Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here is an OECD report showing that the two biggest policy factors contributing to social mobility are education and a progressive tax policy. Presently, the United States ranks next-to-last for social mobility among developed market democracies. Denmark ranks first. (Denmark is a social democracy.)

[_richardMdBorn]

Neither Warren Buffett nor Bill Gates started out rich.

Actually, they did.

Howard Buffet does not appear to have been rich. Bill Gates Sr. is an attorney, so if you want to confiscate his money that's OK with me.

Let me use my own example. I'm an actuary. While many of my peers took it easy on the weekends, I was studying for the actuarial exams. For the past few years, I've been working on a history of the invention of GPS in addition to my demanding day job. If it ever gets published, what marginal tax rate should I pay on my proceeds from it. Should I pay a Beatles tax man marginal rate of 95%? Is that fair.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Howard Buffet does not appear to have been rich. Bill Gates Sr. is an attorney, so if you want to confiscate his money that's OK with me.

If you want to quibble about the definition of rich, go ahead. But the point is that they did quite well. Well enough to have opportunities most Americans don't have.

Let me use my own example. I'm an actuary. While many of my peers took it easy on the weekends, I was studying for the actuarial exams. For the past few years, I've been working on a history of the invention of GPS in addition to my demanding day job. If it ever gets published, what marginal tax rate should I pay on my proceeds from it. Should I pay a Beatles tax man marginal rate of 95%? Is that fair.

It's pretty difficult to answer a hypothetical with this many unknowns, but to get at the crux of your question: I'm for rewarding hard work. If you produce a book that sells well, you should be rewarded well. But in order to make that much money, it means that you would have benefited from living in an educated society. Who do you plan to sell the books to? What about the roads and infrastructure needed to distribute your books? Or police protection that allows businesses to sell the books? So you should most definitely pay a higher rate than the single mom who is juggling two minimum wage jobs to try to make ends meet. How much more is a subject for debate, but definitely a higher rate.

[_GlennThigpen]

It's pretty difficult to answer a hypothetical with this many unknowns, but to get at the crux of your question: I'm for rewarding hard work. If you produce a book that sells well, you should be rewarded well. But in order to make that much money, it means that you would have benefited from living in an educated society. Who do you plan to sell the books to? What about the roads and infrastructure needed to distribute your books? Or police protection that allows businesses to sell the books? So you should most definitely pay a higher rate than the single mom who is juggling two minimum wage jobs to try to make ends meet. How much more is a subject for debate, but definitely a higher rate.

The answers are too simplistic to encompass the complex issues of a "progressive" tax system. The realities of this progressive tax system are that, in spite of decades of government administration of multiple programs to take from the affluent (you can define that term any way you wish) and give to the poor, the disparity between the affluent and the poor is still growing.

The main problem, I state simplistically, is that all of this giving has not done anything to help the recipients become productive and self reliant. It has created a class of beaurocrats whose jobs depend upon having a poor, dependent class of people. The system has become self defeating, a vicious circle.

I don't mind helping the poor. I do mind helping a person who has five kids, by two women to whom he is not married, pays child support only when compelled, works less than half of any one year, yet still receives the EIC credit and gets back more money than he paid in taxes. Or a wiman who has five kids by two different men, does not work, but lives in totally subsidized housing and gets foodstamps. All of the children mentioned are using medicaid when their insurance should be paid by the parents.

Glenn

[_CaliforniaKid]

The answers are too simplistic to encompass the complex issues of a "progressive" tax system. The realities of this progressive tax system are that, in spite of decades of government administration of multiple programs to take from the affluent (you can define that term any way you wish) and give to the poor, the disparity between the affluent and the poor is still growing.

The main problem, I state simplistically, is that all of this giving has not done anything to help the recipients become productive and self reliant.

in my opinion, the main problem is that our tax system pretends to be progressive but actually favors the rich. We offer corporations so many deductions, for example, that they sometimes pay as little as 4% of their earnings in taxes. Furthermore, much of our spending is designed to subsidize the rich rather than the poor. And when we do give benefits to the poor, it's frequently in the form of loans that merely create dependence on the rich. (This is what led to the crash of the housing market.) Sadly, Americans just are not progressive enough to sustain a truly progressive system. Conservatives have been chipping away at progressive policies since midcentury, and no end is in sight. It's telling that you believe conservatism is the answer even now, despite the data I posted above concerning progressivism's effect on social mobility.

All of the children mentioned are using medicaid when their insurance should be paid by the parents.

Yes, let's punish the children because their parents can't afford to pay their medical insurance.

[_aussieguy55]

Interesting comments. Some people get rich from the poor because of their plight. There are pawnbrokers, payday loans, people needing to get their tax refund asap, subprime loans.I lilve in an area of Australia, that is a mixture of income earners, many low income. The area has the highest imput of money put through poker machines. I walk down the main street and see many shops that are either pawnbrokers or "Fast Loan" shops. It seems same thing in America. Ross Longfield got rich knowing many people needed their tax refunds sooner. He is now retired driving his E-Type Jaguar SII coupe. Allan Jones make millions charging 400% against a persons next paycheck, Social Security payment or unemployment check.
Here church organisations have got in the worked with many of the people who get caught up in the spiral, helping them budget, talking to creditors. It's a holistic approach. Fortunatly our Government both parties build units for rent by the lower-income, an rent based on their income. They ensure these places do not become ghettos by building these units among private dwellings. They have well kept gardens and there do not seem to be drug pushers hanging around. The problem for the poor is that they need white goods. Do they have the money for a refrigerator or washing machine, both essentials? No so the sellers get them on loans that have high interest (20%) and they have a hell of a job paying it off. Also because of Education budgets many schools charge extra fees again discriminating against the poor.
Protecting the Consumer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 36682.html
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) contested the CFPB's plans to regulate payday lenders. He suggested that existing regulators had done a good job enforcing mortgage laws in recent years, and demanded to know Warren's plans to influence monetary policy, openly mocking favorable descriptions of Warren.

"I wonder if you're gonna be the angel, be the champion for consumers with inflation," Pearce said. "Are you gonna take on the Fed for printing money?"

"I'm sorry, Congressman, but our job is not in monetary policy," Warren replied.

After two and a half hours, the hearing concluded.

"I'm buoyed by the notion that anyone who could withstand this kind of badgering ... is going to do a very good job," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) told Warren."

[_GlennThigpen]

All of the children mentioned are using medicaid when their insurance should be paid by the parents.

Yes, let's punish the children because their parents can't afford to pay their medical insurance.

Chris, I am a little surprised that you jumped on that statement the way you did. The parents of those children are making no effort to work on a sustained basis. The father of five of the children by two different women quits three or four jobs per year. He has been evicted from every place he has rented in the last ten years. He quit a great job working for the state because he had to pay too much child support and maintain insurance on his children. It is not that he cannot afford insurance, it is that he will not work and take care of them.

The mother of three of those children has been afforded many opportunities to improve her education, but has turned down all offers of help. She is content to live off of the incomes of other people.

These are only two of many that I am aware of personally. It does no good to report these situations.

I do believe in helping the disadvantaged. But look at where the majority of our tax money is going right now. Social programs lead the way in spending, with defense coming in second. The treasury department is third, and no other program comes close. But after all of these decades of social programs and spending, the gap is still growing. It is not because our system is not really progressive, it is because the programs that have been instituted, the social experiments, have not worked. Maybe if we could identify the programs and principles that are used in the report you cite and implement them, some type of real progress could be made.

My real contention has been that our government has a poor track record in actually helping people rise above the status into which they were born.

Glenn

[_emilysmith]

I may be ill-informed when it comes to economics, but my observations, while seemingly obvious to me, are utterly contested by my parents.

Reaganomics is doomed to failure. It always has been.

The amount we spend on military is a crime against unborn Americans.
($50 million per enemy kill, at the current rate, and $10 Billion per US casualty)

Money shouldn't be free. You shouldn't reward poor women for having children they are unable to care for. Give them a job... train them to be baby-sitters, have them pick up trash, etc. Anything that would be a slight return for the money handed to them and prevent the cycle of their children also becoming welfare dependent as adults.

The current debt-based system of wealth is entirely unsustainable. If a bank (or group of banks, as is the case with the Federal Reserve) loans money to a government, and that government has to pay it back plus interest, it is literally impossible to get out of debt. I realize its more complicated than that, but you cannot deny that our debt in the US is impossible to pay back. It will never happen.

Any slight shifts in culture from consumerism to a more sustainable way of life is hugely beneficial in the long run. Planned obsolescence is gravely harmful.

We need to bring our military home. Ideologies aside, we cannot afford to keep them deployed overseas anymore. Your great-grandchildren are paying for our current maneuvers and the problem in Libya can be solved for the price of one bullet. The future price we pay for these sins will be collected by the grim reaper and bankers, alike, unless there are some serious paradigm shifts.

Ironically, it should be the religious people who push for equality and sharing. It should be the ideologically pure who call the existence of the super-rich inherently immoral. I find it ironic that it tends to be atheists who find the evils of the current economic system.

Mormons, especially, should be diametrically opposed to the notions as presented by Glenn Beck and the rest of those vomitous, blabbing heads. After all, it was Joseph Smith, himself, who preached the Law of Consecration. I still find myself a little shocked when people over at that other board are so vehemently right-wing.

Has humility and love for thy neighbor lost all value?

[_Buffalo]

Money shouldn't be free. You shouldn't reward poor women for having children they are unable to care for. Give them a job... train them to be baby-sitters, have them pick up trash, etc. Anything that would be a slight return for the money handed to them and prevent the cycle of their children also becoming welfare dependent as adults.

Who's going to take care of their kids while they're doing that?

[_emilysmith]

Money shouldn't be free. You shouldn't reward poor women for having children they are unable to care for. Give them a job... train them to be baby-sitters, have them pick up trash, etc. Anything that would be a slight return for the money handed to them and prevent the cycle of their children also becoming welfare dependent as adults.

You shouldn't reward poor women for having children they are unable to care for. Give them a job... train them to be baby-sitters, have them pick up trash, etc.

Give them a job... train them to be baby-sitters, have them pick up trash, etc.

train them to be baby-sitters