patrick.net

the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy

Debatable. I agree that we need to close the budget gap -- it's stupid borrowing money from rich people when we can just tax them instead but Government at all levels is going to be spending $6.7T next year.

Divided by $100,000 per job, that's 67 million jobs. There's only 115 million households in the US so that's more than 1 well-paying government job for every two households.

So if it's not you it's one of your neighbors! WTF!

we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India

Dunno about that. There's no shortage of college grads for jobs now, is there?

Troy,

Give money to the government, they will spend it. That is meaningful. Giving money to the rich has not and will not add money to the economy as much as giving money to the middle to lower income earners. That is the point. And you have already pointed that out.

There maybe no shortage of college grads. So what? It's the quality I am talking about. I have a son. The public education system is just horrible. They have no money to spend on copies, text and study kits. Are you a parent? Then you know what I am talking about.

It was our education system that created INTERNET, semiconductor and found cure for some of the disease. It was our defense system that created GPS. Without these investments by the government, things we are taking for granted have never happened. Just because there are so many college grads, it is utterly useless without a meaningful contribution to the economy and our society.

That 1% of the population who are categorized as wealthy has accumulated wealth much faster than any other decade. If they are opposing the tax hike for the rich, I just gotta say, the greed has no boundary.

Back in my idealistic college days I hung out with a bunch of friends who lived in a commune. They belonged to a radical political party, something I'd never heard of before: The Libertarian Party. Ron Paul and the Silicon Valley tech boom made the ideology mainstream, but at the time no one in mainstream media covered these folks and the Internet was not even a word yet.

To my point: I took part in a wide ranging town hall like think tank meeting in the middle of the day with several hundreds of people who had nothing better to do in the middle of the day. We were broken into groups and each given a huge summarized copy of the Federal Budget. It spelled out in plain English how much money was collected in taxes and where the money went.

The folks at the meeting were pumped up. Young, Old, Liberals, Conservatives, radicals, moderates - everyone was ready to wack the budget and prove the other side wrong.

The conclusion however, surprised many. The vast bulk of the tax breaks and tax benefits went to one group: The Middle Class. To balance the budget, you needed to either grow tax receipts from this group or lessen benefits received by this group. In other words - political suicide.

Until this reality is addressed, our nation will have debt.

shrekgrinch says

And since the upper 10% provide 70% of federal income tax revenues, it is totally stupid to screw with that. This is backed by actual history both recent and going back for like…uh, forever. New York raised income taxes on the rich and instead of getting the $4 billion in additional revenues, they saw a shortfall. Maryland and New Jersey also did similar things and saw the same result.

Back in the 50s, when the highest tax bracket was 91%, the top 10% only provided for 9% of federal income tax revenues. That means that the middle class carried the federal tax burden mostly. You want to go back to that?

You mean go back to when the middle class had most of the money, when ceo's made 40 times the average workers wage not 400, when incomes were a lot more equitably distributed. Which is why the top 10% only provided 9% of federal tax revenues? Yes that would certainly be a terrible thing to go back to. Why don't you post any articles on income distributions since the 50's. The rich have gotten a lot richer so they pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

Nobody says

It was our education system that created INTERNET

I thought Al Gore invented the internet? Oh wait, most sane people know that was DARPA...not the education system...

Pumping more money into the screwed up public education system we have hasn't worked yet - perhaps we need to pay the kids to go to school? How much is enough? If they get an A it's $50? They can learn how to be politicians and union thugs (not union members...their leadership) and kick back 20% to the teachers for higher grades. The teachers can hire the bullies to break the knee caps of those that won't pay up. The bullies can band together and go on strike for more twinkies and flavored condoms.

EightBall says

Pumping more money into the screwed up public education system we have hasn’t worked yet - perhaps we need to pay the kids to go to school?

The exact same argument: Pumping more money into the military has not made us free or secure. The United States continues to be attacked, and Americans continue to die. Therefor we should either stop spending money on the military or get rid of it.

Not sure what Eightball thinks is a workable alternative to public education? Should we roll back the clock and send our young into textile factories in China? Or we could all just home-school all our kids, because nothing builds the fabric of society like loyalty to a religion over loyalty to the state. (And we know how much time working moms have on their hands). Then again, we could turn everything over to the capitalist system, and educate our young in private schools called Madrasses funded by the wealthy Saudis. Cuz we know the Christians are already tapped out with all the current private schools.

EightBall says

Oh wait, most sane people know that was DARPA…not the education system…

Tell it to my CS 112 professor.

http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lk/

semi-interesting trivia. Two guys in that class that usually sat behind me ended up founding Blizzard together.

SoCal Renter says

Not sure what Eightball thinks is a workable alternative to public education?

I'm not saying do away with public education - I'm just saying that throwing money into a broken system isn't the answer. Money doesn't solve all problems.

SoCal Renter says

The exact same argument: Pumping more money into the military has not made us free or secure.

Eh, well, I can see it both ways - we certainly do a lot of dumb things with our money and a bloated military designed to fight the USSR is one of them. I don't think dumping the entire military is a smart move, though.

Troy says

Tell it to my CS 112 professor.

http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lk/

Wow. Add him to the list of those claiming they invented the internet.

EightBall says

Wow. Add him to the list of those claiming they invented the internet.

um, the first BBN switch for the ARPANET was sent to and installed at Boelter Hall at UCLA. SRI got the second. UCSB and Utah were the 3rd and 4th.

Dr Kleinrock did in fact write the definitive thesis on packet switching -- and may I say his Queueing Theory class was fucking awesome. I took it in 1991 -- at the peak of my mental powers, such as they were -- and for a brief moment I could see the beauty of math like never before -- Poisson arrivals and how random events could stack up into normal distributions, rigorous shit like that. One of those classes where now I just think, "damn I took that???"

We can't even agree that investing into education could lead to the development of better technology by bickering over the petty little detail. There is no doubt that directly or indirectly our education system has been good to our economy and technology.

Shrekidiot, don't complicate the simple fact of balancing the deficit vs. what is good for our economy. It is not about our emotion or hatred. You need to get the facts straight. And read what I wrote. Also, when you claim that we had failure by increasing the tax, define the detail and fact. I care most about the logic and facts. I don't care about your logic which does not make sense to anyone here or me at all.

So are you saying don't tax the wealthy and keep our federal deficit increasing indefinitely? And we should just keep watching our country downside education system, highway, social service etc? That is sad you feel that way. I have a little bit of patriotism left in me, and I don't mind 4% tax increase.

Or you are writing just to argue? I am what Obama calls higher income earner. I don't mind our government taking mere 4% more from my pay check. My spending habit will not change as much. I may only save a little less each year. And when I retire, I can still retire comfortably.

I think it is problematic when poor is getting poorer and rich getting richer. I guess you don't see that either. I have paid my dues and feel I am entitled to my pay. But I am also appreciative of our government in letting me go to one of the best schools and enabled me to carry out interesting research. And my parents were poor. Without government funding, none of that would ever happened. Hey besides, the 4% increase is tax deductible. It is like donation. I reduced my donation after the donation is no longer tax deductible. So I am back to square one.

Dear Mr. Nobody:

As a "higher income earner," here's your chance to be a Mr. Somebody. Go to this site and give until it hurts. You'll be helping enact that tax policy you favor (as a "higher income earner") voluntarily. Why wait for the government to raise taxes? Do it yourself to yourself:

http://patrick.net/?p=36616

Ray,

Get real.

I should not react to a meaningless sarcasm. Let me know a way to delete my post.
This was a knee jerk reflex.

shrekgrinch says

Kennedy had brains and lowered the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. There as an economic boom afterwards (although he didn’t live to see it).

So ? It seems like many republicans think if lowering taxes from way too high is good, then lowering them from too low is just as good. Even Laffer (see laffer curve) said there was on optimal level for taxes. In other words even he knew that lower taxes aren't always better.

shrekgrinch says

So much for ‘this isn’t about emotion this is about getting more revenue’, eh?

Admit it: This is all about class warfare, not what will actually bring in revenue to the treasury.

Wrong. The class warfare I see is selfish high income people not caring about deficits that hurt our economy and the future of our country if it puts more money in their pocket. If you are one of the high income people, congratulations, but then we know why you have such difficulty taking your emotion out of the equation. If you aren't, than why are you so easy to manipulate ?

I don't think that higher taxes for the rich solve everything. But I do think that deficits matter. And I think it is more than amazing that the right wing is close to succeeding in keeping the highest bracket at 35%, lower than it was in the 90s, and keeping a tax cut in place that was based on supposed surplusses as far as the eye can see.

Since then, a couple of unfunded wars later and record breaking deficits, and republicans want to argue that raising taxes on high income people to 39% is going to hurt investment. What a bunch of self interested liars. Yes there is emotion here, but it's not about nailing the rich, it's about not having this country destroyed by the rich.

Troy says

Dr Kleinrock did in fact write the definitive thesis on packet switching — and may I say his Queueing Theory class was fucking awesome. I took it in 1991 — at the peak of my mental powers, such as they were — and for a brief moment I could see the beauty of math like never before — Poisson arrivals and how random events could stack up into normal distributions, rigorous shit like that. One of those classes where now I just think, “damn I took that???”

Sounds like an interesting fellow. We need more Dr. Kleinrocks and fewer sociology majors. You were fortunate - I was stuck writing assembly language on a 390 to do screen I/O in '91 at one of these wonderful state-run institutions. I learned more writing a text-based multiuser internet game running off a professors workstation in some far distant university than I did from all but one or two professors.

Nobody says

We can’t even agree that investing into education could lead to the development of better technology by bickering over the petty little detail. There is no doubt that directly or indirectly our education system has been good to our economy and technology.

There is no doubt that investments in education yields huge benefits. It's the political games that go on that make me sour. Real science is hard enough without the politics. I have no problem with the private sector companies "paying back" to the academic establishments for these innovations either. I also think it makes a difference where the money is spent - just spending on education just to say we are spending on education is as stupid as spending money on the military just to say we will be more safe. K-12 has their own set of issues but the flood of "college graduates" has watered down higher ed significantly.

Nobody says

So are you saying don’t tax the wealthy and keep our federal deficit increasing indefinitely?

We are all circling around a dead or dying beast - the tax code is so ridiculous and we are just dickering about minor details. Real change will only happen when the current code is tossed and replaced with something not infested with special interests and social engineering.

I'd just like to this "tax handout" stuff tied to results.

The endpoint of the argument is that giving special tax privileges and cuts to the rich will result in more wealth via "trickle down" or jobs or something.

OK fine, so tie it directly. We cut taxes for P&G by 10% and if that doesn't result in 10% raises or 10% more jobs or SOMETHING concrete, we roll it back. Simple. Same for Richy Rich, you pocket the tax savings we will raise you to 90%. Morons who keep claiming trickle down works should have to SHOW ME THE MONEY.

It's funny how people who deride unemployment saying it leads to lazy people by requiring them not to pick up garbage on the roadside, will RAGE about requirements to tie their handouts to some actual work. Yeah I'll do something nice for you later I promise, I absolutely will not buy a Maserati instead of employing another 5 people.

Vincent,

I will not hire or raise salary unless I have a demand for increased production of goods and services. The corporations make decision to hire, when they actually require some one to work and produce. Definitely not because they saved some tax. This is what Republicans' lie is based on. Less tax does not produce jobs. Less tax means less for the federal budget. Less federal budget means cuts, less service, less jobs, less research funds, less school funding etc.

I just want to say that I am not against reducing the corporate tax. Just raise the tax for high income earners whose wealth is sitting in the savings account without contributing much to the economy. If rich people are not going to spend it, take it from them and spend it.

My point is that federal surplus is not evil. It is necessary to keep our nation afloat. A good education system would create more highly skilled workers who can earn higher income. We must remember some corporations tend to locate their companies where the talent is, not overseas. Look at Silicon Valley. What was the average income in Silicon valley as opposed to the rest of the country? Tho it sure is expensive to live here. But that is another point.

I am spending over $2000 a month for my son. I am doing my part to invest in our future with my son. I regularly donate study materials to his school. But we can invest in our future as a country.

I knew the impending economic disaster 6 years ago. I tried to tell my friends and colleagues not to buy a house. Nobody listened. This time, I can feel that our country is taking a dive, and once again nobody is listening. Instead, people are arguing without offering any solution to our federal deficit.

I may not like Obama for his exorbitant spending of our tax to save evil corporations. But this time, I believe he is right on this issue.

Oh, Vincent,

One more thing. We have had 10 years of reduced tax, so where is the job? When Clinton was our president, he increased the tax for the rich. After that, every year during his administration we had our unemployment rate decreased to 4% at the end of his administration. We had federal surplus. And Republicans squandered all of them away.....

Making friends and influencing people as always, eh? Quite an impressive amount of retorts.

Nobody says

Instead, people are arguing without offering any solution to our federal deficit.

Question: our "official" debt is approaching the total amount of GDP. Our unfunded liabilities are estimated by GAO Comtroller General Walker to be over $60 trillion. Revised estimates are running as high as $100 trillion. How exactly do you think the debt will be paid off by "raising tax for the rich?"

Troy says

the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy
Debatable. I agree that we need to close the budget gap — it’s stupid borrowing money from rich people when we can just tax them instead but Government at all levels is going to be spending $6.7T next year.
Divided by $100,000 per job, that’s 67 million jobs. There’s only 115 million households in the US so that’s more than 1 well-paying government job for every two households.
So if it’s not you it’s one of your neighbors! WTF!
we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India
Dunno about that. There’s no shortage of college grads for jobs now, is there?

We must first reform socia security, medicare, and the military budgets before counting on the government to spend on something more meaningful. The debt commission is right about all of those programs needing cutbacks, however, the outrage of the people will prevent anything from happening.

The politicians will be too afraid to do anything daring to get our country back on track....

1. Look at what happened to Adrian Fenty when he reformed education programs in Washington. The TEACHERS UNIONS destroyed his career...although most agree what he did was right for the children.

2. Look at Sarah Palin's response to Pennsylvania's going away from offering children cupcakes, cookies to more healthy options. In early November, 2010, Sarah Palin brought 200 cookies to a Christian school in Pennsylvania where she also brought another speech targeted in part at Michelle Obama's fight against childhood obesity.

Although each of these programs is positive in every way....every step of the way there will be some LIBERAL or member of the PARTY OF NO antagonizing the public, swaying public opinion negatively.

Oh god the stock market MIGHT hiccup, oh god oh GOD OH GOD NOOOOO!!!!!

Meh.

That's always the specter raised by 3-year-olds & Wall Street to get their way.
Like ummm an "uuurban" in the White House crashed it didn't it? Oh wait, no that
didn't happen as it turns out. Or any number of other times I've read this line of
reasoning "if healthcare or whatever passes, it'll be like 1929 or 1987 or...."
and it just didn't happen.

Shrekidiot,

Obviously, you are confusing the arrogance to being willing to help our nation at the time of need. You are the prime example of greed that made our economy gone awry.

"I dunno about you all, but I enjoy a high capital-labor ratio. Because when you have that, you have (a) more job opportunies (b) more job security and (c) more compensation. And since high capital-labor ratios are causes when there is a lot more capital competing against each other for the pool of workers"

No that is not true. It is pretty clear that Macro-economy is not your forte. You are ignoring the last 10 years of lower tax and flooding the market with cash by the Feds have created more unemployment and job instability. I have written this over and over again, but I will do it again. When there is demand for increased production of goods and services, you will see more jobs and more compensation. You need to create more demands by what? Giving money to the rich? Give me a break. It didn't work. Now our education system is shrinking etc. Time to change the strategy. Don't be an idiot to stick to the failed policy.

I don't care if it passes the smell test of twisted degenerative nostril of greed. You can hang with the scumbag Republicans. What you are saying barely makes any logic.

Rayamerica,

Did I mention anything about national debt? I thought i was talking about Federal budget.