Does it anger you that the elite of your country is robbing its citizens blind?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yago
One of the points I personally find the most interesting, who's working for his money ?

I mean, a lot of those people who have a lot of money, haven't worked for it. The inherited it.

If they merely inherite all the money they have then they don't have an income tax bill to pay in the first place, and so will not be getting any tax relief on it. Not to mention that when the money was earned by their benefactor (whoever it may be) it was subject to higher rate taxation, and then (depending on the country and amounts involved) subject to a second taxation in the form of inheritance tax.

[rah]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


If they merely inherite all the money they have then they don't have an income tax bill to pay in the first place, and so will not be getting any tax relief on it.

Ah, no, these are likely people making money off dividends from investments. They'll get the biggest break.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah


Ah, no, these are likely people making money off dividends from investments. They'll get the biggest break.

If spending money wisely involves investing in the economy through stocks and shares then more fool the idiots who spend their inheritance on Champagne and caviar in St Tropez.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Agathon
True, but a massive disparity in income tends to produce externalities like pollution since the gains to some individuals are worth the price paid in pollution.

I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that some companies make more profits by polluting the air and water for free, then I agreee they should be charged. This is the standard economic solution for almost 100 years. If you mean that tollerance for pollution varies with income, then I don't understand, because high income people are less tollerant of pollution.

Originally posted by Agathon
Because these embody significant collective action problems (prisoner's dilemmas).

I don't understand. If I get an education you are worse off??

Originally posted by Agathon Communicable diseases are a significant problem (SARS!). If you are an employer you also reap the benefits of a public system. There is also the general benefit of things like literacy and a basic awareness of political issues.

Basic public health expenses, like vaccinations, is a minimal part of US health care expenses. In the long run the benefit to employers is captured by employees as higher wages. I agree that an informed electorate makes us all better off. I would argue that this benefit is small relative to that of increased wages, which are a private gain.

Originally posted by Agathon I have no problem with curbing that.

Neither do I.

T

Originally posted by Agathon hen these economists are full of ****. Canada spends less per capita than the United States on health services and yet manages to provide full health care to all its citizens. The massive overheads generated by the private system account for much of this, and it also produces perverse results. Did you know that the US has about 10 times as many mammogram machines as it needs to give each American woman as many mammograms as they need? This is absurdly inefficient. The reason is that people are prepared to pay for it even if it isn't medically necessary - this money could be better spent elsewhere.

The economists are not comparing US vs. Canada. They are comparing two similar sized US systems for any of these types of expenses. The idea is to hold as many things constant as possible. The US system subsidizes capital spent on health care, which accounts in part for the high cost. The Canadian system rations health care. The economic outcomes are very different. Health care reform, which clearly needs doing, is a topic for another thread (or six).

Originally posted by Agathon
But that's not my point. Your income largely depends on the number of people competing for your job. This is something you have no control over - it's a matter of luck as far as you are concerned that you get what you get.

But in the long run people can and do choose what field they go into, and certainly much of that decision for many people is based on likely competition and expected earnings. Moreover, many people retrain mid-career if they get a bad outcome in the job market.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that some companies make more profits by polluting the air and water for free, then I agreee they should be charged. This is the standard economic solution for almost 100 years. If you mean that tollerance for pollution varies with income, then I don't understand, because high income people are less tollerant of pollution.

I'm getting at the "leave everything to the market" bunch (of which there are too many on this forum - obviously not including you). I agree that financial penalties for pollution are right. However, some people think that left to itself the market will fix this. I don't think it will.

As for pollution. I'm not sure this is true. If you are a wealthy person and you stand to make a lot of money from polluting it is rational to pollute (if the utility to you from the extra cash exceeds the disutility from pollution). Wealthy people say they hate pollution, but they are the ones who hold shares in mass polluting industries.

I don't understand. If I get an education you are worse off??

No, I'm not saying that. But if people determined their own educational needs then we would all be worse off, since a significant level of illiteracy is a downer for everyone.

Basic public health expenses, like vaccinations, is a minimal part of US health care expenses. In the long run the benefit to employers is captured by employees as higher wages.

But poorer folks just wouldn't be able to afford decent health care. It's simply cheaper to have a public system like Canada's if your aim is to provide the best level of healthcare to the most people. Added to this is the issue of social justice. Efficiency is a worthy aim, but it isn't and shouldn't be our sole aim in public policy.

I agree that an informed electorate makes us all better off. I would argue that this benefit is small relative to that of increased wages, which are a private gain.

I don't think so since an informed electorate is necessary for a properly functioning democracy. I'm not one of those who think that increased wages is a good price to pay for a soft tyranny.

TThe economists are not comparing US vs. Canada. They are comparing two similar sized US systems for any of these types of expenses. The idea is to hold as many things constant as possible. The US system subsidizes capital spent on health care, which accounts in part for the high cost. The Canadian system rations health care. The economic outcomes are very different. Health care reform, which clearly needs doing, is a topic for another thread (or six).

That's true. Even though the Canadian system rations health care it isn't as if there's a dearth of it up here. You can pretty much get what you need (in fact it seems very generous to me).

But in the long run people can and do choose what field they go into, and certainly much of that decision for many people is based on likely competition and expected earnings. Moreover, many people retrain mid-career if they get a bad outcome in the job market.

This comment was aimed at those people who want to equate one's performance in the market with some kind of moral desert. I don't think that the market is a moral phenomenon, so I don't think that it's results can be evaluated as good just because they are the results of a market system. That's all I'm arguing for.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Americans who tend to spend their money on foreign imports are helping the U.S. economy more than the government, which spends the money on domestic industry and infrastructure?

Well, that forces American companies to be more efficient, so yes buying foreign imports are actually better for the economy.

--

And no, the tax cut doesn't bother me. The rich pay more in taxes, they get more in tax relief. Seems ok to me.

[Guynemer]

This tax cut doesn't bother me too much (though I wonder why a tax cut is necessary when the deficit is ballooning once again).

What bothers me are the American corporations that evade paying taxes by moving their "headquarters" offshore to Bermuda or the Caymans; these island-paradise "headquarters" are often little more than a P.O. box, a ruse that would be funny enough to include in Tropico 3 if it weren't so horribly real. This is costing us billions of dollars a year; these same companies often get rebates on the taxes they never had to pay in the first place... ****ing Washington.

[GePap]

The rich can afford to pay more in taxes and they also are rich enough to pay people to avoid as many taxes as possible. People making 50,000 a year can;t afford a guy at 500 dollars an hour to tell you how to hide money in the Bahamas so the IRS never gets to it.

Besides, in order to cut these taxes, without any signifcant cut in public programs the government will now begin to use a large fraction of saings to fund its deficit, money that will thus not be able to be invested by the public. Now, much of that money isn;t American anyway (since we keep funding our foreign capital addiction) but this cut still has costs. Besides, most states will have to raise taxes and cut services anyway, so I guess a lot of the "relief" the middle classes get will get eaten up in higher local taxes and having to pay more out of pocket for services cut by the state.

[Alexander's Horse]

I thought the idea of government welfare was to tax the rich and help the poor.

Silly me.

[Ted Striker]

Yes it does bother me and so does those damn CEO compensation packages.

[I Am Jeff]

Bush's tax cuts are simply Trickle Down Economics. For those who do not know what this is, it is giving a bigger tax cut to the rich so they can invest and create jobs etc. Sounds all nice but we all know where this got President Hoover right?

Well for those of you who do not know, he pushed the U.S. deeper into the Depression and it resulted in his loss of the next election to FDR. Bottom line is trickle down economics does not work. And with increasing fiscal problems over the nation, blowing the money is unwise. Instead the money should be spent on the now financialy strapped states/cities

Many states and cities (for example NYC) are having horrible fiscal siutations. Programs will have to be cut to balance budgets since most states and cities must have balanced budget. This will result in a sharp decrease in services and as a result state/city jobs will be cut. So by holding back aid, ironically, Bush will be causing job loss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have a wierd sense of history, Jeff.

Hoover didn't believe in anything as 'trickle down economics'. In fact, I don't believe he gave a single tax cut while President. In fact, spending increased. FDR actually campaigned that spending was TOO HIGH (how ironic). The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was the highest spending public endevor EVER up to that time.

The Depression was caused by a tight money policy by the new Federal Reserve, when a loose money policy could have bailed the US out. The recession, that began the problems, wasn't bad as far as US recessions went, but it was caused by the boom-bust cycle such as in the 1870s and 1890s. That and problems with financing Weimar, and the ending of the Dawes Plan. That, and the whole tariff war crap.

Jeez, you'd expect someone blustering on about history would know something about it .

[Dis]

The main thing I hate the replicans for is they don't decrease spending.

cutting taxes does nothing but drive up the debt!. Now if they cut spending along with a tax cut...

I want smaller goverment dammit!! The repuclicans are supposed to be for a smaller goverment. But they never cut spending!! They usually increase spending on the military along with a tax cut. Stupid.

I hate both political parties with a passion.

libertarian all the way!

[Space05us]

Im going to be a member of the top 1% when I turn into an old fogey CEO, so love me now while I still work at the video store making $6 an hour