What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?
What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
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. Britain was glad to see the back of them. We sent all our criminals to Australia and all our religious nuts to America. ;) ____________  In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams | |
ID: 1322341 ·  | |
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 | |
| ID: 1322367 · | |
|
So was it a good move to go and live next door to the religious nuts;-) | |
| ID: 1322388 · | |
|
Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1443 Credit: 185,106,815 RAC: 117,038  | |
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. | |
| ID: 1322412 · | |
|
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. | |
| ID: 1322760 · | |
 ExVolunteer moderator Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,185,542 RAC: 1,019  | |
Britain was glad to see the back of them. We sent all our criminals to Australia and all our religious nuts to America. ;) +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 | |
| ID: 1323237 · | |
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. | |
| ID: 1323245 · | |
|
The sin-gal largest power the fed exercises over states is to with hold money. | |
| ID: 1323419 · | |
|
Example: | |
| ID: 1325389 · | |
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10559 Credit: 5,269,299 RAC: 6,523 | |
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. ____________   | |
| ID: 1325426 · | |
Once enacted by a majority of the governed or our representatives, all laws are enforced by, duh, force. Care to test that hypothesis? ;) | |
| ID: 1329924 · | |
Care to test that hypothesis? ;) Aaaaaand that that, this thread just got ridiculous. ____________ **Check out my wifes cupcakes**  | |
| ID: 1329936 · | |
Aaaaaand that that, this thread just got ridiculous. Then you have a higher threshold for ridiculousity than most. | |
| ID: 1329937 · | |
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 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. ____________ BSG Anthem My Facebook page | |
| ID: 1337375 · | |
Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
