Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was analogy, apparently it went right over your head. Talking about the existence of libraries and the internet ignores the real issue, none of these things mean anything if you don't know how to use them.
Go put a computer in front of someone that is 80 and has never used one, how far do you think they will get with it?
Right because teachers don't care about how much many they make, why would an excellent teacher make $80k/year at a great school when they can make $50k at a bad one? Oh, and clearly an empty science lab is just as effective as one filled with equipment.
Right "duping money" doesn't work, the money has to be well spent on programs that actually work.
Its amusing that you believe something that is the exact opposite of the truth. Our tax system has become less and less progressive since the 1970's, in the 70's the top tax rates were 80%, where as today they are only 35%.
Anyhow, progressive taxes don't prevent wealth creation, ironically they tend to do the opposite. The Lords of America want the peasants to think these sorts of things, but they are gibberish. Anyhow, you can grow your wealth without realizing a dime in income. A progressive income tax actually creates incentives to build wealth rather than spend it on golden toilets.
When did I suggest I was trusting of the government? I don't advocate for a large government, if it was up to me the government would be much smaller than it is today, but that doesn't mean I advocate no government.
High marginal tax rates are not punishments for success, people can still build wealth and become rich with high marginal tax rates.
Anyhow, a poor distribution of wealth means a weak working and middle-class. The more the distribution of wealth concentrates on the top the worse off the working and middle class will be. Part of what made America great was its large middle and working class, once it dies so will America.
First of all, i doubt there is a single teenager in this country who doesnt know how to use the internet.
Private schools cost less are are much more effective then public schools, and at these schools teachers make less...And i know public schools are "free" but they actually cost an average of 20K a year in some places, while private school cost 9k. "I dont know if these numbers are entirely accurate, i just saw it on stossel." By the way, there are few government programs that work well when it comes to education. Lets see if you can name ONE....
I know that tax rates used to be higher, and it didnt work out really well either. It takes income to build wealth, i understand what your saying about assetts that appreciate, but you still have to buy those assetts dont you?
I dont advocate no government either, i advocate LESS government. But i am glad we aggree on that. 1 for 100's not bad. Just curious, how would you make the government smaller. Any specific areas that you would cut?
I am not a big believer in that a free market has a few people get and KEEP wealth. I know many wealthy people (dads business associates/friends) and only one of them inherited it. I also know this girl who is a descendant of the guy who started K-Mart. The guy was her great grandfather i believe. He retired in his 80's and sold 800 stores or so. Guess how much she inherites....ZERO. The money's completely gone a few generations later. Our system is a fluid one, some people go up and some come down and it is very hard to stay at the top. either way, the government is terrible at managing anything. Having them redistribute money is a waste. If your serious about redistribuiting money i would suggest raising the tax wright off for charitable expenses dramatically. That would actually work and the wealthy would make sure their money went to good use.
First of all, i doubt there is a single teenager in this country who doesnt know how to use the internet.
Most be nice in that Ivory Tower. Of course, like with most of your comments, the reality is much different than the picture you want to paint. Only 60% of blacks access the internet, only 50% of Hispanics access the internet. Internet use is highly correlated with education as well, only 25% of those without a high school education access the internet.
Now, I'm sure some of these folks have learned of the internet, but that doesn't mean they understand what you can do with it. Heck, I'm not too sure many teenagers these days know there are websites other than facebook, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Private schools cost less are are much more effective then public schools, and at these schools teachers make less...
Really? Where is your evidence for this? Do teachers magically demand less pay when they teach for private schools? Of course not, private school pay varies based on the overall quality of the school. The idea that teacher pay is not correlated with educational quality is absolutely bizarre.
Now, whether private schools are cheaper in general is a different issue entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
By the way, there are few government programs that work well when it comes to education. Lets see if you can name ONE....
Sure, the University of California system. Berkeley, UCLA, etc are better than the vast majority of private universities, their costs of operation are fairly low as well (actual costs, not just what students pay).
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
I know that tax rates used to be higher, and it didnt work out really well either.
Really? Because any data I look at suggests otherwise, of course you're not really looking at the data are you? You "just know" that high taxes are bad so they must have done something bad! This nation grew dramatically between 1940 and 1980, real wages increased for the working and middle-class, etc. But something interesting happened in 1980 when Reagan economic voodoo was implemented, economic growth started to slow, debt started to increase, wages started to stagnant, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
It takes income to build wealth, i understand what your saying about assetts that appreciate, but you still have to buy those assetts dont you?
Although it takes income, it doesn't take after-tax income. This little detail is distorted, yet its critical to the tax debate. Business investments are tax-deductible and hence high marginal taxes are irrelevant in this case. High marginal taxes only effect the wealthy that want to buy golden toilets, not the wealthy that want to build businesses, etc.
This is exactly why, contrary to popular mythology, high marginal taxes tend to increase investment. If you have the choice of, 1.) realizing the income and only getting 20% of it or 2.) taking the income and spending 100% of it on some investment, most people will opt for 2. Now, if 1.) is changed to "realizing the income and get 65% of it" you get a lot of people buying golden toilets which does little for the nation as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Just curious, how would you make the government smaller. Any specific areas that you would cut?
Sure, at the federal level I'd start with the military. A lot of military spending is highly wasteful because we are using it as a back-door for jobs programs. Some of this spending should be eliminated and others could be redirected toward more effective job programs, you know building bridges, high speed rails, etc instead of bombs.
Lastly, I'd like to note that all your observations about "our system" refer to the past. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about what is going to happen in the future. Lowering taxes on the rich, lowering or removing estate taxes, etc will create a different environment, one where wealth is more easily based down from generation to generation.
Most be nice in that Ivory Tower. Of course, like with most of your comments, the reality is much different than the picture you want to paint. Only 60% of blacks access the internet, only 50% of Hispanics access the internet. Internet use is highly correlated with education as well, only 25% of those without a high school education access the internet.
Now, I'm sure some of these folks have learned of the internet, but that doesn't mean they understand what you can do with it. Heck, I'm not too sure many teenagers these days know there are websites other than facebook, etc.
Really? Where is your evidence for this? Do teachers magically demand less pay when they teach for private schools? Of course not, private school pay varies based on the overall quality of the school. The idea that teacher pay is not correlated with educational quality is absolutely bizarre.
Now, whether private schools are cheaper in general is a different issue entirely.
Sure, the University of California system. Berkeley, UCLA, etc are better than the vast majority of private universities, their costs of operation are fairly low as well (actual costs, not just what students pay).
Really? Because any data I look at suggests otherwise, of course you're not really looking at the data are you? You "just know" that high taxes are bad so they must have done something bad! This nation grew dramatically between 1940 and 1980, real wages increased for the working and middle-class, etc. But something interesting happened in 1980 when Reagan economic voodoo was implemented, economic growth started to slow, debt started to increase, wages started to stagnant, etc.
Although it takes income, it doesn't take after-tax income. This little detail is distorted, yet its critical to the tax debate. Business investments are tax-deductible and hence high marginal taxes are irrelevant in this case. High marginal taxes only effect the wealthy that want to buy golden toilets, not the wealthy that want to build businesses, etc.
This is exactly why, contrary to popular mythology, high marginal taxes tend to increase investment. If you have the choice of, 1.) realizing the income and only getting 20% of it or 2.) taking the income and spending 100% of it on some investment, most people will opt for 2. Now, if 1.) is changed to "realizing the income and get 65% of it" you get a lot of people buying golden toilets which does little for the nation as a whole.
Sure, at the federal level I'd start with the military. A lot of military spending is highly wasteful because we are using it as a back-door for jobs programs. Some of this spending should be eliminated and others could be redirected toward more effective job programs, you know building bridges, high speed rails, etc instead of bombs.
Lastly, I'd like to note that all your observations about "our system" refer to the past. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about what is going to happen in the future. Lowering taxes on the rich, lowering or removing estate taxes, etc will create a different environment, one where wealth is more easily based down from generation to generation.
Historically, private school teachers do make less. They accept less pay because of the friendlier atmosphere or for religious reasons (catholic school). Lately, private school has had to try and compete with public school and their teacher unions. And teacher unions do not pay based on qualifications. So, your wrong on both accounts. The only exception is prestigious private schools, but the majority of private schools are catholic schools and they pay less.
Its pretty pathetic that we were talking about how to clean up the schools in bad neighborhoods and i said govt programs dont work and you list a bunch of high quality public universities. Really.....are you going to send everyone from the ghetto to UCLA for their high shool education. What world do you live in where that is considered a rebuttal.
So Reagan ruined everything did he? Hmmmm....well when reagan took over their was 7.1% unemployeement which he reduced to 5.5%. When he took over the ecoomy was actually shrinking by .3% and he got the ecomomy to grow to 4.1%. When he took over inflation was 13.5% and he got it down to 4.1%. But your right, he raised military spending and grew the deficit, just like every president since Jackson. Again, what world do you live in?
High tax rate might raise investments, like you mentioned in the short run, while the rich scramble to protect their money, but in the long run it KILLS incentives. Do you know what incentive even means?
I would cut military spending too, but it is not the only thing i would cut. Something has to be done about our social programs.
So looking toward the future, you would raise estate taxes, raise the highest income bracket, and cut the military. Wow...So you are alright with taxing people's income twice? How about assetts? Do you think we should have a tax on people's assetts? That would sure create some redistriution.
But you conveniently filtered out the part where maschutte said he thinks saving for old age should be mandatory. He just thiks people shoiuld be able to be allowed to invest that money in stocks of they want. I agree, although I would limit the options to such a plan to just a few (like an index fund that was 60% stocks & 40% bonds, as one example).
I am reluctant to tamper with the structure of social security because of what I have seen in the securities markets just in the last decade. The average Dow stock began this decade at approximately 11,500. It has climbed as high as 14,000 and has dropped as low as 8,000. This has all been within just ten years. Average Nasdaq stocks have behaved even worse. They started in 2000 at about an index level of around 5,000. They are now much lower at 2,600. This is an extreme amount of volatility. It essentially means that the amount one has at retirement is largely going to be a function of luck. The average person is not a sophisticated investor.
I think social security should be a sort of "safe harbor". In other words, you should have a really good idea what you are putting into it (your taxes) and what you are going to get out of it.
Nothing is stopping anyone from setting aside additional money for retirement. By all means, people should invest in the stock market, bonds, or real estate if they want too. This policy is recognized by the large number of 401K accounts that exist, IRAs, and income tax deductions which allow property owners to "write off" the interest portion of house payments. However, basic social security benefits should remain untouched.
Quote:
So, he's not saying people should not have to save for old age, but be able to invest in the US stock & bond market where they likely could better better returns and have better benefits in the long run.
The key to what you are saying here is "in the long run". In the long run can mean lots of things. It can mean 10 years, 20 years, or more than thirty years. For someone who is 60 years old "long run" takes on a totally different meaning than for someone who is 30. To some degree, we can plan out our retirement options. However, what happens if we become disabled? What happens if we die and our family needs survivor benefits? How would these be funded under your program?
Quote:
Ideally, people would have their own private accounts as well, so that the government couldn't change benefits and people could pass on any money left over to heirs.
This is brought up often by those who argue against traditional social security. I guess my point is "why"? Retirement benefits were never intended to create a windfall for the next two generations. They were intended to provide for the retiree (and his/her spouse). If social security were set up so that people had benefits that survived them, contributions to the program would have to be higher than they currently are.
Look, I think the idea of individuals investing social security taxes in private retirement accounts is a poor idea for the reasons I've stated above. The only thing I'd be remotely willing to consider is some kind of a plan where the government does the investing for recipients. Perhaps, as a pilot project we could invest 5% to 10% of social security tax revenues in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Than those capital gains (or losses) could be evenly distributed to all recipients. That way, no one recipient is unduly penalized because of making the wrong investment decisions. This, too, recognizes the lack of sophistication most individuals have when it comes to investing. If this plan worked, over time, perhaps more than 5% to 10% could be invested this way. If it didn't, we could go back to the way things were. IMO, a much better idea than private retirement accounts.
Historically, private school teachers do make less. They accept less pay because of the friendlier atmosphere or for religious reasons (catholic school).
I wouldn't be surprised if private school teachers on average got paid less, but that is because there are a lot of very poor private schools. The more important question is how pay relates to experience, skill, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Its pretty pathetic that we were talking about how to clean up the schools in bad neighborhoods and i said govt programs dont work and you list a bunch of high quality public universities.
Its pretty pathetic that you ask a question, and then complain when I have an answer to that question. Your question was: "By the way, there are few government programs that work well when it comes to education. Lets see if you can name ONE...."
If you want to just focus on low income kids, then again the California college system is an example of a good program. California community colleges have an open enrollment policy with very affordable tuition and all California public 4-year universities have agreements with the community colleges to allow thousands of transfer students each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
So Reagan ruined everything did he? Hmmmm....well when reagan took over their was 7.1% unemployeement which he reduced to 5.5%.
I never suggested Reagan ruined everything, but I suggest that his economic policies contributed to the worsening of the economy during and after his presidency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
High tax rate might raise investments, like you mentioned in the short run, while the rich scramble to protect their money, but in the long run it KILLS incentives. Do you know what incentive even means?
I'm not sure if you just don't understand matters or whether you're intentionally trying to distort them, but you are conflating wealth with income. We are talking about income taxes not wealth taxes (the US has no wealth taxes). The rich don't need to scramble to protect their money when income taxes are raised.
I'm not sure why you are mentioning incentives when I explicitly spoke about them in my last response. Contrary to what you're suggesting, high marginal income taxes create incentives for people to invest. Why? Because any gains made in an investment are capital gains in our tax system, not income. Now raising the capital gains taxes would reduce incentives to invest, but we are talking about income taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
So looking toward the future, you would raise estate taxes, raise the highest income bracket, and cut the military. Wow...So you are alright with taxing people's income twice? How about assetts? Do you think we should have a tax on people's assetts? That would sure create some redistriution.
Yes on all three, and yes I'm fine with taxing people's money twice once they are dead. Estate taxes are wonderful, they allow some wealth to flow to relatives yet prevent a true aristocracy.
The only assets I would tax are natural resources, land, oil fields, etc.
The point is not to "redistribute", but rather prevent wealth from becoming overly focused on top and to prevent an aristocracy.
I wouldn't be surprised if private school teachers on average got paid less, but that is because there are a lot of very poor private schools. The more important question is how pay relates to experience, skill, etc.
Its pretty pathetic that you ask a question, and then complain when I have an answer to that question. Your question was: "By the way, there are few government programs that work well when it comes to education. Lets see if you can name ONE...."
If you want to just focus on low income kids, then again the California college system is an example of a good program. California community colleges have an open enrollment policy with very affordable tuition and all California public 4-year universities have agreements with the community colleges to allow thousands of transfer students each year.
I never suggested Reagan ruined everything, but I suggest that his economic policies contributed to the worsening of the economy during and after his presidency.
I'm not sure if you just don't understand matters or whether you're intentionally trying to distort them, but you are conflating wealth with income. We are talking about income taxes not wealth taxes (the US has no wealth taxes). The rich don't need to scramble to protect their money when income taxes are raised.
I'm not sure why you are mentioning incentives when I explicitly spoke about them in my last response. Contrary to what you're suggesting, high marginal income taxes create incentives for people to invest. Why? Because any gains made in an investment are capital gains in our tax system, not income. Now raising the capital gains taxes would reduce incentives to invest, but we are talking about income taxes.
Yes on all three, and yes I'm fine with taxing people's money twice once they are dead. Estate taxes are wonderful, they allow some wealth to flow to relatives yet prevent a true aristocracy.
The only assets I would tax are natural resources, land, oil fields, etc.
The point is not to "redistribute", but rather prevent wealth from becoming overly focused on top and to prevent an aristocracy.
Well, pay for public school teachers doesnt relate to skill, it only relates to how long they have been in there local union. It is the debate between paying teachers based off merit or tenure.
Allowing kids to go to junior college is hardly a fix for ploblem areas whos kids dont even get through high school.
Reagan didnt worsen the economy, as i showed, he made it better. So, your suggestion is obviously wrong. He did enlarge the national deficit, but so did every president since jackson, as i also said earlier.
I am conflating wealth with income? You are the one who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the masses but you are also the one who wants to raise income taxes. So you are the one who is conflating wealth with income. People who have a large income arent neccessarily wealthy. What if they only make that much money once in a while, then you will tax 70% of it away. Give people a chance to succeed. I call it incentives.
The death tax does not prevent aristocracy. In the 1890's 80% of wealthy people were first generation rich. In 1995, 85% of wealthy people were first generation rich. Only 1:7 millionaire's kids will ever acquire a million dollars in wealth in their life times. Our system is set up for the entreprenuer and most people have a very hard time holding on to wealth. So, when the people do pass on THEIR wealth to THEIR kids they are redistributing and their kids even more so. They go out and up their lifestyle and burn through the money. Which is better then giving it to the government so they can spend billions of dollars on stupid projects that dont help anyone.
Well, pay for public school teachers doesnt relate to skill, it only relates to how long they have been in there local union.
Different school districts do things differently, but even in heavily unionized districts what you're saying is only partially true. Although once a teacher gets "tenure" their pay isn't directly related to their performance, the teacher still has to get hired and teachers can always get another job in a district that pays more. Hence, top teachers will seek out jobs at the better schools (which usually pay more) and the lower quality teachers will usually be left with the lower paying jobs. So, teacher pay is, at least partially, based on skill even in heavily unionized areas.
Regardless, these issues are very tricky. Most people that speak about merit pay, the ease of firing teachers, know nothing about education. If these policies aren't crafted very well, they can backfire. For example a good teacher that is simply unpopular with the other teachers can get the boot. Your typical school and district is a battleground of conflicting personalities and interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Allowing kids to go to junior college is hardly a fix for ploblem areas whos kids dont even get through high school.
Yes it is, in California anybody 18 or older can go to a community college whether or not they graduated high school or even have a GED. The community college system gives people a second chance, its possible for someone who dropped out of high school to get a degree at UCLA if they do well in their courses at the community college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Reagan didnt worsen the economy, as i showed, he made it better. So, your suggestion is obviously wrong. He did enlarge the national deficit, but so did every president since jackson, as i also said earlier.
You didn't show anything, all you showed was that Reagan started his presidency doing a recession and that the recession recovered. Every recession in the US has recovered regardless of who was president.
He did more than enlarge the deficit, many other indicators started to do worse during his presidency as well. Also, your comment about the deficit is wrong. As you can see there is one recent president that did not enlarge the deficit, his name was Bill Clinton:
Anyhow, I don't think Reagan caused all the problems, he just contributed to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
I am conflating wealth with income? You are the one who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the masses but you are also the one who wants to raise income taxes.
Right you are conflating them and the rest of this gibberish, if you're going to respond please respond to what I'm actually saying, to quote myself:
"The point is not to "redistribute", but rather prevent wealth from becoming overly focused on top and to prevent an aristocracy."
You want to characterize high marginal taxes as "redistribution" because that is what your overlords what you to think, but that isn't what its about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
