Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists - Page 16

**Shek** · 12-11-2005, 20:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I do not agree with this judgment. A society needs discipline, and the failure of the individual contributes to the failure of society. That is my opinion.

However, constitutionally and legally people do have a right to destroy themselves, in most cases. I recognize this as the political reality. However, I don't think this reality is conducive to the success of America.

So, while I disagree with our laissez-faire attitude, I am not going to petition for a change in the laws anytime soon.

You can look at Europe and see the moral hazards created by their safety nets. My brother-in-law was working on a consulting project for a German firm who was looking to see if it was cost effective to acquire another firm so that they could jettison their underperforming employees - if done during a merger, they wouldn't have to pay the gazillion dollars in worker comp. Heck, you can look at our own government employees - it's near impossible to fire them, and so you get some real underperformers.

So, if you don't allow people to suffer the consequences of their own decisions by always providing social safety nets , then you distort behavior through the moral hazard problem.

Bulgaroctonus · 12-11-2005, 20:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

You can look at Europe and see the moral hazards created by their safety nets. My brother-in-law was working on a consulting project for a German firm who was looking to see if it was cost effective to acquire another firm so that they could jettison their underperforming employees - if done during a merger, they wouldn't have to pay the gazillion dollars in worker comp. Heck, you can look at our own government employees - it's near impossible to fire them, and so you get some real underperformers.

So, if you don't allow people to suffer the consequences of their own decisions by always providing social safety nets , then you distort behavior through the moral hazard problem.

Yes, I certainly agree with your main point. My goal is not to institute safety nets. I strongly agree that people must be held accountable and must be able to deal with circumstances. I am a proponent of a disciplined and highly skilled society. I stress functionality and efficiency.

My point is that people with bad health habits often do know the consequences of their actions, they just don't care to change their ways.

Anyway, we're just arguing generalities.

**Shek** · 12-11-2005, 21:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Yes, I certainly agree with your main point. My goal is not to institute safety nets. I strongly agree that people must be held accountable and must be able to deal with circumstances. I am a proponent of a disciplined and highly skilled society. I stress functionality and efficiency.

My point is that people with bad health habits often do know the consequences of their actions, they just don't care to change their ways.

Anyway, we're just arguing generalities.

Let's roll back some of the social safety nets so that people are held accountable for their actions, instead of having society provide "insurance" in the form of "mandatory" entitlements.

clegane · 12-11-2005, 22:24 PM

Its strange, but I think Jesse Ventura had the right idea about Safety nets. We should have government safety nets but we can't let those safety nets become government hammocks.

Bulgaroctonus · 12-11-2005, 23:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

Let's roll back some of the social safety nets so that people are held accountable for their actions, instead of having society provide "insurance" in the form of "mandatory" entitlements.

Sure, I'll agree with that basic premise. Of course, such a debate becomes more contentious when we actually discuss what particular programs need to be abolished, and what kind of effect that will have on the population.

dalem · 12-12-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

What Clegane is writing about is the fact that all of our rights are ultimately priveledges given by a government. We often have the misconception that rights are written in stone or exist in a comparably indelible format. Unfortunately, the truth is that rights are an indicator of a government's clemency, and can be taken away.

Do you honestly think that I don't understand his point?

-dale

dalem · 12-12-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

You need to specify the kind of tax cuts you're talking about. We cannot have tax cuts the benefit only the wealthy, since they're already spending all the money they need to on health care.

Specifics? Cut 'em all, and cut spending to match along standard economically-conservative lines - roll back entitlements, eliminate pork spending, eliminate government fat.

If I hear anything about tax cuts that somehow only "benefit the wealthy" I swear I'm going to go kick a muskrat."

-dale

Bulgaroctonus · 12-12-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Do you honestly think that I don't understand his point?

-dale

I have my doubts.

dalem · 12-12-2005, 13:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I have my doubts.

Then what does the following reply from me imply?

Quote:

Nope. We use the government to safeguard the rights we believe everyone starts with.

You want a government that grants you rights, then move the the UK.

-dale

barrowaj · 12-12-2005, 18:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Specifics? Cut 'em all, and cut spending to match along standard economically-conservative lines - roll back entitlements, eliminate pork spending, eliminate government fat.

If I hear anything about tax cuts that somehow only "benefit the wealthy" I swear I'm going to go kick a muskrat."

-dale

What entitlements and pork spending would you want to eliminate? It seems to me that the government gets done what it needs to. If you start to cut medicare/medicaid or social security you are going to have a lot of homeless, dying old people who are being denied the benefits they paid for.

mtnbiker · 12-12-2005, 19:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

You need to specify the kind of tax cuts you're talking about. We cannot have tax cuts the benefit only the wealthy, since they're already spending all the money they need to on health care.

a

Quote:

December 6, 2005
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Appearances v. Reality
By Bruce Bartlett

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.
Not only are these data interesting on their own, but looking at them over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply. A growing body of international data shows the same trend.

On the first point, we see that in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went up to 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was just 19.3 percent. After Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1981, which reduced the top rate to 50 percent -- a massive give-away to the wealthy according to those on the left -- the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose steadily.

By 1986, the top 1 percent's share of all federal income taxes rose to 25.7 percent. That year, the top statutory tax rate was further cut to 28 percent -- another huge-give-away, we were told. Yet the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued to rise. By 1992, it was up to 27.5 percent.

Of course, it would be a mistake to conclude that tax increases will not raise the wealthy's tax share or that tax rate cuts always will. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers almost doubled during a time when the top income tax rate fell by half.

A common liberal retort to these data is that they exclude payroll taxes, which are assumed to be largely paid by the poor. However, it turns out that when one includes payroll taxes in the calculations, it has far less impact on the distribution of the tax burden than most people would assume, because the wealthy also pay a lot of those taxes, too.

In a 2004 paper presented to the American Statistical Association, IRS economists Michael Strudler and Tom Petska calculated percentiles data that included both income taxes and Social Security taxes. In 1999, the top 1 percent paid 23.3 percent of combined payroll and income taxes, the top 10 percent paid 52.2 percent, and the top 20 percent paid 68.2 percent.

In recent years, a number of foreign countries have also started publishing tax shares data. They show the same trend of higher and higher burdens on the wealthy even when tax rates are cut sharply.

For example, according to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was 11 percent in the United Kingdom in 1979, when the top income tax rate was 83 percent. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher cut that rate to 60 percent, and by 1987 the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent had risen to 14 percent. The top rate was cut again to 40 percent, where it still stands, and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued rising to a current level of 21 percent.

Statistics Canada recently released a study looking at tax shares in that country. It shows that the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of taxpayers reached 52.6 percent in 2002 -- almost exactly the same as is paid by the top 10 percent in the United Kingdom. However, the top income tax rate in Canada is just 29 percent. (Provincial tax rates in Canada are very substantially higher than among U.S. states.)

Finally, we now have data for Australia from the Australian Taxation Office. In 2003, they show the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying 30.2 percent of all income taxes, the top 10 percent paying 41.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paying 63.8 percent. But the top income tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Thus we see that the country with the highest top rate also brings in the least amount of total income tax revenue from its richest citizens in percentage terms.

At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them -- the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor? Sadly, the left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more.

**Shek** · 12-12-2005, 20:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

What entitlements and pork spending would you want to eliminate? It seems to me that the government gets done what it needs to. If you start to cut medicare/medicaid or social security you are going to have a lot of homeless, dying old people who are being denied the benefits they paid for.

Then we'll save even more money. Seriously, it's too easy. Grandfather in those who already paid into the system. Everyone else - save on your own.

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2005, 20:25 PM

I'm willing to bet that if cuts to pensions and healthcare are made there won't be a coresponding cut in taxation.

Praxus · 12-12-2005, 22:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

What entitlements and pork spending would you want to eliminate? It seems to me that the government gets done what it needs to. If you start to cut medicare/medicaid or social security you are going to have a lot of homeless, dying old people who are being denied the benefits they paid for.

Thats a lie.

dalem · 12-13-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

What entitlements and pork spending would you want to eliminate? It seems to me that the government gets done what it needs to. If you start to cut medicare/medicaid or social security you are going to have a lot of homeless, dying old people who are being denied the benefits they paid for.

I'd cut the crap out of all of them, across the board. Let the people and the states keep more money, let failing industries fail, let people pay more of their own way or rely on private industry instead of copycat government industry golems.

I'd do it in a scheduled rollback to ease the pain.

-dale

12-11-2005, 22:24 PM	#229 (permalink)
clegane Regular Join Date: 10-20-05 Location: New Jersey Posts: 42	Its strange, but I think Jesse Ventura had the right idea about Safety nets. We should have government safety nets but we can't let those safety nets become government hammocks. __________________ "Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury" -Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle	Canmoore	Science & Tech	86	06-30-2007 04:32 AM
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world	Parihaka	Science & Tech	13	04-01-2006 12:20 PM
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidty	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	0	03-08-2006 08:44 AM
10 Most Stupid questions (courtsey PDF)	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	2	07-24-2005 23:28 PM

12-12-2005, 20:25 PM	#238 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,957 Country:	I'm willing to bet that if cuts to pensions and healthcare are made there won't be a coresponding cut in taxation.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)