United States of Incompetence?

[AllegroVivace]

First of all, you don't have to do anything.  Second, if you are going to claim that the vast majority of Americans support your plan, you should at least offer a plan with a real world framework that people actually support.  Third, Bill Maher?  Family Guy is more pertinent.  If you're going to go with a public intellectual (which Maher is not), at least have the decency to go with someone like Krugman or his ilk.

There are in fact a wide array of tax and expenditure options currently available that would address the long-term fiscal position of the US and address income inequality, etc.  All of the options are very well known and generally do not involve a further expansion of federal power (well, outside the health care arena at any rate).  It's best to explore existing options before proposing a silly idea.

Just a quick Google search: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/most-americans-say-tax-th_n_804020.html

I don't consider Maher a public intellectual. He is far from it. I just showed that the case of injustice we're talking about can be addressed in under a minute (which Maher did rather satisfyingly). Beyond that, we can debate about details until the cows come home.

[AllegroVivace]

Generally, when a post is quoted, the text underneath, which is not included in the quote's text box, is a reaction to that which was quoted.

But since I'm a polite person, I'll answer your rudely put query. It was a response to the entire post. It was saying, as an implication, "Does this poster really believe that this will add some form of credibility? Some sort of ethos?"

OK. Now, perhaps you have an opinion that you'd like to share as well? I would love to know your opinion on what's being discussed.

[Todd]

Beyond that, we can debate about details until the cows come home.

It's a bit more than "details."  The majority of Americans do not in any way support the "plan" you provided earlier.  They support increasing taxes, which usually translates to taxing income, not to asset seizures.  There's a fundamental difference between the two approaches.  There are also probable Constitutional issues involved - again, where does Congress derive the power to simply seize any assets to fund expenditures?  Your proposed "plan" does not seem to fall under the 16th Amendment.  Are you claiming it does?  You are confusing standard policy shifts with radical reorganizations of power. 

If you wish to remain enamored of Maher's explanation, go ahead.  I think it makes sense to delve a bit deeper and rely on more serious sources.

[AllegroVivace]

It's a bit more than "details."  The majority of Americans do not in any way support the "plan" you provided earlier.  They support increasing taxes, which usually translates to taxing income, not to asset seizures.  There's a fundamental difference between the two approaches.  There are also probable Constitutional issues involved - again, where does Congress derive the power to simply seize any assets to fund expenditures?  Your proposed "plan" does not seem to fall under the 16th Amendment.  Are you claiming it does?  You are confusing standard policy shifts with radical reorganizations of power. 

If you wish to remain enamored of Maher's explanation, go ahead.  I think it makes sense to delve a bit deeper and rely on more serious sources.

Those were two questions discussed as two separate issues. I don't know why you insist on pretending that I don't distinguish between the two.

On income tax policy, I side with the majority of Americans. In addition to that, I also support a long term "radical reorganizations of power".

[Todd]

Those were two questions discussed as two separate issues. I don't know why you insist on pretending that I don't distinguish between the two.

Except you haven't really.  Your "tax them what they own" approach isn't viable because it would rely on asset seizures to work.  The majority of Americans do not support this, at least based on any available polling data.  It is mixing two distinctly different concepts and approaches.  As to supporting radical reorganizations of power, good luck with that.  The US political system is set up to make such changes immensely difficult.  Thank goodness.

[AllegroVivace]

I don't think the rich should be taxed more though.

...because they can't afford to pay more?

[AllegroVivace]

Nope.

K

[mc ukrneal]

In fact, somes states do tax some assets - for example, property taxes. And most taxpayers feel they are quite high (as they have been increased in many states).

The biggest problem with the tax system, from where I sit, is the loopholes. Most rich do not pay high taxes, not because the rates are too low (though they are at historical lows), but becuase they find ways of playing the system (examples can be zoning of property in different areas, getiing subsidies via use of agricultural land when there is oil production there, etc.).

[Lethevich]

I'd be interested in hearing how not having a minimum wage and having an extensive welfare system actually affects a common person in real life.

I suppose the classic example would be the vocalist from Death, Chuck Schuldiner. I've always understood from his life story that when he got cancer, he was basically screwed because his niche musician job meant he didn't have the health insurance he would get if he had an office job. He relied towards the end on charity and handouts which was quite sad. In a country with a more universal care system he would perhaps not have had to go out like that,

[Szykneij]

I suppose the classic example would be the vocalist from Death, Chuck Schuldiner. I've always understood from his life story that when he got cancer, he was basically screwed because his niche musician job meant he didn't have the health insurance he would get if he had an office job. He relied towards the end on charity and handouts which was quite sad. In a country with a more universal care system he would perhaps not have had to go out like that,

That is a sad story. It's a horrible thing to happen to anyone, especially someone so young.

To clear up some possible misconceptions, people here with traditional jobs rarely have their health care completely paid for by their employer. The employer usually picks up a percentage of the cost, and the employee pays the rest. My employer pays half of my health insurance, which allows me to afford better coverage for my family, but a big chunk of my check still goes to my HMO each week.

When I was young, single, and self-employed for a period of time, I was able to purchase a catastrophic health  insurance plan for a relatively small amount of money. It didn't cover routine office visits and had a large deductible, but if something major happened to me (like cancer, car crash, or heart attack), I had coverage. Unfortunately, most of us feel invincible when we're young, so the rest of my musician friends didn't see the need to worry about such things.

[DavidW]

Always glad to be of service. No way would I want to bring life into this miserable world...

I've found a picture of you going to work Greg...



Cheer up buddy, it's not as bad as you think!

[Todd]

In fact, somes states do tax some assets - for example, property taxes. And most taxpayers feel they are quite high (as they have been increased in many states).

The biggest problem with the tax system, from where I sit, is the loopholes. Most rich do not pay high taxes, not because the rates are too low (though they are at historical lows), but becuase they find ways of playing the system (examples can be zoning of property in different areas, getiing subsidies via use of agricultural land when there is oil production there, etc.).

The operative word here is "states."  Where would the federal government derive its power to levy such taxes?  This is what is needed to address the concerns underlying at least some of the ideas in this thread.  Further, there is a significant distinction between levying a tax on either real or personal property and then taking out a lien for non-payment and outright confiscation of property, which is what AllegroVivace's initial plan specified.  His tax plan would require the same thing.  I wonder if the federal government under such a scheme, were it to have such confiscatory powers, would be as lenient as, say, California with respect to timelines to pay delinquent real property taxes.  Actually, I don't wonder, the answer is no.

[DavidRoss]

I would be really interested in hearing from what it's like from someone who lives in Sweden.
One of the main goals of society (maybe even the main goal) should be elimination of poverty (unless you aspire to be Zimbabwe). Seems like Sweden succeeds the most, while the US is 17th.

Two things to note, Greg:

(1) Comparing Sweden with the U.S. is like comparing a piano trio in a church setting with a rock festival.

(2) Poverty in the U.S. is defined statistically.  Most of those thus classified in America have a standard of living that most folks in the world would envy. 

[Brian]

(1) Comparing Sweden with the U.S. is like comparing a piano trio in a church setting with a rock festival.

This is such an apt comparison it has me, again, feeling really sad to be moving back to America in four days. Hate rock festivals.

[mc ukrneal]

This is such an apt comparison it has me, again, feeling really sad to be moving back to America in four days. Hate rock festivals.

Four days!?!? Wow - time flew. It seems like yesterday you were talking about leaving. All I can say is - INDIAN FOOD!!

[DavidW]

This is such an apt comparison it has me, again, feeling really sad to be moving back to America in four days. Hate rock festivals.

I lost track of time... where you in London for 1 year or 2 years?  Actually I don't know if you're still an undergrad or if you're a grad student now!  Sorry.

[Brahmsian]

(2) Poverty in the U.S. is defined statistically.  Most of those thus classified in America have a standard of living that most folks in the world would envy.

That's correct.  You could be considered living under the poverty line in Canada or USA, but this would seem like you are living as a King and in a castle or mansion in an undeveloped country like Somalia or Ethiopia.

[Todd]

That's correct.  You could be considered living under the poverty line in Canada or USA, but this would seem like you are living as a King and in a castle or mansion in an undeveloped country like Somalia or Ethiopia.

True enough, though the obvious question here is do we want to set our baseline at Somalia or Ethiopia? 

[Brahmsian]

True enough, though the obvious question here is do we want to set our baseline at Somalia or Ethiopia?

No, I'm just saying that overall, the poorer people (not all of course, some are very very poor and badly off) of Canada and the USA are managing Ok in life.  Meaning, they have basic food, shelter, etc.

Things could be better, of course!  I just think we (in Canada and USA) should try and look on the bright side more often and be thankful for the many things we do have, as opposed to pouting and bitching for what we don't have.

[ibanezmonster]

I suppose the classic example would be the vocalist from Death, Chuck Schuldiner. I've always understood from his life story that when he got cancer, he was basically screwed because his niche musician job meant he didn't have the health insurance he would get if he had an office job. He relied towards the end on charity and handouts which was quite sad. In a country with a more universal care system he would perhaps not have had to go out like that,

I've read about that a while ago, but didn't catch this part.
Seems like he died from the side effects of treating the cancer. If he didn't have famous bands kind enough to help him, he would have indeed died because of the American Health Care System.

I've found a picture of you going to work Greg...

Actually, before I go to work, I spend time on the computer filling my mind with interesting stuff to think about. Then I don't feel so bad- but if I don't have time for it (say, long close-opens), I can basically expect strong depression for a day or two until I get time to recover. I'm pretty sure I have some type of personality disorder or something, because although most people probably know what I'm talking about, for me it's just to the point where it's extreme.


On a side note, why do they even bother to reproduce in Somalia or Ethiopia? If they know their children are going to lead miserable lives, why do they have kids?  Just wondering...