unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?
it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
things up.
It's higher than that, but take heart--even those people don't want the gov't to go broke, that doesn't help them either. They'd much rather 80% than zero.
So, counter-intuitively, they're strong fiscal conservatives once they understand the choices.
ant to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payme= nts?
(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
add things up.
hat added debt service hanging over us as we try to bounce
Take off your Tea Party blinkers and look at the facts. It's working. It isn't spectacular, but the economy is growing - if slowly - and unemployment is declining.
to have worked a lot better, eh?
Germany has a manufacturing economy that you can only dream of - in part because they invest rather more in their working class than you do - and didn't need a lot of stimulus. As an exporting nation, they are second only to China, which has 17 times the population
formatting link
and slightly ahead of the US, which has nearly four times the population. Your idiot bankers did set back their economy, but not by much and not for long.
to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?
(SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
add things up.
that added debt service hanging over us as we try to bounce
have worked a lot better, eh?
Slowman.... :-( ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
ou want to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in p= ayments?
SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
and add things up.
why
not
l
aid
ll that added debt service hanging over us as we try to bounce
Congratulations. You've noticed the back-wash of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
You didn't lose it under Obama, you lost it under Bush. Obama has been stuck with the job of getting it back.
to
eems to have worked a lot better, eh?
Germany has always spent more on social security, worker retraining and the like than the US (which is notoriously economical in this area).
If you want to compare percentage of GDP you should be able to find them here
formatting link
Figure 1 on page 5 gives a useful graph. Section 2.1 talks about Germany specifically, but its not all that heavy on numbers.
They did import Turkish gastarbeiters in the 1960's and there are still quite a few of them around, as there are in the Netherlands
formatting link
They seem to do okay. They started off in low-paid unskilled jobs, but they got the same rate of pay as a German would who was doing the same job, and their kids went to same schools as everybody else. The usual nut-cases resent them, and a few psychopaths have murdered one or two, but psychopaths select their victims for all kinds of irrational reasons, and those that select them on ethnic grounds do get noticed, particularly in Germany.
you want to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in = payments?
(SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
, and add things up.
why
e
t
If he'd add it up he'd find we pay a heck of a lot to recipients in the form of sundry different subsidy checks. The earned income credit from the IRS is just one of many--food, healthcare, unemployment, child care, WIC, SNAP, etc. Added up, it's quite substantial--about
2/3rds the federal budget, and something like half the state budgets.
formatting link
"a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year."
e you want to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made i= n payments?
m (SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
ts, and add things up.
's why
the
w
hat
But how many of them pay any tax at all? And what the average hand-out per recipient?
The last time I can recall you doing that calculation, you'd added the interest on the national debt into the social security payments, arguing that if the US didn't pay out for social security, you wouldn't have national debt, despite the fact that when you look at the history, national debt tends to rise during wars. Give us enough detail to let us see where you are cheating this time.
Which counts "money" from the Food Stamps (SNAP) and National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as part of the single parents' disposable income. The single mother would have a hard time trying to divert that $8,112 into any of the usual destinations of disposable income, and it's more than twice the difference ($3,411) between her claimed higher disposable income ($37,777) and that of the family of four on $60.000 per year (($34,366).
This strike me as fraudulently misleading the reader.
It was also fraud. You don't seem to get anything like as excited about the bankers who defrauded their employers (and help wreck the economy in the process) by making ninja home loans for which they got performance related bonusses, even though there was a great deal more money involved.
You do seem to be insensitive to fraud when it helps your case ...
unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded = stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
how
aid?
are
e
tax
to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?
y, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
things up.
i
Which are? Right-wing nit-wits have a habit of inventing stuff I'm supposed to believe in. I've got a copy of that particular table (1.1) on my hard disk, and have had for weeks, and I didn't find it in any way frustrating when I first started digging into it.
The take-away message I got from it was that US income tax stops being progressive for incomes over $1M per year - where the tax take stops rising with income and settles at about 30% - and falls to less than
30% (26.3%) for incomes over $10M per year. Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney, who only pay out 17% show what you can do if you really work on exploiting the loopholes available to the really well-off US tax- payer.
Proof that you live the best of all possible worlds, as opposed to a rather ill-administered USA?
employment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded st= imulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
ople
benefit, right? =A0The taxpayers have to pay that interest.
pending?
e
f
-
(as
e of
ne, yet are paid by a disproportionate few. =A0That is redistribution. =A0K= eynesian stimulus, as practised, =A0is redistribution from few to many; a t= aking.
ing more desperate, have much, much more to lose--food, shelter, and their = very existence. =A0"The fox is running for its dinner, but the rabbit is ru= nning for its life." --Aesop's Fables
spending; only 1/5 of the taxes are spent on it.
That's a different argument. The question we were dealing with first is whether it's redistribution. It is.
Okay, now you're arguing essentially, that it's an investment that pays off, that rich people have to support poor people, to avoid social disruption.
You can't simply make statements like that without examining their basis.
That hand-waving argument is absurd. If it were true, just as one example, this would've been discovered long ago and the greedy, calculating "well-off" would gladly throw more and more money at it.
You also implicitly assume the poor need spoon-feeding to survive, and that this is a permanent condition.
What a dark, dreadful world view.
The American reality is that ordinary people have no problem feeding themselves if they try. They're also smart enough that they might not bother if you give it to them free. =20
e takings for stimulus, that only covers 1/5th of the bill. =A0What about t= he other 2/3rds of spending, which is straight redistribution, and which do= es not benefit them?
You're dreadfully mistaken on multiple fronts. No wonder you've got such odd misconceptions about our society.
Social Security and unemployment are separate programs, having nothing to do with each other.
You think we've got to pay off the prols, else they'll riot? That's a patronizing, but common liberal fear-based theory. All they have to do is save money while they're working, to cover when they aren't. That's what everyone used to do, before big gov't stepped in. I made minimum wage, worked two full-time jobs, bought a Porsche, and saved hand-over-fist.
-
ulus, and have found it's funded by the (relatively few) taxpayers, but is = received by the many. =A0From few, to many. =A0So, figure 2 applies.
You've reasoned in a circle again, re-asserting that there's a higher-than-unity gain. You've NEVER showed that, and NEVER will, because it's not true.
Taking someone's money, then returning a fraction, in exchange for additional work and production of that person, is a taking, a theft. It does not have over-unity gain. =20
It's at best compulsory investment, compelled by you, because you think you= know better.
ohn,
b possibly buys some of John's goods, with part of John's own loss?
Yes, obviously. Stealing part of his money then returning a small fraction traumatizes him, and does not make him whole.
If a robber steals your wallet, then spends the money on his family, outlaw friends, and fast-food, this Keynesian-stimulates the economy, right? And you're better off, right?
that makes it worse--that way John knows he's *going to be
Okay, now you're not thinking, just repeating dogma.
mething free? =A0If Bob's getting essential support like food or
right? =A0Isn't this a complete disincentive to work, in the
No, they don't, not when they get it free. You are an example. =20
know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?
it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
things up.
Slomania is a great country, no taxes, the government just borrows the money by selling bonds, then lowers bond values when it's credit limit is reached so it has more credit. Ken "beware of Greeks bearing gifts"
unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
benefit, right? The taxpayers have to pay that interest.
spending?
yet are paid by a disproportionate few. That is redistribution. Keynesian stimulus, as practised, is redistribution from few to many; a taking.
more desperate, have much, much more to lose--food, shelter, and their very existence. "The fox is running for its dinner, but the rabbit is running for its life." --Aesop's Fables
spending; only 1/5 of the taxes are spent on it.
Of course it is. Even Slowman can't argue that point, so attempts another, made wholly of straw.
All sorts of extortion can be justified with that "reasoning".
...and inherently racist, yet that is the leftist's world view.
Even Slowman figured that out.
takings for stimulus, that only covers 1/5th of the bill. What about the other
2/3rds of spending, which is straight redistribution, and which does not benefit them?
That involves deferring gratification. That's just not taught, anymore. It's certainly not an important personal attribute.
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?
it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).
things up.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Not necessarily the well off, just those that have worked hard and
lived frugally so they have some savings to invest. At this point they
can invest in dividend paying stocks and take advantage of the favorable
tax treatment.
Hey, that's me! :-)
Mikek
>
unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded = stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.
people
a benefit, right? =A0The taxpayers have to pay that interest.
spending?
eme
off
ho
ts
r
t -
or (as
nce of
yone, yet are paid by a disproportionate few. =A0That is redistribution. = =A0Keynesian stimulus, as practised, =A0is redistribution from few to many;= a taking.
us
e
being more desperate, have much, much more to lose--food, shelter, and thei= r very existence. =A0"The fox is running for its dinner, but the rabbit is = running for its life." --Aesop's Fables
f spending; only 1/5 of the taxes are spent on it.
That's a hand-waving response if ever I saw one.
They do throw more at it in Europe, where the population density is higher and the unhappy poor have better access to the rich.
The argument that if some is good, more would be better, is obvious nonsense. If it cost's "x" dollars to reduce the risk of damage from rioting and looting down to the same sort level as the risk from flooding, tornado's and earthquakes, there's not a lot of sense in spending twice that to reduce that particular risk any further.
In fact spending on both sides of the Atlantic seems to be no higher than is required to minimise social disruption - we still see occasional episodes of disorder and looting, but they don't seem to be any more frequent than say earth-quake, flood or hurricane damage
No. The Melbourne poverty survey completed in the late 1960s revealed that most of the people who were in deep financial trouble in Melbourne at that time had got there by virtue of bad luck, and could
- with a bit of short term help - get back on an even keel.
Social security is a safety net rather than a hammock.
The dark, dreadful world view is all yours. You don't understand the point of social security any more than you understand the point of Keynesian deficit-financed stimulus spending, so claim that both are infinitely deep spending sinks, when in fact both are aimed at mitigating specific problems, and involve well-defined - if fairly large - expenditures.
The pollyanna approach to social science.
You don't give them much for free, and those statistics that I've seen suggest that pretty much everybody would prefer to be working rather than relying on social security. Having spent four years not working (2003 to 2007) I'm aware that getting a job can take longer than one would like. Since the end of 2007 I've been retired - I'd still prefer to have a job, but Dutch social attitudes pretty much rule that out.
the takings for stimulus, that only covers 1/5th of th ebill. =A0What about= the other 2/3rds of spending, which is straight redistribution, and which = does not benefit them?
A slightly ironic claim coming from you, Your blue-tinted spectacles blind you to a great deal of what goes in the USA, and your enthusiasm for chanting "Republicans good, Democrats bad" does seem to get in the way of any kind of rational appreciation of the society you live in.
You mean that they got different labels.
They do riot from time to time - both in the US and in Europe. Happily, the societies involved a sufficiently well-organised that the proles don't have serious and persistent grievances - as they seem to have had in Libya, Eygpt and Syria - but that's their weapon of last resort.
Easier said than done. And the message form the Melbourne poverty survey was that a coupled of ill-time mishaps could use up those savings painfully rapidly.
That's what everybody was supposed to do. Quite a few people couldn't manage it.
Bully for you. Working two full-time jobs is a recipe for doing both badly, but minimum-wage jobs are presumably not all that demanding.
a
ed
s
e -
y
imulus, and have found it's funded by the (relatively few) taxpayers, but i= s received by the many. =A0From few, to many. =A0So, figure 2 applies.
ou know better.
John,
Bob possibly buys some of John's goods, with part of John's own loss?
His money hasn't been stolen - at most he's voluntarily lent it to his government. His tax rates may go up to pay the interest on these loans, but that isn't going to traumatise him - US society survived for many years with a 91% tax rate on the highest tranches of high incomes. If the economy tanked and his business went bankrupt, that probably would traumatise him, but you wouldn't care about that, because your government would have been doing the far-right thing that worked so well for Hoover.
You are using loaded and misleading terms to support an ill-informed and erroneous point of view.
It's the question that James Arthur wants to concentrate on, completely ignoring what the "redistribution" is intended to do.
He want to live in libertarian society where collective expenditure is minimised and the poor are free to starve to death if nobody can make a profit by hiring them at a living wage. This is not a majority opinion.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant. The poor don't extort social security from the rich - the rich see the advantage of spending enough on social security to keep the poor tolerably content. It's not the only advantage they derive from this expenditure - it also means that the unemployed stay healthier while they are between jobs and are more immediately productive when re-hired. Sometimes they've been re- trained while unemployed to offer skils that they weren't taught when they were going through school.
That James Arthur's world view, not mine. I see social security as a safety net, not a hammock. These days Europe has more social mobility than the US, not less, probably because it's got more generous social security arrangements - the children of the poor have more opportunities than thier parents had.
Racist is even more far-fetched. There's not a single mention of race in the whole thread up to this point, but krw wants to take James Arthur's moronic observation as evidence of what leftist's actually think?
Actually, it seems to be wrong. The statistic that I've seen suggest a large majority of people have an irrational dislike of living off social security, and vastly prefer to have work, if they can find it. Right-wing nitwits can be relied to find anecdotes about the occasional individuals with psychological problems who's happier with minimal human contact, but right-wing nitwits don't think very clearly or very often.
Tell that to Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak. Rip off the proles too enthusiastically, and they will revolt.
Not all that many people can learn it. Apparently you can test for the capacity to defer gratification in four-year-olds and - if it is present - it's a good predictor of success in later life.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.