• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Who pays for government?

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
CBOtable2.jpg


More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?
 
Last edited:
~60% getting more direct transfers than they are paying taxes sounds unhealthy to me.
 
~60% getting more direct transfers than they are paying taxes sounds unhealthy to me.

When future historians write about the causes of the collapse of the American republic, they'll probably point that out.
 
So what? Taken at face value, so what? As it should be. We are a society. A society of human beings supposedly capable of compassion for one another. Hopefully with enough compassion and/or shame not to want to live in luxury while our fellows live in hardship. It should be this and more as society deems necessary. That is, society as in a body of individuals living as members of a community not a body of corporations that looks upon humanity as a commodity to exploit.
 
So what? Taken at face value, so what? As it should be. We are a society. A society of human beings supposedly capable of compassion for one another. Hopefully with enough compassion and/or shame not to want to live in luxury while our fellows live in hardship. It should be this and more as society deems necessary. That is, society as in a body of individuals living as members of a community not a body of corporations that looks upon humanity as a commodity to exploit.

The "so what" is that these facts are in big contrast with the prevalent viewpoint on this board, that the oligarchy is in full power, that there is a war on poor people, the rich don't pay their "fair share", etc. Therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to present the facts.
 
Broadly, yes. Obviously they'd rather keep more money/power but from their point of view its a cheap way of maintain the vast income differential they enjoy. Remember the income differential not only provides them with more money, it also makes other people cheaper for them to buy/control.

Of course there are people who want to shift the curve a bit, have more income disparity and less stability, or more stability and less income disparity, but on the whole it works out pretty well for them, and for them we're on a pretty good spot on the curve.

Can anyone suggest any changes that could be made to modern society that would increase the power of the oligarchy? If not, then you pretty much have your answer.

Your table is interesting, but the critical point is not that there's a measly 18% net transfer rate, but rather that the extreme income disparity of the top 1% or so pushes the top income quintile to 400% of the median, and 1000% of those guys who get a net return of 18% on their taxes (as per line 3).
 
The "so what" is that these facts are in big contrast with the prevalent viewpoint on this board, that the oligarchy is in full power, that there is a war on poor people, the rich don't pay their "fair share", etc. Therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to present the facts.

We have an oligarchy. That is a fact. The rich are getting richer and everybody else is either stagnating or sinking. And the rich have control over the government and the courts.

What is not included in your little chart is how much money goes from the government to the rich.

Much of the military industrial complex is simply a government transfer to the rich.

Our foreign wars are government transfers to the rich.
 
We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States.


Historically speaking, the tax rates on the wealthy are much lower today than they were in the middle of the 20th Century - basically from FDR through Reagan.

Do you have a similar chart for, say, the same figures in 1955?
 
We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States.


Historically speaking, the tax rates on the wealthy are much lower today than they were in the middle of the 20th Century - basically from FDR through Reagan.

Do you have a similar chart for, say, the same figures in 1955?

That's not the only measure of progressiveness - the top marginal tax rate. In actuality, few ever paid those rates because there were so many loopholes. Additionally, the amount of taxes paid by the lower quintiles was higher, another criteria to look at for progressiveness.
 
The tax system is far from as progressive as the wealth gap.

There is no reason inheritance shouldn't be highly taxed. That is a check on oligarchy.

There is no reason income in the form of capital gains shouldn't be highly taxed.

The rich have eliminated many taxes that mostly effected them over the past 30 years.

And our schools and infrastructure crumbles as a result.
 
The tax system is far from as progressive as the wealth gap.

There is no reason inheritance shouldn't be highly taxed. That is a check on oligarchy.

There is no reason income in the form of capital gains shouldn't be highly taxed.

The rich have eliminated many taxes that mostly effected them over the past 30 years.

And our schools and infrastructure crumbles as a result.

The Myth of the Falling Bridge

How much does the U.S. spend on infrastructure compared to the rest of the world?

It's in the middle of the pack. Between 2001 and 2011, annual public investment averaged 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The average OECD nation spent 3 percent of GDP over the same period.

A 2011 study by Marco Percoco, a professor at Bocconi University in Italy, shows that U.S. public investment has tracked the OECD average since at least 1970. Developed nations invest between 2 percent and 3.5 percent of GDP. The U.S. is about where it should be -- close to peer nations such as Canada, Germany and Australia. Nations that spend substantially more tend to be in a phase of catch-up growth, such as South Korea and Poland.

Is the U.S. reducing its infrastructure spending?

It's been pretty steady. Total public construction spending has varied between 1.7 percent and 2.3 percent of GDP for the last 20 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By the Congressional Budget Office's slightly different measure, infrastructure spending has been between 2.3 percent and 3.1 percent of GDP since 1956.

Is the quality of infrastructure worsening?

Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.

Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer. The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.

Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.

Now, advocates for more infrastructure spending might believe that no road should have a pothole or ever be congested. But there’s a big pothole in that reasoning, called trade-offs. Timing aside, America seems to be spending about the right amount on infrastructure, just as it always has, just like most other developed nations.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-08/the-myth-of-the-falling-bridge

Let's not forget that we are slightly above average as a percent of GDP, but our GDP per capita is much higher than most of Europe. 30% higher than France, for example.

Actually, public education is getting better, not worse

Have America’s public schools gotten worse over time?

Americans seem to think so. Every time I write about why attending college is so crucial for moving up the income ladder — or, these days, for landing any job at all — I’m inundated with e-mails blaming the country’s K-12 system. Today’s workers have to go to college, readers argue, because our increasingly broken public schools have ceded responsibility for educating them.

Data from the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, a survey about education, reflect similar views. Over the past four decades, respondents have become increasingly likely to say that today’s students receive a “worse education” than they themselves did.

But it’s not clear that any of this is true, at least at the national level.

Few consistent tools are available to measure the quality of U.S. education over time; the best we have is probably the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, first administered in 1971. And believe it or not, NAEP scores have been steadily improving, with most national measures now at or around all-time highs. The biggest gains have generally gone to nonwhite students, helping narrow — though not eliminate — the achievement gap. Other metrics, too, suggest that schools are improving. Dropout rates are at record lows, and the share of high school students who take higher-level courses such as calculus has risen.

On some level, parents seem to know this. At least, they appear happy with the schools their own children attend.

In the most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, about 67 percent of public school parents said they would give their oldest child’s school a grade of “A” or “B.” But just 17 percent of the respondents would give “public schools nationally” the same score. This grading gap has widened in recent decades.

It’s a bit like “Fenno’s paradox,” named for political scientist Richard Fenno Jr.: Americans hate Congress but like their own congressman; they hate the public school system but like the school they actually interact with.

It’s hard to pinpoint why perceptions of national school quality, and especially changes in school quality, seem to depart from reality.

It could be the heavy media attention paid to the nation’s most troubled schools. Rising expectations might play a role, too, says Dana Goldstein, the author of “The Teacher Wars.” Decades ago, policymakers and education advocates pledged to close the achievement gap, and though it has narrowed, its persistence leads to disappointment.

Schools are also expected to make more students college-ready today than in the past. “The ’30s, ’40s and ’50s are often talked about as a golden age of public schools. Well, only 10 percent of students were going to college back then,” Goldstein says. “If our goal today is that only 10 percent get to college, then we’re doing awesome.”

Misplaced nostalgia may also weigh on public opinion. Just as old fogies like to claim they once walked 15 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways, perhaps they misremember how rigorous their own educations were.

“Going back to at least 1880, the business community has never said a nice word about public schools. Every generation of graduates is supposedly stupider than the last,” says David C. Berliner, a professor emeritus of education at Arizona State University. “The demonization of youth is a national pastime in the U.S.”

Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University, argues that the schools themselves are also being demonized, thanks to clear-eyed ideology rather than rose-colored nostalgia. “U.S. public education is the victim of a propaganda campaign to discredit it and promote privatization,” she says. She traces this back to the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” report from President Ronald Reagan’s education commission and argues that business leaders and politicians have increasingly used public schools since then as scapegoats for other societal ills.

I suspect other, less nefarious factors affect perceptions more. With college becoming the norm, the types of workers with no more than a high school diploma are more likely to be in the lower part of the talent distribution today than they were a generation ago. Employers might conflate this shifting composition of high-school-educated workers with a diminishing quality of high school education itself.

The truth is, today’s young people do need more, or at least different, kinds of training and education to succeed in the global marketplace for talent. And plenty of policy changes — like making the most challenging school districts more attractive places to work — could help improve outcomes for our most disadvantaged students. But in the meantime, let’s stop denying the measurable, if modest, progress that U.S. schools have made in the last half-century.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...23b020-3f6a-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html
 
The Myth of the Falling Bridge

What myth?

Our infrastructure is falling apart. Government spending in a for-profit privatized infrastructure improvement system is just another government transfer to the rich.

Have America’s public schools gotten worse over time?

The rest of the civilized world is moving towards free college education.

The US is moving towards college that is only affordable for the rich. Millions of students are graduating with huge debt.

It is a disgrace, but inheritance taxes and taxes on capital gains are nice and low, which keep the oligarchy very secure.
 
What myth?

Our infrastructure is falling apart. Government spending in a for-profit privatized infrastructure improvement system is just another government transfer to the rich.

Repeating it over and over does not make it true, no matter how much faith you have in it. Do you have some facts you wish to share, especially those that compare today to prior years?

The rest of the civilized world is moving towards free college education.

The US is moving towards college that is only affordable for the rich. Millions of students are graduating with huge debt.

We have a record share of our population attending and graduating college. Regardless, what does this have to do with, your words, "crumbling schools"?


It is a disgrace, but inheritance taxes and taxes on capital gains are nice and low, which keep the oligarchy very secure.

Please address your "crumbling schools and infrastructure" claims before jumping to different topics.
 
Repeating it over and over does not make it true, no matter how much faith you have in it.


So then it is your position that bridges, highways, dams, and other parts of our infrastructure are indestructible and don't need to be maintained?
 
Repeating it over and over does not make it true, no matter how much faith you have in it.


So then it is your position that bridges, highways, dams, and other parts of our infrastructure are indestructible and don't need to be maintained?

We are maintaining it. It's in significantly better condition than 20 years ago, and we continue to pour money into it at rates slightly above average for developed economies, as the article I posted pointed out.
 
So then it is your position that bridges, highways, dams, and other parts of our infrastructure are indestructible and don't need to be maintained?

We are maintaining it. It's in significantly better condition than 20 years ago, and we continue to pour money into it at rates slightly above average for developed economies, as the article I posted pointed out.


Ah, so you think the government is doing a bang-up job of maintaining the infrastructure, and should keep spending tax dollars on roads, bridges, dams, etc.


Got it.
 
We are maintaining it. It's in significantly better condition than 20 years ago, and we continue to pour money into it at rates slightly above average for developed economies, as the article I posted pointed out.


Ah, so you think the government is doing a bang-up job of maintaining the infrastructure, and should keep spending tax dollars on roads, bridges, dams, etc.


Got it.

Yes. The current rate of spending seems to be about right. I would actually encourage governments to take advantage of these historically low interest rates and invest in some new long term projects that pass a robust cost benefit analysis.
 
Yes. The current rate of spending seems to be about right. I would actually encourage governments to take advantage of these historically low interest rates and invest in some new long term projects that pass a robust cost benefit analysis.

Rate of spending means absolutely nothing.

What matters is how much of that spending is actually going towards fixing infrastructure and how much is going into the pocket of some corporate manager and major stockholder.
 
Back
Top Bottom