What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
Author Message
Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8604
Credit: 243,898
RAC: 140
Canada
Message 1322341 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 19:17:53 UTC - in response to Message 1322336.

Now I have assumed by "look after" you mean some form of social welfare. Other options of "look after" are available and have been tired as well. The founding of Australia for example. England still exists so this option perhaps has merit.

You overlook the fact that conditions in Australia soon became better than they were in England. Many ex-convicts became very wealthy. It came to the point where people were deliberately committing crimes in order to get transported. The British government realised that transportation was no longer a deterrent. This is the main reason transportation was stopped. :-)

It matters not what happened in Australia, but what happened in England. Did the transportation make England better or worse?

BTW ask an Aborigine if Australia got better. Apologize in advance if that is no longer a politically correct term.


Britain was glad to see the back of them. We sent all our criminals to Australia and all our religious nuts to America. ;)
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 30980
Credit: 11,153,977
RAC: 19,631
United Kingdom
Message 1322367 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 19:47:33 UTC

Britain was glad to see the back of them. We sent all our criminals to Australia and all our religious nuts to America. ;)

I really shouldn't giggle, but it is hard not to do so ....

;-)

Sorry

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8470
Credit: 22,975,337
RAC: 13,664
United Kingdom
Message 1322388 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 20:48:48 UTC - in response to Message 1322341.

So was it a good move to go and live next door to the religious nuts;-)

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1665
Credit: 203,362,477
RAC: 25,970
Australia
Message 1322412 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 21:49:23 UTC - in response to Message 1322333.
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 22:12:34 UTC

Interesting, so the US tax code that prevents the write-off of capital loss against income acts to increase the risk of those who have venture capital to invest. So any tax on a venture (corporation) increases the risk to the venture capitalist. Interesting. Perhaps society should tax the retention of capital that is not invested in ventures, e.g. in a mattress, and not tax ventures e.g. corporations.

I'm in favour of "Ad-Venture" capitalism. i.e. where the money is invested in startup companies and used to fund research on new products and ideas. Investing in Production is what Capitalism is all about, not playing silly games with CDO's. Persons who invest in start up companies should be entitled to a tax break. No tax break for investing in Blue Chip companies though. they should be rewarded for taking the risk

Now as to population, today the planet has far too many. The conquest of resources is at an end. So it looks like not just one society but all are at risk. Of course society could adopt mandatory birth control, e.g. Zero Population Growth.

+1

I had no clue you were so conservative.

Not a conservative, I hate the terms liberal and conservative, they have become so bastardised they're now meaningless. I'm a fence sitter, I can see good and bad in both ideologies. The good I support, the bad I either ignore or oppose as required.

T.A.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1322760 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 18:35:27 UTC

Here's a nice bit of disingenuousness. There is talk that the Conservatives are willing to allow the deadline to pass, allow the breaks tax breaks to end, and then when they actually negotiate a middle tax rate can claim to have "lowered" taxes.

Technically, that is a true statement but another is the lower taxes are actually more than the wealthy are currently paying. So they are lowering taxes but the wealth would still pay more.

The end result is an odd face saving that isn't really.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,680,153
RAC: 1,204
United States
Message 1323237 - Posted: 1 Jan 2013, 15:00:08 UTC - in response to Message 1322367.
Last modified: 1 Jan 2013, 15:09:13 UTC

Britain was glad to see the back of them. We sent all our criminals to Australia and all our religious nuts to America. ;)

I really shouldn't giggle, but it is hard not to do so ....

;-)

Sorry


+1 LOL...
Britain does have a long history of shipping people off to other continents, huh.
Maybe it's time to build colonies on the moon :-). Lets practice in Antartica first.

Seriously though there is lots of good discussion in here as I read through everything. I must agree that it is probably cheaper to provide *better* assistance at the government level than to say cut programs which would in turn bring more costs elsewhere.
Gary has a point in mentioning the method in which investment capital is taxed. I do not think cutting corporate taxes is the answer, but perhaps restructuring the tax code so corporations are more motivated to spend and less motivated about consistently higher profits.

Here's another question that I cannot believe I'm going to ask. What has happened to any society that ends up in that "bread and circus" phase? Has any society come out of this and grown into power again, or have they all withered away as history has taught me?

I guess a good question is what comes next. We have the "bread and circus" already, so what now. Yes smarter spending habits, and limits on austerity, but where do we go from there, how do we stay afloat and enter another golden age? Personally I don't think it's mathematically possible.

And @Skil, this is why I cannot buy into that party. They have an agenda and it's NOT the American public. The Dems, while not really any better at least try to attempt to meet in the middle, where as the Repubs just wanna help their fat old white buddies.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 30980
Credit: 11,153,977
RAC: 19,631
United Kingdom
Message 1323245 - Posted: 1 Jan 2013, 15:17:24 UTC

Britain does have a long history of shipping people off to other continents, huh. Maybe it's time to build colonies on the moon :-)

Many SciFi novels and films predict prison colony planets in the future.

but perhaps restructuring the tax code so corporations are more motivated to spend and less motivated about consistently higher profits.

Powerful shareholders dictate company profits, to maintain their dividends. If they don't get the returns upon their investments, they walk away and put their money elsewhere. Pension funds also have a fiduciary duty to their pensioners to maintain their index linked income.

The whole shebang is a vicious circle, all interlinked.

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 434
Credit: 1,079,620
RAC: 29
United States
Message 1323419 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 0:54:27 UTC

The sin-gal largest power the fed exercises over states is to with hold money.

with all fed money come rules, rules that by their fed nature must be 1 size fits all.

The united way used to take care of a lot of local or regional problems but now

can't because they administer fed funds.

Indian tribes that take large amounts of fed money do worse than tribes that don't.

In almost all cases solutions tailored to local conditions will do more good for

less money than 1 size fits all fed solutions.
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1325389 - Posted: 6 Jan 2013, 22:09:14 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2013, 22:15:37 UTC

Example:
RETURNS ON COST OF LEAD ABATEMENT = $210,000,000,000

Even if you don't care about the suffering averted and the higher probability that their pursuit of happiness will be successful for adults who will have had less exposure to lead as children, government programs that remove lead from the environment mean both more revenue and lower expenses to your government overall.

Why would anybody not be for that?
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12023
Credit: 6,360,012
RAC: 8,595
United States
Message 1325426 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 1:29:45 UTC - in response to Message 1325389.

Why would anybody not be for that?

Taken in isolation, of course not. But the world doesn't work in isolation. If the money cut from that can be put into a slush fund to be doled out to potential contributors to the reelection campaign, then it makes sense to cut it.


____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,342,727
RAC: 1,630
United States
Message 1329924 - Posted: 21 Jan 2013, 19:42:26 UTC - in response to Message 1321835.

Once enacted by a majority of the governed or our representatives, all laws are enforced by, duh, force.


You're sounding a lot like the Khmer Rouge, the Chinese Secret Police, Che Guevara, the Gestapo, and the NKVD.

If civil war breaks out, I'll know which side you're on.


Hint: we're already seceding from you before you can. We are well past the process of petitions. You have lost and will continue to lose. Be sure to gather all your friends and relatives in TX.

LOL! Your unarmed! LOL!


Care to test that hypothesis? ;)

Profile Bill Turner
Send message
Joined: 29 Nov 10
Posts: 112
Credit: 37,989
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1329936 - Posted: 21 Jan 2013, 20:46:51 UTC - in response to Message 1329924.

Care to test that hypothesis? ;)


Aaaaaand that that, this thread just got ridiculous.
____________
**Check out my wifes cupcakes**

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,342,727
RAC: 1,630
United States
Message 1329937 - Posted: 21 Jan 2013, 20:50:57 UTC - in response to Message 1329936.

Aaaaaand that that, this thread just got ridiculous.

Then you have a higher threshold for ridiculousity than most.

zoom314
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 45729
Credit: 36,372,672
RAC: 8,585
Message 1337375 - Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 7:36:23 UTC - in response to Message 1320639.
Last modified: 12 Feb 2013, 7:52:26 UTC

I'm not surprised that you're frustrated, but if we were to get "the government out of the help equation as much as possible," you'd be getting nothing at all from the government instead of $10 less. And then where would you turn?

I think the complex rules you're struggling to deal with have been imposed because of dishonest propaganda such as Reagan's made up "Welfare queens in Cadillacs" and similar scapegoating of those in need, while recommending tax increases for billionaires result in one being compared to history's most prolific mass murderers in our nations' current political climate.


My point was not that I needed help, my point was the system is broken.

Several years ago my room mates sister got a part time job while on full

assistance she made about 250 dollars a month, but lost 450 dollars in help.

this is how the current system works,I can sight case after case of this.

people do not need hand outs they need a hand up!


And my point is that even if government assistance is currently so meager that it usually works only as a handout, not a hand up, then it needs to be more, not less, it needs to be enough for people to get on their feet, not cut off just as people get close to getting on their feet. Then they might not need government assistance as long, and they might eventually earn more and then contribute more. We should be helping people thrive, not just survive.


I agree We should, but I don't know if the political will is there to do that. Me I get SSI which is Supplemental Security Income since I'm disabled, since I live in CA I do not get any Food Stamps, nor do I get any Rental Assistance from the State of CA as that's a closed program, nor do I work, I'm barely able to take care of Myself or where I live, besides I'd need money to move, just moving 55 miles($610) and to setup utilities($291) in city that I'd like to move to would cost $901.00, the limits I live under could use some reform, currently the Liquid Asset Limit is $2,000.00 and this is composed of ones monthly check and any savings(the current limit is $2,000 and has been this way since 1989, before 1989 it was $1,500), cause I live in CA I get $866.40 and I do exist on that, $710 comes from SSA and $156.40 comes from the CA SSP and both are managed by the SSA, SSI is not lavish, I manage the money very well, I can make some repairs, but if I needed to replace My 14 year old car I do not have the income, nor replace a clothes washer or dryer in less than 3 months without some difficulty, like eating, nor can I bury My Mother or Myself as the cost has to be $1500 or less or the burial expenses suddenly become a spendable resource(stupid), a so called spendable one, the same goes for Life Insurance, the value of which is also limited to $1,500.00 and both $1500 amounts have not changed since 1972. Sure there have been repeated efforts in Congress to change the $2000 limit to $10,000 and to make both of the $1500 items non spendable resources, but then when was the last time You saw a $1500 Life Insurance policy? Bipartisan bills to reform these problems have been tabled(killed) in a House Committee by the Republican Party over ideology and not money.

SSI is also something that people who get SS or SSDI can get, I just get SSI, it's not like I wanted to be disabled, life happens.

Some object to people who get SSI from being online or voting or even having the same rights as non-disabled people, this is wrong, some also object to one having something they don't or even trying to be more efficient, Me I like PCs, I have a cat and one day I'll get My aquarium up and running, I also have a 57" HD 1080p capable TV which is 20' away from the desk that My PC is sitting on, if the TV were smaller I could still hear what it says, but I would not be able to see it as well, plus I have a car which is a necessity out here in the CA high desert as is being online since some of My food is ordered online as is the sweetener for My coffee which cost Me $19.28 for 1500 packets(delivered) which is replacing an older box that has lasted almost 1 year so far as it's almost empty.
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Copyright © 2014 University of California