Posted on 12/26/2003 12:05:36 PM PST by liberallarry
In President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address, we are going to hear a lot about something called an "ownership society." The idea is that American workers aspire to be owners — owners of stock for their retirement, owners of homes, owners of businesses, owners of good health insurance and owners of the skills they need to navigate multiple changes of jobs and careers.
It sounds just great.
Take a closer look, however, and you will recognize the trademarked Bush combination of inspiring themes coupled with a complete absence of useful tools. In other words, "bait and switch."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I have no love, in particular, for George Bush. He's the least of two evils.
But I don't like bashing the POTUS, no matter who it is, on something that hasn't happened yet.
As opposed to the substantive, Democrat-crafted theme of "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century"? That was just pathetic.
I agree with the author that tax credits are the wrong way to go with this. Tax cuts, or their absolute elimination would be more proper.
Obviously, giving the latter tax credits will not help them buy anything substantial because they pay little or no taxes. The same argument applies with lesser force to an additional 10% to 20% because of the way the income curve is skewed.
Kuttner does suggest an alternative; something on the lines of what is being tried in the UK.
Oh, they're taxes...and as you go lower on the earnings scale they're an increasingly larger proportion of the taxes the individual pays.
So the percentage would change. By how much? I've never seen the figures but common sense tells you that it wouldn't change the income distribution figures (which is what counts) all that much...and has very little relevance for this thread.
What would you do - cut social security contributions in order to allow the money to be invested in other things? As it stands social security is the single best investment a poor person can make (investing after all is an art and a profession). Cutting it is more likely to benefit employers and brokers than your average poor worker.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to design a better program than social security - mandatory purchase of a home might be much better - but let's see it so we can all judge. That's why I posted this article; Kuttner proposes something realistic.
But tax credits at the expense of social security? Forget it. An obvious scam.
The bottom 50% pays very little taxes (if you don't count social security) which indicates very little discretionary income. Reducing their tax bill will not change that significantly.
If you include social security then cutting their contribution gives them more discretionary income but still not much. But it devastates social security. The effect will be - in most cases - a little more food and clothes, a better car, and no retirement. That's a criminal scam.
As it stands social security is the single best investment a poor person can make
Myopic and wrong. An investment that pays off at an average of about 3% is the "best" they can do? Ridiculous, condescending and frankly paternalistic. Investing in long-term CD's pays more than 3%! Short on facts: Sure sign that you've spotted a Liberal #1.
(investing after all is an art and a profession).
And poor people are incapable of artistic endeavors or professional talents? How elitist of you. I repeat, "condescending and frankly paternalistic". Liberal sign #2.
Cutting it is more likely to benefit employers and brokers than your average poor worker.
And anything that benefits one of the "unclean" (employers, the rich, white males, etc) is, reflexively, to be avoided. Class warfare rhetoric: Liberal sign #3. (Gee, maybe you could look at the overall benefits for the nation, since our government is supposed to represent ALL of our interests? Hmm...)
I'm not saying that it's not possible to design a better program than social security
Stating a blazingly obvious truth as if it makes previous ridiculous assertions less so: Liberal sign #4
mandatory purchase of a home might be much better
Mandating the behaviors of free citizens, especially those of the poor, in areas where the federal government has no authority to act at all: Liberal sign #5
LOL, Sign #6: the poster's name is "liberal". Guess I should've looked there first. ;^)
Anyway, I don't think that every left-leaning post should be zotted, since it gives us a chance to refute them point-by-point.
The poor have little discretionary income?!? Who would've guessed THAT?!?
Reducing their tax bill will not change that significantly.
And exactly why do you fffffffeel that this is an obligation of the federal government?
If you include social security then cutting their contribution gives them more discretionary income but still not much.
Again, why is it the federal government's job to give anything to anyone?
But it devastates social security.
Doctor, that patient was on the death-watch list long ago.
The effect will be - in most cases - a little more food and clothes, a better car, and no retirement. That's a criminal scam.
Gee, so allowing free citizens to take more control over their own earnings, while deflating a Ponzi scheme, is now a "criminal scam"? Those are some amazing semantic gymnastics! Exactly what is being "taken" to make this a crime, other than a small piece of your Socialist dream-state? How is this a scam, when the tax-payers can take their own earnings and invest it in exactly the same manner, or *GASP!*, even more wisely, efficiently, and with a greater rate if return?
Simply because you think so little of poor people and their abilities to live their own lives, you don't like what they will do with more of their own money, and so you want to make sure that the government further perpetuates a failing Pyramid Scheme where barely two workers (and falling) pay for each retirees, whereas at the onset, it was about 20 workers paying for each recipient. Yeah, THAT'S brilliant! Taking money from people (at gunpoint... IRS agents are well-armed, and you have no choice in the matter) to use it for a scheme that must fail at some point... THIS is the system you desperately want to protect... THIS is not the criminal enterprise, but returning money to those who earn it is?!? ROFL!!
No more so than saying a surgeon is far better qualified to operate on you than a peon. A meritocratic society recognizes that there are significant differences in merit. Even communists did that...they just said merit shouldn't form the basis for reward.
An investment that pays off at an average of about 3% is the "best" they can do?...Investing in long-term CD's pays more than 3%! Short on facts: Sure sign that you've spotted a Liberal #1.
And where are the poor - who by your own admission have no discretionary income - supposed to get the capital to buy long term CDs? Perhaps, you're proposing that social security be changed to allow/encourage pooling of resources to buy such investments? Did I not say that better programs than social security might be possible? So spare me the gratuitous insults - which are too often a sure sign of self-righteous ignorance.
And poor people are incapable of artistic endeavors or professional talents? How elitist of you. I repeat, "condescending and frankly paternalistic". Liberal sign #2
In individual cases, of course they are. En masse, of course not. The average IQ is 100 - which means half the population has a lower IQ. Spare me your ridiculous propaganda.
And anything that benefits one of the "unclean" (employers, the rich, white males, etc) is, reflexively, to be avoided. Class warfare rhetoric: Liberal sign #3.
You are increasingly incoherent. I have nothing against those who become wealthy by creating wealth. To the contrary. I have a great deal of hostility toward thieves and con men...who too often populate our largest investment firms and make a great deal of money by fleecing unsophisticated investors.
Mandating the behaviors of free citizens, especially those of the poor, in areas where the federal government has no authority to act at all
What a crock. All law mandates behavior. The areas which are to be mandated, and how they are to be mandated, are decided by vote of the citizens, not by the self-righteous who mistake their views for reality.
Certainly not the people who proposed giving them tax credits as a way of helping them out of poverty.
And exactly why do you fffffffeel that this is an obligation of the federal government?
Why don't you ask the people who are proposing tax credits for them?
Doctor, that patient was on the death-watch list long ago
The patient is sick so I guess we should kill him. That's your philosophy?
Gee, so allowing free citizens to take more control over their own earnings, while deflating a Ponzi scheme, is now a "criminal scam"?...Exactly what is being "taken" to make this a crime...How is this a scam, when the tax-payers can take their own earnings and invest it in exactly the same manner, or even more wisely, efficiently, and with a greater rate if return?
History has shown repeatedly that the poor are not very good at investing, cannot normally acquire enough capital to purchase good investments, find it difficult to pool resources, and are far too often victimized by sharpies - who often do that by telling them that they're smarter than they are.
Simply because you think so little of poor people and their abilities to live their own lives, you don't like what they will do with more of their own money, and so you want to make sure that the government further perpetuates a failing Pyramid Scheme where barely two workers (and falling) pay for each retirees, whereas at the onset, it was about 20 workers paying for each recipient. Yeah, THAT'S brilliant! Taking money from people (at gunpoint... IRS agents are well-armed, and you have no choice in the matter) to use it for a scheme that must fail at some point... THIS is the system you desperately want to protect... THIS is not the criminal enterprise, but returning money to those who earn it is?!?
The poor always, ALWAYS, vote to retain and expand Social Security. No doubt, you think that's because they're too dumb to understand its real nature? Typical of people like you...I'll bet you don't see the contradiction in your views even now.
It's a failing Ponzi scheme only if it isn't adjusted - either by raising the retirement age, or funding it with more taxes, or increasing the ROI.
Taxes are always collected from people at gun-point - no matter how they're spent. That's the price one pays for living in a civilized society. If you don't like it go live in the jungle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.