Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

I don't believe this for one moment. Obamacare creates panels and agencies and represents a significant increase in the size of our gov't. And it was not exactly overwhelming supported. How could it have been when we needed to pass the legislation just to find out what was in it? Is the IRS something we wanted or the result of bad behavior? The dept of energy? Dept of education? The argument is always one of either totally dismantling these departments or doing nothing. Yet we consistently speak of trimming back the military with the acknowledgment that we can't eliminate it. How about as a first step we simply stop growing the size of gov't? Much like the immigration issue, why do we need to chose between granting amnesty and rounding up every illegal immigrant? How about we stop the bleeding first? Who knows, maybe we'll even figure out a way to pay for it if it simply stops growing.

Oh - oh I have to jump in and agree with thebigspender wholeheartedly on this one.

Using your examples:

Healthcare - kind of a moral question I guess, but if you think that private insurers haven't behaved poorly - read the news. American's get screwed on a daily basis by private firms. And though many might not care - the world laughs at America and it's claim to superiority when it has child mortality rates the likes of poorer nations in Africa.

Dept of Energy - if it wasn't for the fact that every energy producer has to lobby for rate increases, we wouldn't be leaving our computers on all day or even putting up x-mas lights. Not everyone can afford to build an energy plant so competition is scarce! If they could have it their way - you would be paying a ton more. Now in the long run it might work itself out - but not before killing industry first.

Think Enron - they actually killed folks by turning off the power in Cali in order to force them to pay more... ARG!

Education - I doubt in KS we would be learning about Darwin - nuf said.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Oh - oh I have to jump in and agree with thebigspender wholeheartedly on this one.

Using your examples:

Healthcare - kind of a moral question I guess, but if you think that private insurers haven't behaved poorly - read the news. American's get screwed on a daily basis by private firms. And though many might not care - the world laughs at America and it's claim to superiority when it has child mortality rates the likes of poorer nations in Africa.

Dept of Energy - if it wasn't for the fact that every energy producer has to lobby for rate increases, we wouldn't be leaving our computers on all day or even putting up x-mas lights. Not everyone can afford to build an energy plant so competition is scarce! If they could have it their way - you would be paying a ton more. Now in the long run it might work itself out - but not before killing industry first.

Education - I doubt in KS we would be learning about Darwin - nuf said.

Can you buy healthcare insurance from an IL provider? Why not? Your gov't said you can't. They are just as responsible for the state of health care as the insurance companies themselves. But the free market is not allowed to work on your behalf here. Gov't was quick to tell the health care industry how much money they can generate in profit with Obamacare. But they never told the public how much they could sue for in malpractice did they? And as for the morality of it, I'll give Obamacare some time to get going. Then we can have a discussion about the morality of it. In the meantime you're comparing what you hope it will be to what we currently have. I have a feeling we will all long for what will be described as the good ol days.

The Dept of energy was established to make us energy independent and get us off of foreign oil. How's that working out?

Education - I let the statistics on our educational system speak for themselves. If you're happy with the results, we won't bother arguing about it any further. But the last time I checked we weren't looking so good. Our kids can't read, write, or find the countries that are kicking our ass on a map. But they know all about how to put on a condom. Not that they do, but they've been given the proper instruction. For all the money we spend on education, the success rate sucks. But yes, they know about Darwin.....or, maybe they don't. Maybe that's just another thing they should be learning.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

In the meantime you're comparing what you hope it will be to what we currently have. You might be right - but when up is the only way you can go, a few assumptions can be made. I guess it depends on where you are on the spectrum.

The Dept of energy was established to make us energy independent and get us off of foreign oil. How's that working out? Great really!! By 2020 I think they were saying America will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, and we will actually be independent from the need of foreign oil. I am stoked really!!

Education - I let the statistics on our educational system speak for themselves. If you're happy with the results, we won't bother arguing about it any further. But the last time I checked we weren't looking so good. Our kids can't read, write, or find the countries that are kicking our ass on a map. But they know all about how to put on a condom. Not that they do, but they've been given the proper instruction. For all the money we spend on education, the success rate sucks. But yes, they know about Darwin.....or, maybe they don't. Maybe that's just another thing they should be learning. Yup - it could be viewed as being poorly managed. No question about it. But having to pay for private school gets expensive and at least those who wish, can get educated. There are issues, though if they weren't regulated, and that's what we were talking about... there would be a ton more!

Well those are the things I am reading anyway...

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Education - I let the statistics on our educational system speak for themselves. If you're happy with the results, we won't bother arguing about it any further. But the last time I checked we weren't looking so good. Our kids can't read, write, or find the countries that are kicking our ass on a map. But they know all about how to put on a condom. Not that they do, but they've been given the proper instruction. For all the money we spend on education, the success rate sucks. But yes, they know about Darwin.....or, maybe they don't. Maybe that's just another thing they should be learning.

It seems to me that the US education system is pretty good. Not as good as those of other countries with more government involvement, but better than the one of countries with less. Of course, you can argue like the Republican party has done for decades that the department of Education should be closed and the education should be left alone to the states or the people. I think what this would result in is more americans with very low skills who are doomed to life of poverty, and better education for those who currently fall on the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum. In my opinion that would be overal bad for the country as a whole, although people like me would fare better at least in medium term.

Just look at the fundamental economics data - the biggest factor correlating with a person's earnings is education. Or take a look at the unemployment rates in the different education & skill levels.

The times when one could make a decent living with low skilled work are decades back. Most of those jobs are now done by robots and anybody who wants a decent living in the future ought to have skills that a robot doesn't. Unless the society decides on a different distribution of the generated wealth, but seeing how popular 'socialism' is in US I'd say that's unlikely.

A lot of what are considered low skill jobs but were well paying have disappeared and reappeared off shore. It would still be possible to make a decent living if the jobs still existed in the numbers they did previously in the western world. Global free trade pretty much put an end to that. They are now asking for ridiculous educational qualifications for some of these few remaining low skill jobs. So many more people have better educations today that the value of education becomes diluted. If we finally get to the stage where everyone has a post secondary education you will need a BA just to scrub toilets. Even the well educated types will be in big trouble when we finally get artificial intelligence in machines to a certain level.

I think education can be a bit of a red herring or smoke screen to hide behind. OTH creating the need for more post secondary education has helped that industry a lot. Anyway just a different and irreverent view of this lemming like supposed need for higher and better education.

Bob

That's not really true - US produces more industrial output than it used to with much less workers and more robots. Except that now the workers need to be able to operate the robots instead of doing their job. That's what 'increased productivity' means. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the physical skills of humans have increased ten fold, rather they have invented machines that can do the same operation at ten times the speed.

I know that a lot of the inner workings of things our society relies on are not visible, but the relying on machines instead of people is at unprecedented level.

And yes, one day not too far in the future you will need a Ph.D. to scrub toilets. Because the scrubbing of the whole city's toilets would be done by smart machines with AI and the few people who control them would need to have the skills to properly operate such technology.

The only thing that globalization does is increasing the competition, the same way at one point the shoemaker had to only compete with the other guys on 'Shoemaker St.', they they had to compete with the guys in the other town, then across the whole state, then the whole country...
There is an increasing number of people who go to those 'off-shore' countries because they can make more money than they can make in the west (again those would be 'high-skilled' jobs, like organizing a start-up business that meets a need in that country). What I'm saying is that in an increasingly globalized world your skills matter more than your pace of birth.

Originally Posted by gugi

That's not really true - US produces more industrial output than it used to with much less workers and more robots. Except that now the workers need to be able to operate the robots instead of doing their job. That's what 'increased productivity' means. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the physical skills of humans have increased ten fold, rather they have invented machines that can do the same operation at ten times the speed.

I know that a lot of the inner workings of things our society relies on are not visible, but the relying on machines instead of people is at unprecedented level.

And yes, one day not too far in the future you will need a Ph.D. to scrub toilets. Because the scrubbing of the whole city's toilets would be done by smart machines with AI and the few people who control them would need to have the skills to properly operate such technology.

The only thing that globalization does is increasing the competition, the same way at one point the shoemaker had to only compete with the other guys on 'Shoemaker St.', they they had to compete with the guys in the other town, then across the whole state, then the whole country...
There is an increasing number of people who go to those 'off-shore' countries because they can make more money than they can make in the west (again those would be 'high-skilled' jobs, like organizing a start-up business that meets a need in that country). What I'm saying is that in an increasingly globalized world your skills matter more than your pace of birth.

You used to be able to make a decent living in the clothing manufacturing industry and now they are off shore for the most part. You did not see highly highly automated assembly lines where the recent fire in Bangladesh killed all those factory workers. So apparently in order to compete globally you do not necessarily need an education. Just a cheaper labour source than what is available at home in a lot but not all cases.

Yes, robotics/automation have made humans redundant in the work place. Those many humans that have so been made redundant far out number the people who now maintain those automated systems. Point is not every redundant worker will find a job no matter how much re education they get. Simply a matter of fewer and fewer job positions being chased by ever increasing numbers of humans that are well educated. Makes you wonder what you will do to be productive when all you can do is use the toilet regardless of how good an education you have got.

No argument that skills matter more than your place of birth. No country has a monopoly on intelligence either and while the few go off shore to do start ups for companies it will not be long before they are redundant too as the indigenous population rapidly gains those same skills and adds to the competition in those fields too.

There never has been enough work to go around but the the amount of work/jobs that will provide a family with a decent standard living with one wage earner is getting thinner by the minute regardless of level of eduction. The big joke in all of this is that when I was younger people were actually turned down for jobs because they were over qualified for the position. There is no way, it seems, you can be over qualified today for even what some would call menial jobs.

Bob

There is just something fundamentally wrong with feeling that if somebody is doing better then you they owe you something...

Sounds like Simple Green Eyed jealousy to me, and the excuses/reasons of why they are rich and keeping it and you're not are just that, "Excuses"..

The entitlement attitude.. wait let me guess "You didn't build that"



And No I don't make over $250K never have, never will, but I don't feel anyone that who does owes me anything...

ps: that number $250K for a married couple and $200k if your single has made me realize that the Gays that are fighting for Legalized Marriage must have flunked out of math class

Originally Posted by earcutter

Oh - oh I have to jump in and agree with thebigspender wholeheartedly on this one.

Using your examples:

Healthcare - kind of a moral question I guess, but if you think that private insurers haven't behaved poorly - read the news. American's get screwed on a daily basis by private firms. And though many might not care - the world laughs at America and it's claim to superiority when it has child mortality rates the likes of poorer nations in Africa.

Maybe not:

Health Care 101: The truth about health spending in America - Health - AEI

"Many of the international comparisons of health outcomes are deeply flawed. The U.S. currently ranks 43rd internationally in infant mortality. Unfortunately, no consistent standard exists for reporting infant deaths across countries. Preterm birth (that is, births at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation) is a key risk factor for infant death, yet the United States is one of only eight countries that categorize extremely premature infant births as "live births," despite these babies' very low odds of survival. Specifically, "many nations do not report any live births at less than 23 weeks' gestation, or less than 500 g, despite the presence of vital signs." This may sound like a minor reporting difference, but a Philadelphia study found that when all deaths of infants delivered at 22 weeks' gestation were excluded from its birth statistics, that city's measured infant mortality rate declined by 40 percent.

The aggregate statistics also mask this important reality: if we categorize births by length of gestation, the U.S. ranks second, third or fourth as compared to major European countries, in that it achievesthe lowest infant mortality rates for every birth category examined prior to full-term (22-23 weeks, 24-27 weeks, 28-31 weeks and 32-36 weeks). Only Norway and Sweden (whose populations are much more homogenous and physically fit than America's) achieve consistently better results."

Let the world laugh at that.

Originally Posted by honedright

Maybe not:

Health Care 101: The truth about health spending in America - Health - AEI

"Many of the international comparisons of health outcomes are deeply flawed. The U.S. currently ranks 43rd internationally in infant mortality. Unfortunately, no consistent standard exists for reporting infant deaths across countries. Preterm birth (that is, births at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation) is a key risk factor for infant death, yet the United States is one of only eight countries that categorize extremely premature infant births as "live births," despite these babies' very low odds of survival. Specifically, "many nations do not report any live births at less than 23 weeks' gestation, or less than 500 g, despite the presence of vital signs." This may sound like a minor reporting difference, but a Philadelphia study found that when all deaths of infants delivered at 22 weeks' gestation were excluded from its birth statistics, that city's measured infant mortality rate declined by 40 percent.

The aggregate statistics also mask this important reality: if we categorize births by length of gestation, the U.S. ranks second, third or fourth as compared to major European countries, in that it achievesthe lowest infant mortality rates for every birth category examined prior to full-term (22-23 weeks, 24-27 weeks, 28-31 weeks and 32-36 weeks). Only Norway and Sweden (whose populations are much more homogenous and physically fit than America's) achieve consistently better results."

Let the world laugh at that.

No - that sounds like a HUGE difference! And one I can throw in the face of my wife's midwife friend who works at the WHO... who always loves throwing that stat out at me!! .

Do you have a link I can shoot her way? It would literally make my day to be able to show her those numbers lol. In case you haven't figured it out - I don't like her and her America bashing much LOL!!