Robots Could Push Unemployment To 50% In 30 years

[Old_Way]

You'd have to crank the taxes up on the only people who'd have nearly all the money at that point to make it work: the rich.


If you believe this then you must also, by default, believe that all forms of insurance (private or otherwise) are invalid too.

When I buy house insurance, I'm paying a premium based on the chances of something bad happening to my house during a current year. The money for claims may be pooled, but that initial premium is based on the risks for my house only. Therefore I don't link other forms of insurance with SS. The biggest screw up with SS is our own government. The original system was set up using an average life expectancy that was far less than it currently is. They didn't change the system as our life expectancy has grown. Therefore they are paying out WAY more than the system was ever designed for.

The problem with getting higher taxes from the "rich" is two fold - -
1) Until the rich actually sell property or stocks there isn't anything to tax. Yes, they do have a higher proportion of the worlds 'wealth' than is good for anyone.. even themselves. But owning $20 million in paintings isn't something the government can tax. And even when they can tax it, it's only on the difference between what they bought it for and what they sell it for, not the total amount. Also, it's during stock market rises that the rich grow richer and more taxes can be taken from them. During downturns in the economy, the rich are able to avoid much of their taxes by selling stocks below what they bought them for to offset other gains. Getting money out of the rich isn't as easy as just setting some 'tax rate' and being done with it. The trick is figuring out WHAT you're going to tax and how.... and doing it without them passing that cost onto everyone else.
2) We need to define what "rich" means. Is 'rich' someone with a 200 employee company worth $30 million whenever he sells it and retires? Or, is rich someone who has $30 million in stocks and is getting $1.5 million in investment income every year off of it? Once we actually determine what rich is (and it's not just the "1%" as it only takes $135K/year to be a 1%er if you're 31 years old), then we can decide what types of income / wealth actually qualifies you as being rich and how we're going to tax it... again without them just passing that tax off on everyone else.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Actually the VA is broken out from DOD spending

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

And the reason the VA is so fucked up is not because of Iraq/Afghanistan...its the aging Baby Boomer population that served in Vietnam. The amount of troops that served in the Middle east over the past is tiny vs what happened in Vietnam.

Read up on TBI and how much vets get screwed over on it. The system for current vets are terrible and there are tons of injuries not being properly rated.

Also the pensions are in the DOD budget and its a large amount

 

[GT98]

Socialism and Communism are no more prone to corruption or greed than Capitalism. Plenty of European Socialist countries ran and still run just fine. Some of them had better deficit levels than the US up until the Global Financial Crisis. Choosing to participate or not in a Socialist or Communist state is the same as it is for a Capitalist one: if you don't like it you can leave and go to a different country with different rules.

Define better..often people working in Germany, France etc pay huge taxes vs what someone makes in the US. They also have less input into their careers....seems like everyone in the US HAS to to college, where as in other countries, only the best and brightest do.

 

[GT98]

Read up on TBI and how much vets get screwed over on it. The system for current vets are terrible and there are tons of injuries not being properly rated.

Also the pensions are in the DOD budget and its a large amount

Right, but having a couple hundred of veterans with TBI is small change vs hundreds thousands of older veterans that are seeking medical attention and dying from it.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Right, but having a couple hundred of veterans with TBI is small change vs hundreds thousands of older veterans that are seeking medical attention and dying from it.

Its more like thousand to tens of thousands for just TBI alone and those rating are usually around 70% and thats ~1300 a month but add the other ones on top most hit 80-90% and thats 1500-2000 a month or so. Plenty of vets get injuried due to "work place" issues. Especially in the Marine Corps. Work place injuries are common (hazing, beatings, blood striping, various unethical happens) It gets complicated on how vets have to report how the injury accord. You cant simply say well my Cpl got mad and shoved me off an Amtrak or they threatened to beat me if i didn't jump off the vehicle....i am not joking BTW. Or why do you now have kidney problems....you can tell well i got these problems from amtrak pull ups. (i dont feel like explaining that one)

EDIT: Assume TBI is any brain injury...you get them in many ways besides IEDs

 

[GT98]

They spend "only" about $150 Billion of their budget on people though. Quite a bit of it is being blown on hardware and stupid pork barrel projects. Cutting the military budget in half wouldn't have to effect the amount of people they employ unless the military wanted it to.

How do you figure that? Lets put it this way....if your numbers are right...that $150B goes towards active duty troops in all the branches to pay salaries/benefits.

The pork barrel/hardware spending your claiming that eats up money also employs people...you need people to design/fix/engineer/whatever these projects. That would be a huge impact.

I worked for the DOD directly (I.E. was in the Army and National Guard) and I've been working indirectly with them (contractor supporting military programs) for almost 25 years...so I know a thing or two about this.

 

[kbrickley]

Define better..often people working in Germany, France etc pay huge taxes vs what someone makes in the US. They also have less input into their careers....seems like everyone in the US HAS to to college, where as in other countries, only the best and brightest do.

Although I agree that our systems are superior to ones in the EU (most of the time), I am not sure I would hold out education as one of those. Some feel that the excessive number of college graduates in the USA is part of our problem (which might have been what you are saying). We have developed a mentality against vocational work and training (even though that is where many of the jobs are currently located for unfilled positions). Perhaps more selectivity in who can attend college, and which colleges they can attend would benefit this country as much as it does the EU. We definitely need to encourage more people to pursue vocational careers (or change our immigration policy to favor applicants who can do those jobs, if Americans don't want to do them). Although I don't think our economy could function like that of Saudi Arabia where they outsource most of their labor.

 

[mesyn191]

prove that. I have never seen any stats that say the poor are now poorer than the past.

I specified in terms of income and this is trivial to prove: Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone's quality of life has gone up and welfare is massive in the US....again people can make over 30K a year on welfare. Plus off the book labor isn't hard.

And this is why I specified in terms of income, because people like you tend to want to goal post shift to "quality of life". Guess what? Smartphones, internet, and cheap TV's aren't a substitute for affordable homes, affordable college, and affordable healthcare.

$30K/yr is also not a lot in the US and not everyone on welfare gets that much. Many get far less.

And off book labor is usually pretty freaking hard (ie. farm labor) and doesn't pay crap. Its why many illegals get paid less than minimum wage and you can't live on minimum wage in the US as a individual or with a family.

defense spending in VA/pension....why would u cut miliotary spending that actually does generate something

The VA does have problems but that is mostly due to underfunding of it by the military.

The military doesn't make or produce anything, no goods or services they provide is productive is economically speaking. That doesn't mean its unnecessary mind you, we're just not getting anything economically from it. And most of the hardware funding they do is massively wasteful. They do employ lots of people so they function as a sort of half assed welfare/warfare program. Those people could be put to better use being retrained into a trade or building infrastructure rather than tooling around in tanks or training to shoot people. Put them to productive use instead essentially.

we spent over a trillion a year on welfare....it has plenty of bloat to cut.

We're spending so much on it because so many are becoming so poor because the job market is crap and so are wages. "Plenty of bloat" is an assumption on your part.

BTW I am still waiting for you to answer my question about which u will trust more

You only posted a few minutes before I started typing this up and still haven't replied to my other post to you which is now over an hour ago.

 

[GT98]

Although I agree that our systems are superior to ones in the EU (most of the time), I am not sure I would hold out education as one of those. Some feel that the excessive number of college graduates in the USA is part of our problem (which might have been what you are saying). We have developed a mentality against vocational work and training (even though that is where many of the jobs are currently located for unfilled positions). Perhaps more selectivity in who can attend college, and which colleges they can attend would benefit this country as much as it does the EU. We definitely need to encourage more people to pursue vocational careers (or change our immigration policy to favor applicants who can do those jobs, if Americans don't want to do them). Although I don't think our economy could function like that of Saudi Arabia where they outsource most of their labor.

No thats the point I was making...I did the whole gammit of training...Military, then Votech school for computers then got my degree.

 

[tetris42]

BTW who ever said i think the government is evil is correct. Government is a terrible waste and causes more trouble than it solves in almost all cases. I don't advocate no government....i advocate the smallest government possible because it is a necessary evil upto a certain point. I used to work for the DOD before retiring and worked with various other government organizations and government is the most wasteful organization i have ever seen. It has absolute power and is the hardest system to fix/shrink. Why would anyone want to further enlarge the most rigid organization concept ever built?

The DOD is probably THE most wasteful area of government, I don't think it's necessarily fair to condemn the entire institution as being evil based on that. I DO think government is way too big and corrupt the way it stands now, but the problem with just blaming everything on government, is that it ignores the positive functions it accomplishes also. My biggest criticism of the "we don't need big government" are two things:

1. Environmental Protection. Capitalism is a complete an utter failure when it comes to not wrecking the environment. There's no short or medium term profit motive to not exploiting it in every way possible and leaving the consequences for another generation. Small government isn't good at this either since pollution doesn't respect regional or state lines. This is something big government is needed for.

2. Helping to keep the poor afloat. Most people think that things like child hunger or not having affordable schools are things worth remedying. Some regions can do this without big government help, other regions don't stand a chance. That's why we need to have SOMETHING to not let people die in the street when they get too poor, be it food stamps, retirement, or something else. If we're actually looking at a 50% unemployment rate, that's something we really need to figure out. Like environmental protection, helping the poor is not profitable.

Without government, you have a vacuum of power, which would get filled in more by corporations. So I'm not excusing every awful thing government does, but I would prefer it helping at least SOME of the time, rather than inviting corporations to run wild without restraint, since by nature, they have no concern at all for matters that are unprofitable.

 

[mesyn191]

How do you figure that?

Wiki says its about $150 Billion for personnel: Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pork barrel/hardware spending your claiming that eats up money also employs people...you need people to design/fix/engineer/whatever these projects. That would be a huge impact.

Quite the opposite. How? The people and money for working on the porkbarrel projects and mostly useless hardware gets put on different, and actually economically productive, projects. Improving the infrastructure would be huge and would improve the entire economy for instance.

Throwing hundreds of billions more at the F35 or the LCS won't do much economically for the country but will make a few execs very rich. We do not need a handful more of very rich people. They aren't doing anything good for anyone at this point.

 

[GT98]

The VA does have problems but that is mostly due to underfunding of it by the military.

The military doesn't make or produce anything, no goods or services they provide is productive is economically speaking. That doesn't mean its unnecessary mind you, we're just not getting anything economically from it. And most of the hardware funding they do is massively wasteful. They do employ lots of people so they function as a sort of half assed welfare/warfare program. Those people could be put to better use being retrained into a trade or building infrastructure rather than tooling around in tanks or training to shoot people. Put them to productive use instead essentially.

The VA is completely separated from military and actually has a cabinet level in the government like the DOD

As for the Military not making or producing anything? WTF...how can you be serious? As for your other things...Combat arms (people who blow up stuff) make up a very small portion of the military and other people have actual job skills that are applicable to the real world.

 

[SomeGuy133]

I specified in terms of income and this is trivial to prove: Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And this is why I specified in terms of income, because people like you tend to want to goal post shift to "quality of life". Guess what? Smartphones, internet, and cheap TV's aren't a substitute for affordable homes, affordable college, and affordable healthcare.

$30K/yr is also not a lot in the US and not everyone on welfare gets that much. Many get far less.

And off book labor is usually pretty freaking hard (ie. farm labor) and doesn't pay crap. Its why many illegals get paid less than minimum wage and you can't live on minimum wage in the US as a individual or with a family.


The VA does have problems but that is mostly due to underfunding of it by the military.

The military doesn't make or produce anything, no goods or services they provide is productive is economically speaking. That doesn't mean its unnecessary mind you, we're just not getting anything economically from it. And most of the hardware funding they do is massively wasteful. They do employ lots of people so they function as a sort of half assed welfare/warfare program. Those people could be put to better use being retrained into a trade or building infrastructure rather than tooling around in tanks or training to shoot people. Put them to productive use instead essentially.


We're spending so much on it because so many are becoming so poor because the job market is crap and so are wages. "Plenty of bloat" is an assumption on your part.


You only posted a few minutes before I started typing this up and still haven't replied to my other post to you which is now over an hour ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Real_or_Adjusted_for_Inflation_1964-2014.png

this doesn't count welfare......Prove that people are poorer than the 30s-50s-70s when welfare is included...waiting

Really? military creates jobs...not the best kind but it does more than redistribute wealth like the welfare you appear to love so much and plenty of scientific advancements have come from military spending...what has welfare made? Jack fucking squate.

We have so many not working because they dont have a need to! They get so much money from welfare they cant get off it because they would make less. That is a broken system that you seem to support for whatever reason.

Not sure what post your referring to but you still dodged answering....

 

[SomeGuy133]

The DOD is probably THE most wasteful area of government, I don't think it's necessarily fair to condemn the entire institution as being evil based on that. I DO think government is way too big and corrupt the way it stands now, but the problem with just blaming everything on government, is that it ignores the positive functions it accomplishes also. My biggest criticism of the "we don't need big government" are two things:

1. Environmental Protection. Capitalism is a complete an utter failure when it comes to not wrecking the environment. There's no short or medium term profit motive to not exploiting it in every way possible and leaving the consequences for another generation. Small government isn't good at this either since pollution doesn't respect regional or state lines. This is something big government is needed for.

2. Helping to keep the poor afloat. Most people think that things like child hunger or not having affordable schools are things worth remedying. Some regions can do this without big government help, other regions don't stand a chance. That's why we need to have SOMETHING to not let people die in the street when they get too poor, be it food stamps, retirement, or something else. If we're actually looking at a 50% unemployment rate, that's something we really need to figure out. Like environmental protection, helping the poor is not profitable.

Without government, you have a vacuum of power, which would get filled in more by corporations. So I'm not excusing every awful thing government does, but I would prefer it helping at least SOME of the time, rather than inviting corporations to run wild without restraint, since by nature, they have no concern at all for matters that are unprofitable.

I never said the government wasn't needed. I said its an necessary evil.

The power the government has to destroy lives is unrivaled by anyone, which is why it needs to be as small as possible and have as much checks and balance as possible but that simply isn't how our government is anymore.

 

[GT98]

Quite the opposite. How? The people and money for working on the porkbarrel projects and mostly useless hardware gets put on different, and actually economically productive, projects. Improving the infrastructure would be huge and would improve the entire economy for instance.

Throwing hundreds of billions more at the F35 or the LCS won't do much economically for the country but will make a few execs very rich. We do not need a handful more of very rich people. They aren't doing anything good for anyone at this point.

So using the F-35 for example, its ok to kill off that program and put over 100K people out of work, who are working on it directly or indirectly? Seriously?

 

[SomeGuy133]

So using the F-35 for example, its ok to kill off that program and put over 100K people out of work, who are working on it directly or indirectly? Seriously?

the real waste in the DOD is units having to pay 2 dollars for a fucking pen. (over exaggerating but my unit wasted so much money at servmart because of the price guaging) Also gear is insanely over priced for its lack of quality. Gortex anyone? Those coats are garbage and hundreds of dollars.

Also the mess hall is robbery...300 a month? Seriously? I am stoppign there before i get into the ridiculous lies they spew about how much they actually pay military members. (barrack troops particularly...i wonder where all that money really goes)

 

[GT98]

the real waste in the DOD is units having to pay 2 dollars for a fucking pen. (over exaggerating but my unit wasted so much money at servmart because of the price guaging) Also gear is insanely over priced for its lack of quality. Gortex anyone? Those coats are garbage and hundreds of dollars.

Also the mess hall is robbery...300 a month? Seriously? I am stoppign there before i get into the ridiculous lies they spew about how much they actually pay military members. (barrack troops particularly...i wonder where all that money really goes)

I still have my Gortex gear from 20 years ago

 

[mesyn191]

When I buy house insurance, I'm paying a premium based on the chances of something bad happening to my house during a current year. The money for claims may be pooled, but that initial premium is based on the risks for my house only. Therefore I don't link other forms of insurance with SS....The original system was set up using an average life expectancy that was far less than it currently is.

But SS works the same way essentially. In that respect it is no different from any other insurance. Where things get weird is that it is a govt. back stopped entity that will not be allowed to fail. Unlike private insurance which fails all the time BTW. They also expected people to live longer and accounted for that with SS. More reading here on the subject and addresses common anti SS meme's others have been presenting in this thread.

1) Until the rich actually sell property or stocks there isn't anything to tax.

Dividends from holding stocks can be taxed too. Same goes for holding property. There is nothing unusual or inherently difficult about taxing the rich more. The problem is political in nature.

2) We need to define what "rich" means.

This also is a solved problem, the real problem is political. We could quibble back and forth on what exact rate a rich or very rich person would get on what particular good, property, or stock of course but in principle "lots higher" for billionaires is something that nearly everyone would be OK with.

 

[SomeGuy133]

But SS works the same way essentially. In that respect it is no different from any other insurance. Where things get weird is that it is a govt. back stopped entity that will not be allowed to fail. Unlike private insurance which fails all the time BTW. They also expected people to live longer and accounted for that with SS. More reading here on the subject and addresses common anti SS meme's others have been presenting in this thread.

not even close. You pay per year for protection. You are confusing whole life insurance with liability insurance....vastly different. Also whole life is back by the government....no one backs the government....

 

[mesyn191]

Define better..often people working in Germany, France etc pay huge taxes vs what someone makes in the US. They also have less input into their careers....seems like everyone in the US HAS to to college, where as in other countries, only the best and brightest do.

Uh "deficit" is pretty well defined already. I think you're misreading, I'm not talking about quality of life there. Though if you're asking I'd say its about the same overall vs the US.

Yes they pay more in taxes but they're also getting something for their money. Their total healthcare costs for instance is about half of the US's. Yes cars tend to be very expensive but they have good public transport. Yes college access in some of them is more limited in the US but its also more affordable and they take their "vocational" schooling more seriously if you can't get into college. Comparison's are difficult but on the whole they're pretty good places to live.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Uh "deficit" is pretty well defined already. I think you're misreading, I'm not talking about quality of life there. Though if you're asking I'd say its about the same overall vs the US.

Yes they pay more in taxes but they're also getting something for their money. Their total healthcare costs for instance is about half of the US's. Yes cars tend to be very expensive but they have good public transport. Yes college access in some of them is more limited in the US but its also more affordable and they take their "vocational" schooling more seriously if you can't get into college. Comparison's are difficult but on the whole they're pretty good places to live.

your comparing things that can not directly relate. There population density is off the charts. You can not have effective mass transit in the US outside of cities. It simply is not economical....its also well know mass transit is loaded with corruption. Chinas is horrible. CA bullet train is a joke. Amtrak, CTA are all shit because the market isn't there and they are endlessly bailed out.

EDIT: IL is the 12th densest state. It has less than half the density of Germany.

US is 90 vs EU is 300 or something like that in density....mass transit is a pipe dream outside of cities.

Also our culture loves the freedom of cars...mass transit isn't ever happening in our life times beyond driverless cards.

 

[mesyn191]

The VA is completely separated from military and actually has a cabinet level in the government like the DOD

OK my bad, still its underfunded though.

As for the Military not making or producing anything? WTF...how can you be serious? As for your other things...Combat arms (people who blow up stuff) make up a very small portion of the military and other people have actual job skills that are applicable to the real world.

What good or service does the military provide that is a positive economic benefit? I've already said they're necessary but that doesn't mean they make any money. The military is an expense not a source of income correct? And yes I know the military does provide some real actual job skills for some people but I don't think they do enough of it and if they do they're not using them in a economically productive manner.

 

[SomeGuy133]

OK my bad, still its underfunded though.


What good or service does the military provide that is a positive economic benefit? I've already said they're necessary but that doesn't mean they make any money. The military is an expense not a source of income correct? And yes I know the military does provide some real actual job skills for some people but I don't think they do enough of it and if they do they're not using them in a economically productive manner.

GPS
Internet
freeze drying
medicine
cargo pants
duct tape
cameras (to an extent)
computers to an extent
microwave
super glue
Springs (slinky was a product of the military)
supposedly digital cameras
epipen
deep web
TOR

and many more


name anything welfare has made? Waiting.....

 

[mesyn191]

not even close. You pay per year for protection. You are confusing whole life insurance with liability insurance....vastly different. Also whole life is back by the government....no one backs the government....

Nope. SS wouldn't be comparable to either of those. Its direct comparison would be an annutiy. And everybody who pays taxes backs the govt. That plus the sheer size of SS is what makes its comparison to typical insurance of any sort difficult and strange.

 

[mesyn191]

GPS
Internet
freeze drying
medicine
cargo pants
duct tape
cameras (to an extent)
computers to an extent
microwave
and amny more


name anything welfare has made? Waiting.....

Some of that is actually DARPA and most is private industry though. It all would've been made without the military and could've easily been done cheaper as a public fund to develop ideas into products.

Also the whole "waiting" thing you keep doing at this point is pretty hypocritical. You've often took well over half an hour to reply to be before and there is still the other one from over an hour ago you haven't replied to.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Nope. SS wouldn't be comparable to either of those. Its direct comparison would be an annutiy. And everybody who pays taxes backs the govt. That plus the sheer size of SS is what makes its comparison to typical insurance of any sort difficult and strange.

holy shit! You just said this "But SS works the same way essentially. In that respect it is no different from any other insurance." Wow

 

[SomeGuy133]

Some of that is actually DARPA and most is private industry though. It all would've been made without the military and could've easily been done cheaper as a public fund to develop ideas into products.

Also the whole "waiting" thing you keep doing at this point is pretty hypocritical. You've often took well over half an hour to reply to be before and there is still the other one from over an hour ago you haven't replied to.

again i asked what post...you keep bitching about not repling and i asked what post did i miss. Good job and being intellectually dishonest! *clap clap*

BTW you badger the DOD as a waste but you rather spew welfare out the ass? How does that make any logical sense. BTW that was rhetorical.

 

[mesyn191]

your comparing things that can not directly relate.

Dude its like you're having a totally different conversation.

You seemed to me to be asking what I thought of the quality of life in general of EU/Socialist countries and that was what I was replying to.

I know we can't have everything they have over there exactly the same for various reasons but that is all besides the point.

 

[mesyn191]

holy shit! You just said this "But SS works the same way essentially. In that respect it is no different from any other insurance." Wow

Annuties are a type of insurance but they're not the same as life or liability insurance. How can you talk about SS at all and not know this?!

 

[SomeGuy133]

Dude its like you're having a totally different conversation.

You seemed to me to be asking what I thought of the quality of life in general of EU/Socialist countries and that was what I was replying to.

I know we can't have everything they have over there exactly the same for various reasons but that is all besides the point.

and you blame me of goal post shifting? -_-

 

[SomeGuy133]

Annuties are a type of insurance but they're not the same as life or liability insurance. How can you talk about SS at all and not know this?!

Zooterkins, you just said earlier that home owners insurance is the same as SS. Dude i am so done. You are all over the place.

 

[mesyn191]

So using the F-35 for example, its ok to kill off that program and put over 100K people out of work, who are working on it directly or indirectly? Seriously?

Sure, if the program is a money sink, and the F35 is, and that money could be put to more economically sensible work.

Why spend hundreds of billions to keep ~100K people employed when you can spend that same hundreds of billions and keep millions employed?

 

[SomeGuy133]

Sure, if the program is a money sink, and the F35 is, and that money could be put to more economically sensible work.

Why spend hundreds of billions to keep ~100K people employed when you can spend that same hundreds of billions and keep millions employed?

but letting people live off welfare and do nothing is more productive?

 

[mesyn191]

Zooterkins, you just said earlier that home owners insurance is the same as SS. Dude i am so done. You are all over the place.

Nooope. You're misreading. He was describing how home owners insurance is different and the exact words I used were: "works the same way essentially". That is a very very different then than "is the same as SS".

Also the post you haven't replied to still is on the previous page. You have to hit refresh to see some of the posts because of the forum changes.

 

[mesyn191]

but letting people live off welfare and do nothing is more productive?

Yes. Why? Because they actually spend all the money they get. The execs over at LockMart just pocket huge chunks of it instead and squirrel it away to prevent it from getting taxed.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Nooope. You're misreading. He was describing how home owners insurance is different and the exact words I used were: "works the same way essentially". That is a very very different then than "is the same as SS".

Also the post you haven't replied to still is on the previous page. You have to hit refresh to see some of the posts because of the forum changes.

please explain how it works the same way because you clearly dont understand SS and home owners insurance. Any remotely intelligent person would laugh and boak (sp?) at the phrase they work the same way.

be more precise. I am not hunting for your question. I pointed exactly what question you missed and yet you still haven't responded......

 

[mesyn191]

and you blame me of goal post shifting? -_-

He misread my post about deficits and took it to mean quality of life. How was that a goal post shift on my part?

 

[SomeGuy133]

Yes. Why? Because they actually spend all the money they get. The execs over at LockMart just pocket huge chunks of it instead and squirrel it away to prevent it from getting taxed.

unless thats been proven and peer reviewed that is BS in my book.

 

[mesyn191]

unless thats been proven and peer reviewed that is BS in my book.

Its not a study or a research paper. Nothing to peer review. It was also done by a bank, not the govt. or a think tank with a ax to grind.

 

[Old_Way]

Uh "deficit" is pretty well defined already. I think you're misreading, I'm not talking about quality of life there. Though if you're asking I'd say its about the same overall vs the US.

Yes they pay more in taxes but they're also getting something for their money. Their total healthcare costs for instance is about half of the US's. Yes cars tend to be very expensive but they have good public transport. Yes college access in some of them is more limited in the US but its also more affordable and they take their "vocational" schooling more seriously if you can't get into college. Comparison's are difficult but on the whole they're pretty good places to live.

You keep saying that "X" is solved, or "Y" is defined... I want to see that definition. Tell us how determining what "rich" means was/is solved. Explain to us what the 'deficit' is defined as and how much it really is... total liabilities.... and how taxing everyone considered 'rich' at a higher rate is going to magically solve those deficit gaps. I don't remember where I read it, but if I remember right, the 0.1% highest wealth families in this country own roughly 22% of the total wealth of the country (about $12 Trillion dollars). If you taxed those 0.1% people at 100% of everything they have (total confiscation), you would effectively knock out 2/3 of our current national debt (we owe the world approximately $19 trillion and are currently borrowing 40 cents for every dollar the government spends). At that point you will have slain the goose and that type of seizure can never be done again. So, tell us again how taxing the rich is somehow going to solve all our problems! I agree that income disparity has become a huge problem. But saying it's all going to be solved by taking more from the rich is a fantasy. There's no way that our tax and entitlement liabilities are solved without higher taxes on everyone and every business. The problem of course is those higher taxes just pushes more business and jobs out of the country even faster.