How much longer...

[IBCoupe]

Greg,
That's just a matter of determining where you draw the line, not that a line is drawn, or that it's drawn in the same place for everybody.

[stebo0728]

The "Fair Tax Prebate" is a check the government mails out to everyone. This doesn't make it less regressive. Want to know why? Google "What do poor people do with checks from the government?" and watch your "non-regression" turn right back into a "hidden regression." Rich people invest their cash. Poor people spend it. Unless you've got some magic way of labeling that $183/month or whatever check from the government as "not-to-be-taxed," you haven't really avoided much of the regression, as 23% of it will still go right back to the government.

A poor person who invests none and spends all of the cash the government gives will have pocketed $1,694/year of the $2,200 that the government sends them, right? That's 77%. At the end of 10 years, they will have gotten an extra $16,940.

A rich person who invests all of the cash the government gives them will have pocketed $2,200, and will be earning an average of, say, 7% annually. If they invest every year's "prebate" (except, of course for the 10th year's prebate whose value would only be $2200), then at the end of 10 years, they will have gotten an extra $34,738.

Ok, now I know you can be smarter than this. Surely the entire concept of the prebate is not REALLY lost on you. Its so ruddy simply. Household of size n is calculated to pay x in FairTax per month buying essentials. In order to remove EVERYONES tax burden on essentials, x amount is distributed to EVERYONE at the beginning of every month. For a family that buys only essentials each month, they have ZERO tax burden. Couple that with the concept that the removal of embedded taxes will cause prices of goods to fall to nearly the price they are now INCLUDING the FairTax amount, that leaves poor families benefiting the MOST from the plan. You are getting bogged down in the fact that the family will be paying FairTax when spending the prebate money. Well they are SUPPOSED to, and remember they are also spending their own income as well, and the whole reason for the prebate is to give them the expected FairTax money ahead of time to alleviate their tax burden on those essentials. None of the figures you've thrown out above matter in the least. Everyone gets the prebate, and anyone who decided to live at the level where they only buy essentials will be a wash. Does that mean wealthy people can do the same? Sure, but the level of living required to do this is not particularly comfortable. Any spending over and above this level will be taxed, and wealthy people understand that the indeed do have some responsibility to pay tax, and when the tax they pay is much more clear, and under their control, then things will go much smoother. Is the FairTax progressive? No not particularly, but its definitely NOT regressive when you get all your information straight, and consider it properly. If your completely infatuated with a progressive taxation system, well then you just suffer from a sickness that there just really is no cure for.

I don't understand what you think was contradictory about my first argument. My point is that it's regressive because a flat tax ignores the flat minimum that is a basic cost of living. If that minimum is $2500, it's 10% for a person who makes $25,000/year, but it's only 1% for a person who makes $250,000. If we set a flat tax at 20%, that lower-income person will be left with only 65% (or $16,250) and the higher-income person will be left with 79% (or $197,500) of their income.

The difference between a progressive tax advocate and a flat tax advocate is that the latter examines the percentage the government takes away, and the former examines the percentage the government leaves behind.

What part do you not understand about the notion that your progressive tax structure completely penalizes innovation and ambition and personal growth? Whats the incentive to be a bigger contributor to society if your just gonna be plundered of your success by the lazy?

A flat percentage may leave more in the pocket of the wealthier individual, and my response is: SO DAMN WHAT? Its their money to begin with, its not yours, its not the governments. Everyone has an equal amount of responsibility to fund the government, and that equal amount, when calculated FAIRLY, is a set percentage. The higher your income, the higher your tax payment amount, but the percentage should stay the same. Yes that means maybe you keep more, but if the poor are bent out of shape about that, then get off your a** and do something and quit being envious.

[WDRacing]

What part do you not understand about the notion that your progressive tax structure completely penalizes innovation and ambition and personal growth? Whats the incentive to be a bigger contributor to society if your just gonna be plundered of your success by the lazy?

A flat percentage may leave more in the pocket of the wealthier individual, and my response is: SO DAMN WHAT? Its their money to begin with, its not yours, its not the governments. Everyone has an equal amount of responsibility to fund the government, and that equal amount, when calculated FAIRLY, is a set percentage. The higher your income, the higher your tax payment amount, but the percentage should stay the same. Yes that means maybe you keep more, but if the poor are bent out of shape about that, then get off your a** and do something and quit being envious.

Probably the best thing I'll read all month. What is so hard to understand about fair? Oh...it means the people that choose not to improve their lives have to be accountable. Can't have that now can we.

[AZhitman]

While there aren't nearly enough jobs, there are more of them -- a lot more. Since the month after the recession ended, the number of available jobs has surged 44%, according to the Labor Department. Job vacancies are nowhere near pre-recession levels (according to the Conference Board, there are still 10.4 million more unemployed workers than advertised vacancies). Still, there are as many as three million jobs going unfilled.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/10/news/ec ... htm?hpt=T2

By all means, let's keep handing out checks.

[audtatious]

Probably the best thing I'll read all month. What is so hard to understand about fair? Oh...it means the people that choose not to improve their lives have to be accountable. Can't have that now can we.

Birthright makes things not fair. So I'm told.

[stebo0728]

Probably the best thing I'll read all month. What is so hard to understand about fair? Oh...it means the people that choose not to improve their lives have to be accountable. Can't have that now can we.

Birthright makes things not fair. So I'm told.

Only in the minds of the liberal.

[IBCoupe]

Ok, now I know you can be smarter than this. Surely the entire concept of the prebate is not REALLY lost on you. Its so ruddy simply. Household of size n is calculated to pay x in FairTax per month buying essentials. In order to remove EVERYONES tax burden on essentials, x amount is distributed to EVERYONE at the beginning of every month. For a family that buys only essentials each month, they have ZERO tax burden. Couple that with the concept that the removal of embedded taxes will cause prices of goods to fall to nearly the price they are now INCLUDING the FairTax amount, that leaves poor families benefiting the MOST from the plan. You are getting bogged down in the fact that the family will be paying FairTax when spending the prebate money. Well they are SUPPOSED to, and remember they are also spending their own income as well, and the whole reason for the prebate is to give them the expected FairTax money ahead of time to alleviate their tax burden on those essentials. None of the figures you've thrown out above matter in the least. Everyone gets the prebate, and anyone who decided to live at the level where they only buy essentials will be a wash. Does that mean wealthy people can do the same? Sure, but the level of living required to do this is not particularly comfortable. Any spending over and above this level will be taxed, and wealthy people understand that the indeed do have some responsibility to pay tax, and when the tax they pay is much more clear, and under their control, then things will go much smoother. Is the FairTax progressive? No not particularly, but its definitely NOT regressive when you get all your information straight, and consider it properly. If your completely infatuated with a progressive taxation system, well then you just suffer from a sickness that there just really is no cure for.

You didn't read a word of what I wrote, did you? The flaw with the "prebate" isn't the design of the system, it's the way people invariably behave. In fact, the flaw in so much of your thinking on tax structure is that you seem to have a fundamental misconception of how individuals act.

What part do you not understand about the notion that your progressive tax structure completely penalizes innovation and ambition and personal growth? Whats the incentive to be a bigger contributor to society if your just gonna be plundered of your success by the lazy?

A flat percentage may leave more in the pocket of the wealthier individual, and my response is: SO DAMN WHAT? Its their money to begin with, its not yours, its not the governments. Everyone has an equal amount of responsibility to fund the government, and that equal amount, when calculated FAIRLY, is a set percentage. The higher your income, the higher your tax payment amount, but the percentage should stay the same. Yes that means maybe you keep more, but if the poor are bent out of shape about that, then get off your a** and do something and quit being envious.

The part where innovation and ambition thrived when we had a 90% tax on the highest income amounts is what confuses me about your fantasy. See my above response: PEOPLE DO NOT CUT OFF THEIR NOSES TO SPITE THEIR FACES. People innovate and have ambition because they are competitive. When will you figure out that the dollar amount isn't what's important? It's the thickness of your wallet, compared to the guy next to you. There is no tax system suggested today, in existence now, or ever seriously proposed for this country that involves making it so everybody has the same pay. Even if we raised taxes on income over $250,000 to 95%, a millionaire still has notably more cash than a person making $150,000, if for no other reason that the marginal tax rates ensure that that first $250,000 is at a lower rate!

The theory that progressive tax rates hinders growth or competition, or ambition or innovation is absolute crap. Please stop spreading it. More money is still more money, even if the government takes a bigger cut of the extra dollar.

[stebo0728]

You didn't read a word of what I wrote, did you? The flaw with the "prebate" isn't the design of the system, it's the way people invariably behave. In fact, the flaw in so much of your thinking on tax structure is that you seem to have a fundamental misconception of how individuals act.

Yep, actually read it a few times, none of it mattered. You seem to think I (or the government for that matter) should give a damn what people do with their money. Well I dont, and neither should you or the government. The FairTax levels the playing field WHILE giving real incentive to both consumer and commercial endeavors. It creates a FAIR taxation system, I dont care if people spend or save the prebate, doesnt matter, BUT, the beautiful thing about the FairTax is, you cant truely shelter from it. Its everywhere, all goods, all services, at least some portion of it MUST be paid by ANYONE spending a DIME in this nation, regardless of employment status, regardless of citizenship status, regardless of income status OR source. So to 180 back to my rebuttal, the PREBATE is for TAXATION spent on NECESSITIES, things people will HAVE to buy and thus pay tax for, and the prebate eradicates that tax burden, so that, and heres the most important part, SO THAT no stupid "opt-out" our "exemption" or "waiver" crap has to be instituted in the tax, the tax can be placed with ZERO TOLERANCE fortitude on ALL good and services NO MATTER WHO buys. You seem to think people are just going to take the prebate and stash it, well in actuality, with rare exception, they CANT because they MUST LIVE, and to do so requires SPENDING a nominal amount on supplies and food.

The part where innovation and ambition thrived when we had a 90% tax on the highest income amounts is what confuses me about your fantasy. See my above response: PEOPLE DO NOT CUT OFF THEIR NOSES TO SPITE THEIR FACES. People innovate and have ambition because they are competitive. When will you figure out that the dollar amount isn't what's important? It's the thickness of your wallet, compared to the guy next to you. There is no tax system suggested today, in existence now, or ever seriously proposed for this country that involves making it so everybody has the same pay. Even if we raised taxes on income over $250,000 to 95%, a millionaire still has notably more cash than a person making $150,000, if for no other reason that the marginal tax rates ensure that that first $250,000 is at a lower rate!

The theory that progressive tax rates hinders growth or competition, or ambition or innovation is absolute crap. Please stop spreading it. More money is still more money, even if the government takes a bigger cut of the extra dollar.

AGAIN, its none of yours mine or anyones GOLRAM business how much someone else makes after taxation, and something you MUST realize in order to proceed, people today are MUCH different that the people who lived during the 90% days of old. If you get taxation on the wealthy, the JOB PRODUCERS, the ECONOMY SUPPORTING people in this nation, they'll just find someplace else to call home. The wont cut their nose off to spite their face, they'll just move their whole face somewhere else. Progressive tax rates ABSOLUTELY hinder growth and competition. Im not sure if you are familiar with physics studies, but theres a concept called "all things considered nominal" where things like wind resistence, tidal forces, and the like are ignored for general theoretical purpose, well look at the economy the same way. All things considered nominal, meaning all nations are considered typically equal withing a margin of error, then you take a progressive tax structured nation and pit it against a non-progressive tax structured nation, I guarantee you who the victor will be. Heres whats important, every day we are getting closer to a point where we are at a status of "all things considered nominal" More and more nations are entering the first world, waking up, harboring business by incentivizing it, while America continues to penalize it, and appoint leaders who demonize the concept of profit, who shutter to think a company can sell an item for any more than it costs to produce, who cant understand the difference between profit and profit margin. Our days of dominance are limited unless we wake up.

[stebo0728]

Ok going to take a crack at revisionism that Helio excels at:

The theory that [the earth revolves around the sun] is absolute crap. Please stop spreading it.

What next, guillotine in town square?

[IBCoupe]

You seem to think I (or the government for that matter) should give a damn what people do with their money. Well I dont, and neither should you or the government.

Then why give a prebate at all?

The FairTax levels the playing field WHILE giving real incentive to both consumer and commercial endeavors.

No, it doesn't. It benefits the already wealthy. That's not "leveling the playing field," that's just adding extra soil evenly across the existing playing field. The playing field sits on a 20 degree angle right now, and you've got the absurd idea that adding 2" of soil across the board will make it any easier to play.

This is the problem with not caring about how people behave. This is why it's important to understand what people actually do with their money. This is where your thinking goes wrong: because you don't understand basic, fundamental human economics, you'll never know if, when, or how the playing field can be leveled.

It creates a FAIR taxation system, I dont care if people spend or save the prebate, doesnt matter, BUT, the beautiful thing about the FairTax is, you cant truely shelter from it. Its everywhere, all goods, all services, at least some portion of it MUST be paid by ANYONE spending a DIME in this nation, regardless of employment status, regardless of citizenship status, regardless of income status OR source.

No, it doesn't. $5 isn't the same to everyone.

So to 180 back to my rebuttal, the PREBATE is for TAXATION spent on NECESSITIES, things people will HAVE to buy and thus pay tax for, and the prebate eradicates that tax burden, so that, and heres the most important part, SO THAT no stupid "opt-out" our "exemption" or "waiver" crap has to be instituted in the tax, the tax can be placed with ZERO TOLERANCE fortitude on ALL good and services NO MATTER WHO buys. You seem to think people are just going to take the prebate and stash it, well in actuality, with rare exception, they CANT because they MUST LIVE, and to do so requires SPENDING a nominal amount on supplies and food.

A great speech, but once again, the prebate pays out to the rich more than twice what it pays out to the poor. This is the problem with handing government money to people who don't need it. I understand that they'll have to pay for basic necessities, Stebo, I do. I'm just saying that the check you give them comes after they've already paid for what they need, and handing them a check does more than "level the playing field;" it continues to build up one side of it.

AGAIN, its none of yours mine or anyones GOLRAM business how much someone else makes after taxation,

I'm afraid that you and the point are on opposite sides of the globe. I was talking about human behavior again, Stebo, and maybe that's where there's a disconnect. Your net worth is just a number, until you have a context within which to put it. That context is why people compete. "There's something better out there for me to have." Maybe it's status, maybe it's a car. Whatever it is, you're striving for it, and what the government takes from you makes literally no difference if it's no harder for you to get that car than it is anyone else you're competing against.

and something you MUST realize in order to proceed, people today are MUCH different that the people who lived during the 90% days of old.

No, Stebo, they're the same people. We're still among the top ten nations in the world for business.

If you get taxation on the wealthy, the JOB PRODUCERS, the ECONOMY SUPPORTING people in this nation, they'll just find someplace else to call home. The wont cut their nose off to spite their face, they'll just move their whole face somewhere else.

No they won't. And you know why? 'Cause even if our tax structure wasn't already favorable for businesses, even if our workforce wasn't favorable for businesses, our government and society are f*** rarities. The quality of life in America, coupled with the business-friendly nature of things here will keep rich people here. It absolutely will, taxes notwithstanding. Maybe it was in this thread, maybe it was in another, but I explicated exactly when and why it's not in some couple's best interest to get married for tax purposes, but I was sure to point out: YOUR LIFE IS NOT GOVERNED BY TAX DECISIONS. And neither are the lives of the wealthy.

Progressive tax rates ABSOLUTELY hinder growth and competition. Im not sure if you are familiar with physics studies, but theres a concept called "all things considered nominal" where things like wind resistence, tidal forces, and the like are ignored for general theoretical purpose, well look at the economy the same way. All things considered nominal, meaning all nations are considered typically equal withing a margin of error, then you take a progressive tax structured nation and pit it against a non-progressive tax structured nation, I guarantee you who the victor will be. Heres whats important, every day we are getting closer to a point where we are at a status of "all things considered nominal" More and more nations are entering the first world, waking up, harboring business by incentivizing it, while America continues to penalize it, and appoint leaders who demonize the concept of profit, who shutter to think a company can sell an item for any more than it costs to produce, who cant understand the difference between profit and profit margin. Our days of dominance are limited unless we wake up.

As I just finished writing: all things are not nominal. There's more to life than taxes.

But second, and more importantly, our days of dominance have long passed. We are already beholden to foreign interests. What we say doesn't always go, and we will never again be able to carry on in the world unilaterally. And it's not because of income tax. It's not because of corporate tax. It's because our natural resources are gone. It's because the natural resources in the spheres of our influence are waning. And because those natural resources are gone, our growth can't be based on cheap, back-breaking labor, where numbers count and brain cells don't.

The American Nation is at a turning point. We can either continue to beat ourselves up in order to scramble to stay on the top at all costs, or we can accept the inevitability of our fall from grace and construct for ourselves a parachute. We can be like Britain, or we can be like the Soviet Union; it's your choice. America does not penalize business; it absolutely does not. We have probably way more incentives for business than we can rightly afford, and we're doing it at the cost of good health and good education. That can only mean that when China finally does surpass us (if it hasn't already), we're going to fall and we're going to fall hard, because our workforce will not be ready for the new roles that will be required of it.

We can be like Russia, relying on the threat of nuclear war as our only excuse for having any influence in the world. Or we can be like England, and recognize that we need to stop over-straining ourselves, that we will cease to be the "World Leader" soon, and can instead choose to become its top adviser by having the best brains that a society with free thought and great support can provide.

[stebo0728]

Then why give a prebate at all?

Because of one principle. A principle I expect you will disagree with, but hey I can only show you the water fountain, I cant make you drink. People should not begin to consider a burden to fund their government until they have first met the needs of themselves and their dependents. Now when I say needs, I mean NEEDS. That does not include lavish wants and desires. Whether you realize it or not, this principle is in place with our current system, and its called a standard deduction. The FairTax removes the income tax completely, but the same principle applies, and the prebate is how it is handled.

No, it doesn't. It benefits the already wealthy. That's not "leveling the playing field," that's just adding extra soil evenly across the existing playing field. The playing field sits on a 20 degree angle right now, and you've got the absurd idea that adding 2" of soil across the board will make it any easier to play.

This is the problem with not caring about how people behave. This is why it's important to understand what people actually do with their money. This is where your thinking goes wrong: because you don't understand basic, fundamental human economics, you'll never know if, when, or how the playing field can be leveled.

Im confused, are you caring SPECIFICALLY about what people do with the prebate, or what they do with their money in general. Neither matters to anyone but themselves, but I just want to be clear what bothers you. A nation prospers when its people prosper, and this nations people have not been able to truely prosper for a while under our currently overbearing taxation system. The machine is full of ghosts. People mistakenly messing up their income taxes and forced to pay exorbitant penalties and interest, and some even face jail time. If the government runs short, heck they just delay sending you your rebates, but then a citizen runs short, and dont dare be late on a payment. Imagine a society where taxation was based on consumption, and people were allowed to CONTROL their taxation based on their consumption. Imagine not having to do a once a year stress fest to get a tax return filed, where theres no tangible way to know if its correct or not, but instead you just pay taxation on consumption, knowing that your necessities are tax free because of the rebate, and then you know for a fact what your actual tax responsibility is gonna be, because you know that when you go buy those extra clothes, or those appliances, you KNOW what the tax for its going to be. Our government has managed to create a flock of sheople, controlled by a tax system NO ONE understands anymore.

You say the already wealthy benefit. Sure they do, but so do the already poor, everyone benefits. But now all of a sudden there is a sense of TRUE stability. Everyone now KNOWS what the score is, and can plan accordingly. Another wonderful aspect of the plan is that your tax is right there, printed on your receipt, everytime you purchase. You KNOW what you paid in tax. Any should the time come to change the rate, it will be nearly impossible to sneak it under the rug, because the rate will be the only aspect to consider, not sneaky this, snurky that, just one number, the rate. And congress would have to give damn good reason for the increase, and would know if it was unwarranted, they may well be sealing their imending unemployment status.

No, it doesn't. $5 isn't the same to everyone.

No, its a stock share to some, to others its a pack of cigarettes.

A great speech, but once again, the prebate pays out to the rich more than twice what it pays out to the poor. This is the problem with handing government money to people who don't need it. I understand that they'll have to pay for basic necessities, Stebo, I do. I'm just saying that the check you give them comes after they've already paid for what they need, and handing them a check does more than "level the playing field;" it continues to build up one side of it.

Your just not interested in creating a fair system, thats fine, just own up to it. Admit that one man should be forced to carry another man through life, and lets move on. It absolutely levels the playing field, but perhaps I should have clarified a bit further, it levels the field for those who care to play. Anyone who doesnt care to play can, as you like to say, F*ck off!

No, Stebo, they're the same people. We're still among the top ten nations in the world for business.

Now the nation with THE largest corporate income tax we are. Japan had us, but now they've lowered theirs 5%, putting us on top.

Ill get to the rest later, out of time..

[C-Kwik]

While there aren't nearly enough jobs, there are more of them -- a lot more. Since the month after the recession ended, the number of available jobs has surged 44%, according to the Labor Department. Job vacancies are nowhere near pre-recession levels (according to the Conference Board, there are still 10.4 million more unemployed workers than advertised vacancies). Still, there are as many as three million jobs going unfilled.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/10/news/ec ... htm?hpt=T2

By all means, let's keep handing out checks.

Greg, you know its not as simple as that. According to the same article:

"Various economists have posited various reasons for this mismatch:

* Employers, still reeling from all the downsizing they've had to do, are pickier about whom they hire and slower to close the deal.

* Jobless workers, especially those out of work for months and years, don't have the skills to multitask in a fast-paced economy where medical workers need to know electronic record-keeping, machinists need computer skills, and marketing managers can no longer delegate software duties.

* Workers, some of whom feel cushioned by unemployment benefits, are too picky to take lower-paying or less prestigious jobs.

* There is a geographic divide between where the jobless are -- states like Florida, Nevada, and Michigan -- and where the jobs are -- states like Maryland, South Dakota, and Iowa. Relocation is especially hard if your mortgage is under water."

[stebo0728]

Heres another bit for you. The nation has diverged so far from what it was originally intended to be. Originally if you were to say "everyone should have an equal amount of stuff" you would immediately be answered by "well then everyone should do an equal amount of work". Its not that way anymore. Our nation was designed to be a collection of people, free to do as they please, with a government only large and developed enough to keep the people therein safe, and to settle disputes between parties. This nation is the land of opportunity. Opportunity comes with risk. You have the potential in the nation to make the best for yourself and your family. You also have the opportunity to fall on your face and fail. A large portion of what determines which way you go, is how much determination you have. I love the phrase "you're never gonna get anywhere in life until you start coming home from work in the dark" People are so entrenched in the notion of a 40 hour work week that they'll do no more, and will try to do less. But we encourage this, and at the same time we discourage the opposite with our current system of taxation. You've created this wonderland where everyone has a God given right to whatever they need, regardless of their ability to provide it for themselves. This magical wonderland requires someone to foot the bill. To support this, you've dreamed up a scenario where one man is responsible for the well being of another, put systems into place that allow our government to hold one man at gun point and plunder him of his own hard earned money, and give it to another man who is without. It matters not whether this person is without due to their own actions or unforseen circumstances. You sit on once side and say it matters not why they are poor, give them some of your money NOW. I sit on the other side and say it matters not why they are poor, I'll give them money if I choose to, but the government has to right to make me. You can quote all your liberal arts professors, make glorious altruistic statements, and fancy it up any way you like, but at the end of the day, IT IS NOT A PROPER FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PLUNDER ONE MAN TO THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER. Wealth in this nation is not bestowed upon us by the government, it is earned by our blood sweat and tears. To plunder my pockets at the point of a gun does not just deprive me of some of my money, no, that money represents more than just currency, it is a portion of my LIFE. This is a crucial part of the "health care is a right" myth. To say so is to say that one man has a right to a portion of another mans life. This cannot be, and to deem it so disrespects liberty, and disavows any rights to private property.

[stebo0728]

And a quote to help explain how we get where we are today:

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

[wingFeather]

R U on crack?

It is not a winey sense of entitlement but what makes economic sense.

At least one person in Congress has some smarts.

I thought the GOP was for reducing debt and balanced budgets?
They increased the national debt with spending for two unpaid wars while giving tax cuts that did not increase job growth. The tax cuts did the opposite and put us in the hole we are now in.

President Clinton left us with a balanced budget and a budget surplus.

If you are so smart why don't you tell us how to reduce spending and what should be cut out of the national budget.

So I guess U are for increasing our national debt by 700 billion while giving tax cuts to the wealthest Americans?

Seems like fuzzy math to me.

Telcoman

Poster child...

[AZhitman]

Chano, you certainly can't think that I didn't read the whole article.

The point is, the posited reasons don't matter, nor do they alter the condition. They're attempted explanations, and they make sense.

They don't remove the absolute truth: People are survivors - they're resilient, resourceful, and amazingly adaptable. But if you continue to hand-feed them, without asking them to even get off the goddamn couch, you wind up with a complacent, brain-dead, dependent shell of a person. At some point, those people cease to contribute to the fabric of society.

[C-Kwik]

Chano, you certainly can't think that I didn't read the whole article.

Of course not. You just neglected to mention it as a factor.

The point is, the posited reasons don't matter, nor do they alter the condition. They're attempted explanations, and they make sense.

They certainly do alter the condition from when economic conditions aren't so grim. Which is why extensions are on the table in the first place.

They don't remove the absolute truth: People are survivors - they're resilient, resourceful, and amazingly adaptable. But if you continue to hand-feed them, without asking them to even get off the goddamn couch, you wind up with a complacent, brain-dead, dependent shell of a person. At some point, those people cease to contribute to the fabric of society.

People indeed are survivors. But we aren't invincible nor immune to the effects of a bad economy. I understand the resentment for the leeches of society, but that certainly doesn't describe the whole of people who are on UI. And while the prospect of more available jobs is encouraging, it doesn't mean the people who are unemployed are going to simply be able to step into jobs as they become available. Its just not as absolute as you seem to believe.

[AZhitman]

Good. Then let's have them implement a system that WILL weed out the "leeches". Let's match skilled individuals with available jobs and get them in them. The savings will MORE than pay for it.

But no. It's far easier just to piss away MY money by handing out a check every month for TWO GODDAMN YEARS (or more) to EVERYONE who asks for it.

They're not even TRYING to disguise the fact that it's social engineering.

[C-Kwik]

Good. Then let's have them implement a system that WILL weed out the "leeches". Let's match skilled individuals with available jobs and get them in them. The savings will MORE than pay for it.

So how do we do that other than by having companies post openings, and going through the hiring process to determine if a person appears to have the skills to take on that job. While I am with you in concept, the practical aspect of it is much more difficult to find a real working solution.

But no. It's far easier just to piss away MY money by handing out a check every month for TWO GODDAMN YEARS (or more) to EVERYONE who asks for it.

You mean, to everyone who qualifies and asks. I certainly understand that not everyone that received benefits technically qualifies, but once they are passed the initial review of their case to determine initial qualifications, they would have to audit each case individually to determine if on an ongoing basis the beneficiary continues to qualify. That is, whether or not they are willing able and seeking work. Its hard enough during normal levels of unemployment. At high levels, there would be a proportionately larger amount of workload required to do that. Even if we simply use auditing techniques on random or suspicious cases, in order to sample an effective cross section, we would require more man hours to do so. That said, there is likely some point at which some level of audit is effective in helping to limit fraud, but at some point it will likely become more expensive than the realized savings from catching fraud.

They're not even TRYING to disguise the fact that it's social engineering.

That's a stretch. There is no intent to try and create these "leeches" we are speaking of. So what is there to disguise? I'm certainly aware of the negative side effects you are addressing, but the bigger question is does the good outweigh the bad or vice versa. I doubt you could assert things so simply when you evaluate the problem much more comprehensively.

[AZhitman]

I assess risk and audit fraud for a living (CFE and a lapsed CIA), and for something on this scale, it's not much of a stretch to see that the potential savings outweigh the salary / ERE of a team of auditors.

100 recipients per caseworker, at $12 an hour, and each one passes the "questionable" cases UP to a certified auditor for review - Bingo. It's how we managed probation caseloads (Surveillance officers did the monitoring, PO's didn't get involved unless there was an actionable issue).

[stebo0728]

I must say, Im not 100% clear on the whole UI process, but my understanding is that, at least some portion of it, is paid by companies that improperly release an employee, or rather, their Unemployment Insurance policy ends up paying for it. Now is that a separate animal altogether, or are these funds that are paid back into our system to help fund UI? And if so, Im curious as to what percentage of this is paid by companies and what is not. Of course, in reality its not paid by the company anyway, they pay a premium on an insurance policy, and said premium cost is factored into their goods and services prices. Now if Im confused correct me, and these may be 2 separate unemployment sources, Im just asking the question for clarity.

[C-Kwik]

Are you saying we audit every UI claim? How many do you expect to find that are fraudulent? And how does that compare to how much fraud is estimating to be occurring. And how effectively can we determine which cases are fraudulent? These case workers are likely going to have to do some legwork to determine of there is fraud. Sitting behind a desk in a cubicle probably means they will simply make calls to employers the recipients list on the continuing benefits form. If they have to do this with every employer listed, do you think HR departments aren't going to be inundated with calls? Do you think they will actually return every call? I'm sure they have more important things to do, like try and get people hired. There is an inherent logistical issue with UI claims in that it will rely heavily on other people who are under no obligation to provide you with the information that is needed. Surely, we could mandate its requirement, but expect a big fight on that one. Not to mention the level of error that is likely to exist.

Also its not going to cost $12/hour for a case worker. Like any office position, there is the cost of office space. Computer/phone equipment. Infrastructure and maintenance costs.

The underlying issue I have with this is what do we expect to save? Or more explicitly:

(How much fraud is occuring; dollar amount) x (What percentage of these cases can we realistically expect to catch) - (Cost of operations associated with detecting fraud)

There are other factors but these are the main ones. Without this kind of analysis, we don't know what kind of savings we will have. I have no numbers for this so its possible you may be right, but I tend to believe otherwise based on my own experiences investigating claims (of which I spent some time actively seeking fraud in specific types of claims). But I wouldn't make any kind of a decision on this on my opinion. Ultimately, from a financial perspective, its a numbers game. And without knowing the numbers, its all just speculation. Unless you are asserting that you don't care what it costs and that its okay to spend "your" money (possibly more of it) on the moral aspect. If it was a small additional cost, I could see the value. But if it ends up costing a lot more than we save, people aren't going to be too happy about where there money is going no more than you are happy with where you think the money is going now...

[C-Kwik]

I must say, Im not 100% clear on the whole UI process, but my understanding is that, at least some portion of it, is paid by companies that improperly release an employee, or rather, their Unemployment Insurance policy ends up paying for it. Now is that a separate animal altogether, or are these funds that are paid back into our system to help fund UI? And if so, Im curious as to what percentage of this is paid by companies and what is not. Of course, in reality its not paid by the company anyway, they pay a premium on an insurance policy, and said premium cost is factored into their goods and services prices. Now if Im confused correct me, and these may be 2 separate unemployment sources, Im just asking the question for clarity.

Yes and no. Most times, the employer that lets the employee go will ultimately pay for the UI benefits. Occassionally they may not have to, but the benefits will still be paid. I tried a career change into sales a few years ago and was let go after 2 months. My old company was off the hook since I left voluntarily without extenuating circumstances. I wasn't at the new job long enough to put them on the hook. But I still qualified for UI. To my knowledge neither company paid for my benefits. As for the extensions, I believe its the Federal Government that is funding those. Which is why its an issue in front of Congress now. Hope that helps clarify.

[R/T Hemi]

2) If you think $250K annually makes a family "wealthy", you're off your meds.

My good man, being new here, I don't know whether you're serious or not. However, If I may proceed, Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households (in 2009). ...Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income. (from FactCheck.org)

If however, you're debating the semantics of the word wealthy I'd like to post a snip from the Wealth Report blog.
A net worth of $1.4 million will put you in the top 5% of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve. That includes all assets, even the family home.


If, the top 2% earning almost a full quarter of the available income have not amassed 1.4 million in assets (including their home), and thereafter made it to the top 5% of the population wealth wise, then they have severe leak in their budget, or multiple wives.

I must therefore, disagree with your statement.

[audtatious]

So, punish people for success. Do you think we should simply take a higher percentage of their overall income or should they be further punished based on a progressive curve? Say, 5% penalty for every $50k/yr over 250k? The money can be spent to ensure those without get the latest bling bling while they sit at home.

What about location? Cost of living, say, in San Diego is quite a bit higher than where I live so should there be another COL curve to ensure I'm being properly punished for working 60+ hours a week? I want to make sure I'm paying my unfair share. What happens if I'm making over $250k and decide I want to only work enough to make $249k, should I be punished anyway because I'm being too lazy to provide for those without?

Welcome to NICO

[stebo0728]

....Say, 5% penalty for every $50k/yr over 250k?....

You said it all right there when you used the word PENALTY. This jacked up progressive tax system we have is NOT characteristic of capitalism, and it is not business or success friendly.

@ R/T Hemi
Welcome to the forum, it gets fun here sometimes
Since you threw out some stats, let me throw a few more your way....

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Top 50% of income earners (households earning more than 33k AGI) averaged 13.65% of income tax revenues. The bottom half averaged only 2.69%

Stats taken from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Now that last stat really starts to explain things a bit. With the cost of living as high as it is in much of the nation, and the bottom HALF of our families are only earning 33k per year? Everyone is getting lazy and lethargic, and pushing more toward government dependence, because the nanny state is here, and its easier. This will be our downfall if we continue it.

I'll leave you again with the quote:

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

[R/T Hemi]

Let's start this by assuming that paying taxes is a necessary evil. The government needs money, some of the people have it. So Uncle Sam has two options, raise it through taxes and fees, or borrow it. Personally, I have a problem borrowing when my kids and grandkids are going to inherit that debt. Taxes aren't punishment, they are a fine for poor choices and voting errors in the past. If hindsight was available as a voting tool, the years 2000-2008 would have seen a Democratic President and there may not have been such a panic to remove the Republicans from office in 2009.

Do you think we should simply take a higher percentage of their overall income or should they be further punished based on a progressive curve?

I think there has always been a progressive curve. The more you make, the more you pay. Who is better able to pay taxes, the person who, as you say, foregoes the "bling bling" to pay, or the person who takes it out of the food budget?

I don't buy the "hard work" argument. I don't believe a person who makes $250K works any harder than the police or firemen who serve us, or the E3 in Afghanistan humping the brush. But I do believe, the person who earns $250K is in a better position to pay more than any of the above wage earners.

Oh, and thank you for the welcome.

Edit:

[quote=Stebo]
Now that last stat really starts to explain things a bit. With the cost of living as high as it is in much of the nation, and the bottom HALF of our families are only earning 33k per year? Everyone is getting lazy and lethargic, and pushing more toward government dependence, because the nanny state is here, and its easier. This will be our downfall if we continue it.[/quote]

Everyone, always, never, no one, are very dangerous words. I'm sure there are unmotivated people who are willing to live on what the government dolls out, however, assuming that those who do so today are doing so because of laziness is unfounded. Let's revisit your argument when the economy has improved and we'll see if that's still your opinion.

Hum,quote didn't work...bad BB code.

[stebo0728]

The quote thing, Stebo needed to be in " " quotes to make it work

Well stated position, I happen to disagree that just because someone is in a "better position" to pay absolutely means they are obligated to do so. Everyone has equal access (arguable both directions) to our government and our socio-economic society, so in all honesty, everyone has an equal burden for it as well. The only real way to represent that fair burden, is with a percentage, and equal percentage. I have no preconception as to what that percentage should be, only that it be equal across the board. You say that the more you make the more you should pay, thats fine, a percentage does this, however, what you really need to say when expressing your progressive system, is "the more you make, the more MORE you pay". But if you will trace back my posts here, or view some on some other threads, you will see that not only do i abhor progressive taxation, I completely disagree with taking tax based on income. I back and push the FairTax, a flat fair consumption based tax system, that takes control out of washington, and puts it back in the hands of the consumer, where in my opinion, it belongs.

The problem is, we continue to request and require our citizens to take risk, yet when the risk becomes reward, we plunder the reward. If we know ahead of time that any reward we might enjoy is going to be plundered, are we going to continue to take the same risk? Other begged questions: Who do you consider the owner of the wealth to be? Does it belong to the public (to the government) or to the individual who produces it? The increasing position in government, fronted by the liberal movement, is that government owns this wealth, and that individuals are simply allowed to keep a portion for themselves, and the government will decide what that portion is using whatever method they like, and we can just deal with it. Not only do I disagree with that position, I find it immoral. This nation was founded on personal liberty, in every aspect of live, including economic. Where did Conservative/Liberal labels come from? Largely they reference how the respective groups handle "other people's money", either conservatively or liberally, even though this line of seperation has just about faded away.

I think we get a bit confused about each others positions sometimes. I at least, am not making the argument that the more wealth WORK any harder necessarily, at least physically. But in life you make money one of 2 ways, with your body, or with your mind. You can universally make more with your mind, and if you choose to limit yourself to only use your body, then thats the road you are choosing, and you arent gonna get it done as well as those who resolve to improve their position. We are a sum of our life's decisions, and its a bit like a chess game. Once a move is made and you mistakenly jeopardize and lose your queen, you cant get her back, UNLESS, and its much more difficult, you THINK your a** off and get pawn down the board. The point? If you make poor decisions in life, then there are consequences, but they arent permanent, but once you are at that point often its MUCH harder to redirect and get back on track. I love the phrase "you're never gonna get anywhere in life until you start coming home from work in the dark" So many people have resolved to "stick it to the man" and never work a second over their required 40 hours, this shows no initiative, and you condemn yourself to stay exactly where you are.

Are there people with handicaps? Sure, but that excuse is overrated, its like sayin Im fat because of my thyroid. Except for limited cases, its BS.

Will the job situation improve with the economy? Certainly, but now that the government has held the wealthy at gunpoint to hold the hands of the poor, a precedent has been set, and the damage has been done. Im afraid we wont see the same comeback as we would have had we forced people to hoof it on their own.

[R/T Hemi]

I'd love to explore your tax concerns at a later time, however, right now, I was responding to a comment the Arizona Hitman and Audtatious made regarding the tax "penalty" those making over $250,000 will pay, and their "working hard" argument. I don't believe the tax plan is either undfair or unduly burdensome for that class of wage earner, nor do I believe they work any harder than any other person supporting a family. That "I worked hard" for my money argument isn't one I'm likely to accept. WE all work hard for our money, some just get more money than others.

It's pretty obvious the government will find more spare change in the coin purses of the higher wage earners than the pockets the poor guy frying burgers at the local fast food restaurant.

I'll also venture a guess here that the guy frying burgers would be more than willing to swap positions with the higher wage earner and thereafter, gladly pay the additional taxes. I wonder if the reverse would be true? But then, my faith in mankind may be misplaced after all.

[stebo0728]

It's pretty obvious the government will find more spare change in the coin purses of the higher wage earners than the pockets the poor guy frying burgers at the local fast food restaurant.

I'll also venture a guess here that the guy frying burgers would be more than willing to swap positions with the higher wage earner and thereafter, gladly pay the additional taxes. I wonder if the reverse would be true? But then, my faith in mankind may be misplaced after all.

Why is the government looking for spare change anywhere? Its not theirs to look for. There is a set amount of money required to run our government, spread that burden evenly, if you're not getting enough to do the job, scale down the job, or ask for more tax, but ask for it evenly.

The whole notion of swapping perplexes me. The burger flipper is there as a result of a combination of decisions he's made over his lifetime, some at an early age which a portion of the responsibility of those decisions are shouldered by his parents/guardians to aid with. If that swap you speak of were to occur, the burger flipper would not be able to maintain the new found position, and would sink back down eventually to the position of burger flipper. Equally so, the wealthy guy is where he is because of his sum of decisions, and thus, were he to swap, he would not stay burger flipper long, and would rise back to his previous stature. Again a wonderful phrase: "The rich get rich by acting rich, the poor stay poor by acting poor". Its why I call lottery tickets "a tax on the stupid".