A word about redistribution of wealth

[bigdavediode]

Quote from gnome:

Are you kidding? Remember the Grace Commission?

Yeah, appointed by Reagan -- it was a joke.

It predicted that the national debt would be $13 billion in the year 2000. Turned out to be only five trillion in 2000, an error of 160%.

That's a massive error. You make an error like that in engineering and a bridge falls down and kills people.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Mav88:Study the history of sweden over the 40 years if you want to know how these fucked up liberals will fuck us over.

Hmm.

Quote from Mav88:

My point has always been that to hold up another country as the model to emulate, as demos do with sweden, is sort of stupid.

 

[wjk]

Quote from gnome:

Are you kidding? Remember the Grace Commission?

W.R. Grace and crew were commissioned by the Gumming to do a study... they dug into the budget and found like $450Billion in waste. The Gummint basically chucked the report into the trash... I guess because, "didn't want to do it" (cut spending, that is)

No, I wasn't kidding. I was being sarcastic. The government is extremely wasteful with "our" money. Both parties. The problem with the politicians is they spend it like it's not their money. I believe they should treat our money as if it was their own.

I would wager that most of them are much more frugal in their personal budgets. Maybe the media should dig into politician's personal financial practices more, and I don't mean their legal and illegal dealings with lobbyists. I mean how they run their family budgets. That would be most interesting. I don't mind paying my fair share when it's not being wasted, stolen, or otherwise misused.

I know where every penny I make is spent. Most of these congress people don't even read the fucking bills they sign, so how the hell can they be careful managers of our money?

 

[Mav88]

Mav: The only lesson I draw from sweden is that a rich and prosperous people bankrupted themselves in 1992 with socialism, that much is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just silly. They have a balanced budget and still have a massive, massive social system.

factual history is silly? ok, nice to see how you view such things.

We also have a massive, massive social system and it is what is bankrupting us as well. We could balance our budget by raising taxes an astronomical amount right now, but as evidenced by history, and the Swedish example, that's not the way out of financial troubles.

Only a moron would propoose expanding social welfare right now.



Mav:They have found a balance by simply offsetting the destructive effects of socialism with enough conservative economic measures to make it work for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You sound like you're describing the US, not Sweden. Even their moves in a conservative direction left them vastly more socialist than the US. And they have a balanced bugdet

The US is broken right now, and the idiot about to take charge is proposing more social welfare without any reforms, so no, I am not describing the US.



Differences in genetics, how infant mortality is registered, climate, culture, resource distribution among patients, etc. and not even mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OECD has done these studies, would you like to know what they found?

Sure, but I still say Minnesota stacks up against Sweden and if it does, there is no argument there either as to an 'superiority' of Swedish health outcomes.

I can tell you that our gov't programs are very lavish for certain people and they skew all statistics out of proportion, I happen to know a lot more than the OECD about local health care here.


mav: You were the one trying and take an effectively meaningless quantity and make a point with it- not me. Therefore it was your strawman that needed knocking down, not mine,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A strawman is when I make up an argument that you haven't made. Statistics are statistics and by most measures, although not all of them, Sweden does better overall.

You did make up an argument, I wasn't talking about any sort of 'quality of life measure' in my argument, but you trotted out your index as if I had. I was talking about simply whether or not we should expand social welfare like sweden did earlier in its history, or contract it like they are doing now. It was pure an economic argument.

You have brought out exactly two to me, and both are dubious as you us them, as explained to you at length. They don't mean nothing in an absolute sense, but they are not useful for your argument.

Well back to the original point, income redistribution and taxes, it's curious how the Swedes are cutting taxes, cutting regulation, AND increasing income disparities in spite of their long held belief in a flat distribution. It seems they have had enough of the insanity of demanding everyone have equal economic outcomes...

Household consumption in Sweden rose by a record seven percent in 2007, reaching an all-time high, while the gap between rich and poor expanded to new levels, Statistics Sweden said on Thursday....

"At the same time, the gap between low and high incomes has never been greater," it added....





http://www.thelocal.se/15188/20081024/

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Mav88:

Mav: The only lesson I draw from sweden is that a rich and prosperous people bankrupted themselves in 1992 with socialism, that much is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just silly. They have a balanced budget and still have a massive, massive social system.

factual history is silly? ok, nice to see how you view such things.

We also have a massive, massive social system

Not compared to Sweden!

Sweden social care includes prenatal care, child care, daycare, care for the elderly, care if you get sick, hospital coverage for everybody, huge welfare, and on and on and on...

and it is what is bankrupting us as well.

You're not even making sense. Sweden has a massive, massive social system, higher costs, higher taxes -- everything you say will bankrupt us -- and their budget is balanced and their GDP per capita is higher. This reveals the "big lie" that increases in taxes or social programs will "bankrupt us." And in fact, they spend less for healthcare.

Sure, but I still say Minnesota stacks up against Sweden and if it does, there is no argument there either as to an 'superiority' of Swedish health outcomes.

Huh? You want to cherry pick Minnesota which Sweden DESTROYS in life expectancy (three years for men, an extra year of life for women), but even if I show that outcomes after hospitalization for the same illnesses are better in Sweden there's "no argument there either?"

In other words, there's no evidence that you'll accept.

I was talking about simply whether or not we should expand social welfare like sweden did earlier in its history, or contract it like they are doing now. It was pure an economic argument.

Once again you have made the gradeschool error of the "fallacy of the false choice." There are other options.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Jon, you post shit without any links whatsoever. Please show me ten years of tax receipts broken down by income levels, and supporting data on increasing relative wealth by the top "5%". I know plenty of top 5% folks and on average they're worth 40% less than a year ago. Including Buffet and Gates.

This is what I see. I see an America where a dumb broad works as a desk jockey- like most of the 2.6 million employees of the Federal government-and retires after 30 years (i.e. in her mid 50's) and makes 60k a year in pension with all inclusive health care. At the same time I see an America where she makes 3x more in guaranteed passive income than me and I'm a friggin millionaire. Meaning in this rate a self employed entrepreneur would need to be a triple millionaire to retire with what she's making. Not to mention managers and department heads who're making 10k a month in retirement on the public dole. The ruling elites who are sucking off the middle class ARE NOT the board of XOM but the retired government worker living next door....

Wow - those pensions can be Nice!

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-reti...fter-for-Lawmakers?mod=retirement-preparation

""I've lost 30 percent like everybody else. This hits home with the Miller family, too," the California Democrat said in a recent interview.

But the blow is softer for members of Congress than for most. Although lawmakers have lost value in their thrift savings plans -- the government's version of a 401(k) -- they are also offered a defined-benefit pension plan backed by the U.S. Treasury and largely insulated from Wall Street fluctuations.

That puts Miller and the other lawmakers into an increasingly privileged category -- workers with guaranteed retirement benefits that aren't subject to the vicissitudes of the financial markets.

Market meltdown or no, if Miller, 63, were to retire at the end of this year he'd take with him an annual pension of about $122,000, according to the National Taxpayers Union, a nonprofit advocacy group in Arlington, Va. On top of that he could tap whatever remains in his 401(k)-like savings plan."

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Jon, you post shit without any links whatsoever. Please show me ten years of tax receipts broken down by income levels, and supporting data on increasing relative wealth by the top "5%". I know plenty of top 5% folks and on average they're worth 40% less than a year ago. Including Buffet and Gates.

This is what I see. I see an America where a dumb broad works as a desk jockey- like most of the 2.6 million employees of the Federal government-and retires after 30 years (i.e. in her mid 50's) and makes 60k a year in pension with all inclusive health care. At the same time I see an America where she makes 3x more in guaranteed passive income than me and I'm a friggin millionaire. Meaning in this rate a self employed entrepreneur would need to be a triple millionaire to retire with what she's making. Not to mention managers and department heads who're making 10k a month in retirement on the public dole. The ruling elites who are sucking off the middle class ARE NOT the board of XOM but the retired government worker living next door....

Well Said.

Government is out of Control.

Both the Left and Right need to come to terms with that.

So many Lefties think Socialsm is a Great Idea not understanding the mechanisms needed to redistribute that wealth - in all its various forms (loving Liberal "Social" programs or Endless Republican Wars) - comes from the very Institution that destroys and pisses away obscene amounts of private wealth - the GOVERNMENT.

The answer to more private wealth is not more taxes.

DUH.

Its LESS TAX FOR EVERYONE.

Its common sense.

That means the Government spends less, shrinks in size and people keep a much larger share of what they earn. To help themselves.

This Nanny-State mentality will be the Death of America.

Everyone gets hooked on the Dole - either with handouts, corporate welfare or Government jobs - and nobody will ever bring themselves to vote against Government reduction, out of fear from putting themselves out.

That level of Control is insidious and inherently deadly to a State. Jefferson spoke about that.

When people are hooked on the Government, they have no choice but to go along with it, in all its disgusting and tyrannical forms, just to get a paycheck.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You made a statement: "fuck you in advance NO ONE makes a hundo a year in pensions". I provide a link to a story of a retired teacher making 200k a year and I'm the "toad" hunting for exception? Dude your IQ must be 104.

Here's the relevant paragraph in your story:

Among the most recently retired teachers - those aged 55 to 59 - last year's average pension came to $64,007 for men and $56,170 for women. These figures don't necessarily include all the annuity payments that retired teachers can also receive. Nor do they include the value of free health coverage available to the vast majority of all city retirees and their dependents.

Gee, no surprise that workers who retired 20 years ago have relatively small pensions. They MADE DICK. That's not the story today. As teacher salaries skyrocket the pension obligations ALSO skyrocket. Further with people living longer these obligations are stretched out a decade or more longer than a generation ago.

i would also add many Federal and State Pensions are pegged against inflation. So that 90K a retiree settles at is worth ~80% when they die. Good reading, Pabst. Great points you've made.

 

[Mav88]

Not compared to Sweden!
Sweden social care includes prenatal care, child care, daycare, care for the elderly, care if you get sick, hospital coverage for everybody, huge welfare, and on and on and on... '

US welfare is better than Sweden in some catagories, and yes it is massive. 2 Trillion this year alone on the elderly.
We are however not as insane in granting so much time off work, or in how easy it is to get an alcohol disability, I agree.

By sometime near 2030 2 out 3 adults will not be working and all federal spending would go to social security and medicare. On current trends payroll taxes would have to be at near 50% just to balance that. We are very much a welfare state and about to get worse.

You're not even making sense. Sweden has a massive, massive social system, higher costs, higher taxes -- everything you say will bankrupt us -- and their budget is balanced and their GDP per capita is higher. This reveals the "big lie" that increases in taxes or social programs will "bankrupt us." And in fact, they spend less for healthcare.

Their GDP per capita is lower using PPP. Using nominal is just dumb, sorry, even if there are problems with PPP.

We are basically bankrupt, as you pointed out yourself, and the largest item in the budget is social welfare spending. By claiming we are just fine on this point puts you at odds with just about everyone. To balance our budget today would require massive tax increases and hurt the fragile economy. Even the swedes understand that one.

You exposed another big lie with your index, that human development requires a lot of socialism, since the US and Sweden are basically tied. So which is it; the US is socialistic enough to match sweden, or it doesn't require socialism to have a high index? Remember you are the one who claims your index means something.


Huh? You want to cherry pick Minnesota which Sweden DESTROYS in life expectancy (three years for men, an extra year of life for women), but even if I show that outcomes after hospitalization for the same illnesses are better in Sweden there's "no argument there either?" In other words, there's no evidence that you'll accept.

It wasn't cherry picked, the choice was explained to you as the one that best represents genetic and climate normalization. Outcomes for cancer are not even, I know that for a fact, which illustrates that stats can be skewed by cherry picking treatments.

and bullshit on your numbers:
MN men (2000) 76.5 SW men (2000) 77.38
MN women 81.5 SW women 82.03

Less than 1 year for each sex - and so bullshit also with your conclusion that sweden destroys minnesota

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/PopNotes/LifeExpectancy/MNLifeExpectancy.pdf

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp


Once again you have made the gradeschool error of the "fallacy of the false choice." There are other options.

oh lets see, I left out 'maintain everything always constant', gee I guess you were right

 

[jsv416]

All these arguments about income taxes have been happening for decades. Why should the rich pay more? Why should the rich have to give to the poor? All statements about how to make income taxes fair are all Bullshit. There is no way to make it fair and Obama's plan is pure bullshit just like any other plan that McCain puts forth.

We must throw away the current tax system. It is broken, confusing, and therefore corruptable. Do away with the income tax and institute a national consumption tax. It would be simple (pay it at the till) and fair. A person who has very little money (income) and therefore consumes less pays less tax (but they still pay a tax! unlike the current system where approx 30% of Americans dont even pay income taxes because they dont make enough money, and therefore they dont contribute). Somebody who has lots of money and consumes more pays more tax ( it is their choice to consume more, they could consume less if they wanted to!) This way everybody puts in their fair share and tax revenues would go up, and maybe if the revenues were allocated efficiently the U.S. would have balanced budget (although we all know that our government is a completely inefficient beurocracy(sp?) and that is highly unlikely)