work over time, and I urge the less optimistic to keep plugging away until they realize the benefits of their toil.

Who fails to plan for his future, plans to fail in the future.

 

[ribozyme]

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a champion of liberty and a foe of Big Government, which is why it’s a bit distressing when so many faithful Catholics feel that Bigger Government is the remedy to legitimate social justice concerns rather than Catholic charity.

Show me a country where “Catholic charity” significantly reduced poverty. BTW, “Catholic charity” is inferior to a welfare state if it is the ONLY means to reduce poverty.

In addition, increased social spending reduces poverty in developed countries.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

 

[Teflon93]

Show me a country where “Catholic charity” significantly reduced poverty. BTW, “Catholic charity” is inferior to a welfare state if it is the ONLY means to reduce poverty.

In addition, increased social spending reduces poverty in developed countries.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

Wikipedia’s not a good source for social policy, I’m afraid—too biased, whichever way you take it, since social science isn’t science.

I referred to “The Tragedy of American Compassion”, which covers the “crowding out” effect in detail, and has a good overview of why private charities such as The Salvation Army (non-Catholic, btw) are more effective at pulling people out of poverty than government.

Remember also what Christ said—we shall always have the poor with us.

Show me the secular state which has eliminated poverty and has put the words of the Lord to the lie.

We’ve had a “war on poverty” for over a generation, have spent trillions upon it, have had many smart people waging it, and yet it poverty is still prevalent.

Given that during the same period we’ve landed on the moon, built a space station, placed numerous satellites in orbit, etc one would think that the problem would be solved by now if it were solvable.

Fun fact for the day: The poverty level in 1963, just prior to the Great Society push, was $3,000. In inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars, that equals $20,357.04.

Since we’ve spent trillions of dollars “eliminating poverty”, we surely must have very few people living on less than $20,357.04 today, right?

Wrong.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

I’d also recommend reading Charles Murray’s excellent “Losing Ground” on this topic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will point out that poverty was dropping like a stone in the '40s and 50’s and into the '60s. It was about 1969, when the Great Society kicked in, that the drop came to as stop, poverty leveled out at about 13% and has remained withing 2 percentage points of that – up a couple of ticks, down a couple of ticks – for 40 years.

So I ask the Great Sage Who Has No Job, show me how the Government has reduced poverty?

 

[Teflon93]

Also, for anyone who enjoys the dismal science, I’d like to recommend The Teaching Company’s excellent lecture series “Economics”.

The lecturer offers key insights into poverty metrics and methods used to alleviate poverty. Thought-provoking stuff, and the lecturer is quite entertaining.

 

[whatevergirl]

Also, for anyone who enjoys the dismal science, I’d like to recommend The Teaching Company’s excellent lecture series “Economics”.

The lecturer offers key insights into poverty metrics and methods used to alleviate poverty. Thought-provoking stuff, and the lecturer is quite entertaining.

:yawn: nah, thanks though–just send me the cliff notes version.

 

[Teflon93]

:yawn: nah, thanks though–just send me the cliff notes version.

The Cliff’s Notes version is, “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”