| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/6/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:38124 Activity:moderate |
6/14 Even Alan Greenspan thinks the rich/poor gap in the United States is
becoming a big problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050614/ts_csm/ataxing_1
\_ The dumbing down of the average American is NOT the core of the
wealth gap. The problem is that there are too many people
getting smarter, thus creating and keeping wealth that the average
American can't possibly have. The solution is to cut all
education programs and reduce F1/F2 skilled-worker VISAs from
India and China, which will hopefully reduce the educational and
income gap in the U.S. Wait, it's already happening thanks to the
guidance of our great President. Thank God and Bush for standing
up to evil. The Good and Righteous will always prevail. God Bless.
\_ You know, the Catholics have the Pope as the head figure. What
about the Jews? So I asked my best friend who's a Jew, and his
reply is that they have Alan Greenspan.
\_ -5 Lousy excuse for a troll.
\_ "America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched
to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard
Dean. His solution is better education today to create a
flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of
plutocrats' yachts."
I'm confused. When did Dean announce his yacht-confiscation plan?
\_ High taxes == no yachts, because rich people can't afford
lawyers to avoid taxes.
\_ I think he meant
Yacht confiscation != Progressive taxation to check the
wealth gap
You say the first thing if you're a Republican.
You say the latter if you're a Democrat.
\_ What's funny is that most of my entrepreneur friends
here have this ideal of America as a place where
people say "hey, he's rich, how can I be rich too?"
whereas in Europe people say "hey, he's rich, he
shouldn't be rich, that's not fair." How about
making it easier for the poor to, I don't know, make
more money? Given all the effort that goes into
coming up with taxation schemes, that might be an
idea, or am I just being hopelessly naive? -John
\_ The standard Republican answer seems to be keep
taxes low on the off chance any of them do start
earning more money. The truly poor pay little in
taxes as it is so reducing their taxes further is
moot. The left response is provide things that
either give the poor money directly or make things
cost less for them so they can keep more of what
they make. Where, however, shall that funding
come from, if lifting the poor is one's actual
concern? -- ulysses
\_ Income taxes != sales taxes != inheritance
taxes. I do not like the latter, and #2 are
regressive, except for "luxury taxes", which
are a logistical nightmare. I have no problem
with cutting taxes for "the rich" (usually
including your upper middle class) thereby
creating incentives. There's nothing wrong
with "the rich" getting richer, as long as
nobody's poorer overall. How about better
education? Scientific incentives? Tax breaks
for successful industries? And how to pay for
it? How about greater accountability in
govt. expenditure, sensible military budgets,
and cuts in direct subsidies? And yes, I'm a
hopeless romantic. -John
\_ When taxes are decreased, the programs they
made available are curtailed. This is most
likely the exact intent of much recent and
Reagan-era strategy. For people whose income
is small to begin with, reducing programs
such as socialized health care and public
transit is making many people poorer overall.
Succesful industries (oil, pharma) already
receive frightfully large incentives. Is that
the most effective way to help poor people?
A sensible military budget would go a long
way, at least at the gov't end of funding.
That is not likely for quite awhile, though.
Bless your hopelessly romantic heart.
-- ulysses
\_ I don't mind cutting programs. In fact
I would specifically want to cut spending
on programs which I don't feel benefit
"the poor" (or the country) at all-such
as a lot of hopelessly inefficient pork
in defense, agricultural subsidies, etc.
I make no apologies for my stance on
taxes--where I am willing to concede that
I am unrealistic is in my strong belief
that there _is_ a shitload of waste and
inefficiency in government spending, and
that, in an ideal world, this would all
go away. I am of the firm conviction
that a government's expenditures will
always rise to exceed any funds available
to it. -John
\_ Why don't you like the latter, which I assume
you mean inheritance tax?
\_ Because I feel it is the business of an
individual to what he wants to give to whom.
Note that I didn't say I don't see some
justification behind having it, I just don't
like it.
\_ If we really wanted to reduce taxes on the
poor we'd get rid of the lottery and reduce
tabacco taxes.
\_ The new thing is Greenspan says there is a widening wealth gap and
widening wealth gaps are bad for America.
The questionable thing is he also implies the dumbing down of the
average American is the core reason for this.
It's true, though, that if the average American gets smarter, the
gap should narrow.
The question is whether this is "the core reason", or just one with
the distinction of having approval from Dubya's people.
He probably can't say: "The wealth gap widened because the wealthy
benefited most on the last tax cut, and don't forget the elimination
of the dividend tax and of the inheritance tax."
\_ If everyone gets a PhD who will dig the ditches and pack
meat?
\_ The answer is apparent in Europe. EVERYONE.
\_ Yeah, it's great, I just got back from my weekend
socialist-enforced ditch digging collective trip,
and we all sang people's ditch digging songs and dug
ditches for the glory of the EU constitution. -John
\_ You know, you laugh, but I actually have been on
one of those. Along with my mother, who was a
college-educated civil engineer. -- ilyas
\_ Why do you hate Socialism?
\_ Because there's a chance of being forced on a
peoples' revolutionary ditch digging gang and
having to listen to ilyas sing peoples' revo-
lutionary ditch digging songs. -John
\_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
when I had a bit to drink. -- ilyas
\_ Ironically, I would pay money to see ilyas
forced to sing revolutionary people's ditch
digging songs.
\_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
when I have a bit to drink. -- ilyas
\_ And Russian peasant drinking songs?
\_ Ironically, in a society in which he'd be
digging ditches, you'd be right there
next to him, bub. -John |
| 5/25 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050614/ts_csm/ataxing_1 Christian Science Monitor Rich-poor gap gaining attention By Peter Grier, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Tue Jun 14, 4:00 AM ET WASHINGTON - The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US popul ation has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventual ly threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself. His solution is better education today to create a flexi ble workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of plutocrats' yachts. But the fact that Mr Greenspan speaks about this topic at all may show h ow much the growing concentration of national wealth at the top, combine d with the uncertainties of increased globalization, worries economic po licymakers as they peer into the future. "He is the conventional wisdom," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist a t the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. voting record) of Rhode Island, he agreed that over th e past two quarters hourly wages have shown few signs of accelerating. O verall employee compensation has gone up - but mostly due to a surge in bonuses and stock-option exercises. The Fed chief than added that the 80 percent of the workforce represented by nonsupervisory workers has recently seen little, if any, income grow th at all. The top 20 percent of supervisory, salaried, and other worker s has. The result of this, said Greenspan, is that the US now has a significant divergence in the fortunes of different groups in its labor market. "As I've often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic societ y - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressi ng," Greenspan told the congressional hearing. US children test above world average levels at the 4th grade level, he noted. "We have to do something to prevent that from happening," said Greenspan. So are liberals overjoyed by these words from a man who is the high pries t of capitalism? For one thing, some liberal analysts prefer to focus on the very tip of t he income scale, not the top 20 percent. For another, some Democratic analysts believe that Greenspan's emphasis o n education as a cure ignores other causal factors of inequity. Data sho w an income gap widening among college graduates, says Mr Bernstein. Th e quality of US high schools has nothing to do with that, he says. Inste ad it's partly a function of overall monetary and fiscal policies. "Gree nspan takes a very long term view of the situation," says Bernstein. On the other hand, some conservatives label the whole inequality debate a myth. The media's recent focus on the subject stems from its liberal bi as and clever press management by Democrats, they say. Inequality studies often ignore the wealth created by rising house prices , for instance - and homes represent the most substantial investment by many, if not most, Americans. Nor do US workers necessarily perceive themselves on the losing end of a rigged capitalist game. A recent New York Times survey found that while 44 percent of respondents said they had a working-class childhood, only 35 percent said they were working class today, points out Bruce Bartlett , a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Eighteen p ercent said they grew up lower class, while only 7 percent said they rem ained in that societal segment. President Bush 's tax cuts, albeit indirectly, says Mr Bartlett. "A lot of this is driv en by the estate-tax debate," he says. And as Greenspan himself points out, by many measures the economy is doin g well. Current standards of living are unmatche d "So you can look at the system and say it's got a lot of problems to it, and sure it does. "But you can't get around the fact that this is the most extraordinarily suc cessful economy in history." |