Federal Government too large/powerful

Commodore Oakius wrote:

Daryl wrote:I personally believe that people worry unnecessarily about the welfare bill.
In my early working years most females didn't work. They either were young and waiting for their prince charming, or had married him and were "house wives". Up until the 1960s here a woman legally had to leave work in many cases once they got married.
Thus even with multi generational welfare we still have a higher percentage of our adult people in work than we did in the 1950s and 1960s.
Another way to look at it is that to dig a ditch you could either have ten labourers with picks and shovels or one plant operator with a bull dozer. Same result in the same time but only one worker. In theory the employer could pay one wage and nine doles and be no worse off.

Yes it is annoying to see people who don't work and intend to bludge on society all their lives, but they are not actually as damaging as some at the top end of town who use accountants and lawyers to rip much more off the system.

There is a higher % working but there is also a higer % of the total population on welfare now than then. if the number of the people on welfare were the same as the 50s and 60s your argument would make sense, but the number has gone up due to the fact that populations increase as well.
While I see your point about the top end people, at least they are trying to keep money they have earned, not getting money that people haven't earned. I feel they are more damaging to soceity like that. They create examples for others to follow. Shildren ten d to emulate parents and this could easily be one way these kids do so.

I have to say that too many people focus on the harm to the individuals paying for welfare recipients and not to those that receive welfare. Generational welfare destroys the family as we have seen in American inner cities. This was predominantly a black issue decades ago, but Hispanics are catching up quickly.

If the goal is to help the poor, generational welfare harms them far more than it helps. American poverty statistics prove this our over and over again. The biggest driver of poverty is a single parent home. Welfare discourages the formation of stable families amongst the poor. Children born into and raised in single parent households are many more times more likely to remain in poverty than children born into a two parent home, all else being equal.

Providing help to get over difficulties is a good thing indeed. Discussing whether private or public systems for that support is better is also worthwhile. Supporting a system and encourages generational welfare is simply morally unsupportable.

The problem with all governmental system is the ability to game the system, not only do 'welfare queens' game the system but the Fortune 500 greed masters game the system. Remember Ike's warning on the military industrial complex and the Committee that Harry Truman chaired looking for corruption in military projects. Then there is political use of Government to attack political enemies Obama makes Nixon look like a boy scout, and at least he had the decency to resign.

Poker

PeterZ wrote:I have to say that too many people focus on the harm to the individuals paying for welfare recipients and not to those that receive welfare. Generational welfare destroys the family as we have seen in American inner cities. This was predominantly a black issue decades ago, but Hispanics are catching up quickly.

If the goal is to help the poor, generational welfare harms them far more than it helps. American poverty statistics prove this our over and over again. The biggest driver of poverty is a single parent home. Welfare discourages the formation of stable families amongst the poor. Children born into and raised in single parent households are many more times more likely to remain in poverty than children born into a two parent home, all else being equal.

Providing help to get over difficulties is a good thing indeed. Discussing whether private or public systems for that support is better is also worthwhile. Supporting a system and encourages generational welfare is simply morally unsupportable.

This is the real heart of the matter, forget people paying for others, this is the crux of the matter.
As civilized people we have a moral obligation to assist those in need, when we can. Those in need also have a moral obligation to strive to remove themselves from the needy position. There are genuine cases where this is not possible, and I fully beleive welfare is for them.
The propblem is too many people use welfare as a means of survial for life instead as a crutch to help one along, as has been stated. My solution is to tax Welfare on a graduated basis:
1st year nothing
2nd: 1%
3rd: 2%
4th: 3%

and so on. Cap it at 10-15% and see what happenes. Social security is taxed. Unemployment is taxed. Why not welfare?
Let the screaming critisims begin...

Personally, I disagree with welfare, unemployment, et al being taxed. Seems like pointless waste and red tape. It's a hold over from certain things being tax deductable that would be better served as non means tested hand outs.

As for jobs. Hate to say it but business isn't a job creator. Business creates and looses jobs as product demands. To raise demand you need to increase peoples ability to buy.
That means decent wages. That means creating jobs that aren't product/demand based.
That means infrastructure.
Which means government spending on said infrastructure.

Basically, a thriving working class.

(US military spending is no doubt helping you guys. After all the USS Ronald Reagan is a fairly big chunk of infrastructure . )

As an aside, it will be interesting to see how many jobs Obamacare added to the healthcare system. And whether those businesses involved shifted them off shore.

If the economy is driven by demand, the inflation riddled 70's and early 80's would have been unmitigated booms. They weren't because ceteris paribus increasing demand increases prices. Increases in production is a better driver of economic expansion. As more things become available to buy costs decrease and more people become able to buy the increased amount of cheaper goods.

Increased production follows increased demand only if the increased demand is seen as sustainable. Increased government handouts is by its nature temporary and subject to the whim of current party in power.

So your prescription won't work the next time it is tried just like it didn't work the many other times it has been tried.

Annachie wrote:Personally, I disagree with welfare, unemployment, et al being taxed. Seems like pointless waste and red tape. It's a hold over from certain things being tax deductable that would be better served as non means tested hand outs.

As for jobs. Hate to say it but business isn't a job creator. Business creates and looses jobs as product demands. To raise demand you need to increase peoples ability to buy.
That means decent wages. That means creating jobs that aren't product/demand based.
That means infrastructure.
Which means government spending on said infrastructure.

Basically, a thriving working class.

(US military spending is no doubt helping you guys. After all the USS Ronald Reagan is a fairly big chunk of infrastructure . )

As an aside, it will be interesting to see how many jobs Obamacare added to the healthcare system. And whether those businesses involved shifted them off shore.

Annachie wrote:...snip...

(US military spending is no doubt helping you guys. After all the USS Ronald Reagan is a fairly big chunk of infrastructure . )

As an aside, it will be interesting to see how many jobs Obamacare added to the healthcare system. And whether those businesses involved shifted them off shore.

For the first paragraph not sure what the grin means is that sarcasm or not.

Much like people don't understand the Honorverse why first versus second war build rates are so different. Government spending on defense (minus of course the corruption problem which any entrenched government program suffers from) defense spending actually is at least a one to one employment dollar to government dollar spent. You have to get 100,000 tons of stuff from point a to point b. So it does actually build jobs and roads (indirectly). Vice walking into a urban core or a farm and handing out dollars, which are fairly light. Which is why all those Senators and Representatives are so fixated on making sure their state gets as many of them as they can. Which, of course, also causes that corruption problem.

For the second early days yet. The affordable care act only applies to individuals not businesses unless of course you get a waiver. Unions seem to get most of those. I think. After paying all that money they desire it apparently.

And our bureaucrat are much more something.

Follow it for yourself.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/gr ... X1Q020SBEA

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/gr ... 6562000101

First one is "Real" personal cost second is all health care employees.

I would actually recommend reading all the stuff in the US employment report at least once. Thing is only ~40 pages of facts and figures.

Last link to things a little in perspective.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=POP

You can add a line to for health care employees versus pop. Enter CEU6562000101 in the last link add a series.

Have fun,
T2M

PS I generally don't like Real dollars as measuring inflation is a much debated topic. Normally I prefer to measure against GDP or total budget as a percentage.

Annachie wrote:Personally, I disagree with welfare, unemployment, et al being taxed. Seems like pointless waste and red tape. It's a hold over from certain things being tax deductable that would be better served as non means tested hand outs.
SNIP

It may seem pointles and red tapeish but my opinion is that it is a form of income, therefore taxable. This is wey I feel welfare should be taxed as well, it is income.
Alos, welfare is menat to help people get by, it is not meant to be used as long term solution. By taxing it, you would reduce the amount the person would get, probably to a low enough amount to encourage that person to go out and get a 40 hour minimum wage job, which should always be better then welfare, to encourage people to get off welfare. You do this by lowering the amount of welfare by taxing it. Which also gives more money to the government by taxes.

Commodore Oakius wrote:
It may seem pointles and red tapeish but my opinion is that it is a form of income, therefore taxable. This is wey I feel welfare should be taxed as well, it is income.
Alos, welfare is menat to help people get by, it is not meant to be used as long term solution. By taxing it, you would reduce the amount the person would get, probably to a low enough amount to encourage that person to go out and get a 40 hour minimum wage job, which should always be better then welfare, to encourage people to get off welfare. You do this by lowering the amount of welfare by taxing it. Which also gives more money to the government by taxes.

I like the idea of taxing welfare benefits regardless of how much is actually received in benefits. That incremental tax applies as people remain on welfare. However, earned income is taxed after tax exemptions are applied. On the margin welfare recipients will have an incentive to work rather than remain on welfare. That is if the tax exemptions, welfare payments and welfare tax rates are structured correctly.

Lord knows senior citizens work to maximize their after tax income and social security benefits. Work enough to minimize the tax on social security payments. Most seniors now to the hour, how much they can work to hit that balance. The same will happen for welfare recipients.

Sorry, the grin was the funny side of refering to an Aircraft carrier as mere infrastructure. Struck me as amusing.

Commodore Oakius wrote:

Annachie wrote:Personally, I disagree with welfare, unemployment, et al being taxed. Seems like pointless waste and red tape. It's a hold over from certain things being tax deductable that would be better served as non means tested hand outs.
SNIP

It may seem pointles and red tapeish but my opinion is that it is a form of income, therefore taxable. This is wey I feel welfare should be taxed as well, it is income.
Alos, welfare is menat to help people get by, it is not meant to be used as long term solution. By taxing it, you would reduce the amount the person would get, probably to a low enough amount to encourage that person to go out and get a 40 hour minimum wage job, which should always be better then welfare, to encourage people to get off welfare. You do this by lowering the amount of welfare by taxing it. Which also gives more money to the government by taxes.

That's kinda my point.
Here have some help, now give some of it back. If you want them to have less, give them less.

Also, if it's taxable, how does that effect the tax payable on a second job? (Second jobs tax higher down here. Welfare doesn't count but who says that will always be the case)

Also, being taxable means tax deductions. Which means BS tax deductions, and allthe associated crap. Let alone the cost to the tax department is assessments snd stuff.

Personally I'm a flat tax/high tax free threshold person myself.