The biggest social safety net in the US

[Barb_]

I'm sorry, but this is so incorrect it's nearing ridiculous. Do you use toilet paper? Kleenex? Disposable diapers? Do your children write on paper? Do you use coffee filters? Is your home stick framed? Is your furniture wood? All of these things were processed at a mill. Most of them were farmed in the Southeast from Southern Yellow Pine that's on a 15-20 year growing cycle.

 

Clearcutting vs farming wood is another discussion though.

 

The mill jobs are obsolete in the towns that used to depend on them but no longer have them. I'm thinking cotton mills and steel mills that have shuttered and left large percentages of the population unemployed. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[creekland]

After reading that article - and many of the responses - my first thought is to give up the fight and be glad we've got what we need for ourselves to live comfortably.  If the others want to die with cancer waiting for jobs that won't come back rather than accept help, so be it.  Good luck getting that help by voting for a particular businessman - though if his business makes money and some advance from that, it can happen.  The planet might get trashed (Lorax-style), but hey, if they're willing to die of cancer, what's dirty air and water?

 

I don't know.  I thought I was fighting to give ALL the same benefits I've enjoyed.  I had grandparents (farmers and factory workers) who thought ahead and saw to it my parents went to college to get in "better" jobs (though farming was still acceptable - just a different son took over the farm).  I had parents who saw to it that I had what I needed to succeed in this generation.  They supported me with food, college, health care, etc.  Then "I" could do what I needed.  If we were short $$ a month or two, they stepped in to help.

 

We're doing the same for our kids and (so far) our kids are also succeeding.

 

So... being the "equality" and "planet conscious" person I am (rather than "I've got mine - sucks to be you"), I want the same opportunities for everyone.  If they weren't fortunate enough from the birth lottery to have the solid financial family backing I did, I want them to get it from elsewhere so they can do their part to succeed.  I don't want health issues to cause them to falter physically or financially.  I don't want lack of schooling to put up roadblocks.  I don't want anyone going hungry.  To me, it's worth it for those of us who have more to contribute to "pots" for these things so others can pull from it to solidify their foundation and have similar opportunities.  I know some will abuse it, but honestly?  They aren't the majority so I don't worry about that all that much.  Catch them when you can, but don't throw out the whole program due to a few bad apples.   Many charities try to do these things, so we contribute to charities, but not everyone contributes and charities themselves will admit they can't help everyone.  Gov't programs might not be perfect either, but they can reach more - esp if costs are divided into taxes and esp if the wealthier among us give a little more so others can have similar opportunities.

 

But you know what?  If that article is correct and these folks don't want help in the form of healthcare (for all), more affordable education, and a safety net for food, etc, and would rather dream that obsolete jobs will come back... why do I bother?  I've got mine.  My kids are doing well.  Their kids will do well.

 

Why try to help those who don't want it?  Let them get satisfaction from their sound bites and hopes.

 

The problem I still have?  Their kids... Adults can have whatever lumps they want I suppose, but their kids shouldn't have to suffer due to their parents lack of understanding...

 

Even now, I see kids at school who skip lunch because they can't afford it and their parents don't want to take advantage of free/reduced lunch opportunities available to them.  They don't want the safety net that can give their kids some sort of nutrition and calories to help their brains grow to become the best they can be.  My family saw to it that I had food.  Their families don't.  They'd rather die I guess.  But I (and other teachers) lightly tread around this and often try to provide something when we can - letting the kids know they can pay it forward when they reach a point of being able to do so...  There can be success that way.  There's little success pretending life is what it isn't.

[Tanaqui]

We don't *now*, because the problem was recognized and reversed.  At times we have had the highest rate among countries where anyone would willingly do business.  Given that tax averages a large % of a company's expenses, of course this is an incentive to move out.

 

So first you said we have the highest tax rate for corporations. Now you're saying we don't, but we did at some unspecified time in the past. Am I supposed to just take your word for this? I didn't expect you to believe me without evidence, which is why I linked to the site I got my information from.

[Barb_]

Reflecting on history, I think the biggest reason to minimize government intervention is that Congress finds itself incapable of letting go when that is objectively the right thing to do. I can see why the wise founding founders tried to keep government out of everything that has a chance of running without government "help."

 

Some people are going to interpret this as meaning "live and let die," but it applies equally to "corporate welfare" as to other nanny state policies.

Communities were much smaller and tighter knit when they were writing the constitution. Communities would care for the orphans and widows. That's no longer possible. Local food banks are the best defense against hunger outside of government programs like WIC, meals on wheels, and school breakfast/lunch etc, and they are always severely short staffed and out of the necessities. In our country government doesn't do anywhere near enough to help people who need it. We are all one serious illness or one broken back away from living out of our cars.

[SKL]

So first you said we have the highest tax rate for corporations. Now you're saying we don't, but we did at some unspecified time in the past. Am I supposed to just take your word for this? I didn't expect you to believe me without evidence, which is why I linked to the site I got my information from.

 

Please go back and read what I actually said.  You might notice my words were in the past tense, as were many of the corporate moves out of the US.

 

I have been a tax professional for 25+ years.

 

You are free to do your own research or to disbelieve what I say.  I really don't care.  I was responding to the person who argued that companies didn't move because of anything the government did, i.e., the government did not give them a tax incentive to move.  Well, a high tax rate compared to other potential sites is a negative incentive to stay = positive incentive to move.  Many other countries have encouraged companies to locate there by cutting their tax rates.  It is a very strong incentive; denying it isn't helping anything.

Edited March 17, 2017 by SKL

[Barb_]

Having the highest corporate tax rate in the world didn't help matters. Companies absolutely moved for reasons of taxes, as well as inflated labor costs. (It's been a while now, but when assembly line workers make multiple times what many college-educated professionals make, that's not sustainable.)

And I believe we've swung too far in the other direction with corporate tax cuts, aka welfare. But if that's true and companies fled primarily because taxes and salaries were too high, then those great jobs with the high salaries aren't coming back, even if the companies return, which they won't. And that was the point of my long ramble last night.

 

PS: Tangentially related thought--I think salaries were much higher up north where unions were stronger anyway. None of my aunts and cousins were making much money in the textile mills in NC

[SKL]

In our country government doesn't do anywhere near enough to help people who need it. We are all one serious illness or one broken back away from living out of our cars.

 

The US poor are doing a lot better than the average person in most countries.  And no, we are not "all one serious illness or one broken back away from living out of our cars."

 

We have lots of room for improvement, but talking like this makes it impossible to address the areas where we really can and should improve.

 

[creekland]

Communities were much smaller and tighter knit when they were writing the constitution. Communities would care for the orphans and widows. That's no longer possible. Local food banks are the best defense against hunger outside of government programs like WIC, meals on wheels, and school breakfast/lunch etc, and they are always severely short staffed and out of the necessities. In our country government doesn't do anywhere near enough to help people who need it. We are all one serious illness or one broken back away from living out of our cars.

 

Not all of us.  The wealthy aren't.  I know I have family who would help and we can afford health care, insurance, etc.

 

The problem is... there are too many people who don't have enough "outside backing."

 

Then there's this dumb (I'll say it) belief in the US that one has to do it all themselves or something is wrong with them.  Getting help isn't wrong.  It's smart.  Communities (even up to the country level) need to be able to depend upon each other because none of us know who is going to draw the short straw.  We're in this life together - as individuals, many will fall and few will do as well as they could have.

[Barb_]

The US poor are doing a lot better than the average person in most countries. And no, we are not "all one serious illness or one broken back away from living out of our cars."

 

We have lots of room for improvement, but talking like this makes it impossible to address the areas where we really can and should improve.

 

Yes we are. If a major bread winner sickens or is seriously injured and has no disability insurance, that is enough to ruin families. Even with disability insurance, the pauements aren't nearly enough to cover a whole salary.

 

And you're right, I should have said "many" or even "most". I know better.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[creekland]

The US poor are doing a lot better than the average person in most countries.  

 

Not in most first world countries like we're supposed to be...

[Barb_]

The US poor are doing a lot better than the average person in most countries. .

 

Wait, I have to go back and address this. Are we comparing our poor to developed countries or to emerging countries? Because I'm going to have to take issue with that statement. I'd like to add that if this administration succeds in getting a smalll portion of the proposed budged passed we are going to look like a developing country.

[SKL]

And I believe we've swung too far in the other direction with corporate tax cuts, aka welfare. But if that's true and companies fled primarily because taxes and salaries were too high, then those great jobs with the high salaries aren't coming back, even if the companies return, which they won't. And that was the point of my long ramble last night.

 

PS: Tangentially related thought--I think salaries were much higher up north where unions were stronger anyway. None of my aunts and cousins were making much money in the textile mills in NC

 

Yes, it is pretty clear that things will not and should not go back to how they were in the days when unions inflated the cost of labor (yes, a lot of it in the north) and Congress used taxes to punish corporations.

 

There is a lot of talk about punishing corporations now though.  Let's just keep in mind that jobs are good to have.  Our population is expanding; we need the job market to expand, not contract.

 

I do believe in voting with our pocketbooks, and I do it every day.  I don't agree with corporate welfare that does not have a clear demonstrable benefit to low-income people.  I also don't agree with Congress using its legislative power to punish or strong-arm corporations unless there is a clear demonstrable net benefit.  Collecting more taxes is never ever the whole picture.  If your city government raised local taxes to, say, 30% and you had another home in a low-tax city, chances are you (and all your neighbors) would move as soon as feasible.  Your city would get some more money for a little while, and then it would be hurting.

[Barb_]

Yes, it is pretty clear that things will not and should not go back to how they were in the days when unions inflated the cost of labor (yes, a lot of it in the north) and Congress used taxes to punish corporations.

 

There is a lot of talk about punishing corporations now though. Let's just keep in mind that jobs are good to have. Our population is expanding; we need the job market to expand, not contract.

 

I do believe in voting with our pocketbooks, and I do it every day. I don't agree with corporate welfare that does not have a clear demonstrable benefit to low-income people. I also don't agree with Congress using its legislative power to punish or strong-arm corporations unless there is a clear demonstrable net benefit. Collecting more taxes is never ever the whole picture. If your city government raised local taxes to, say, 30% and you had another home in a low-tax city, chances are you (and all your neighbors) would move as soon as feasible. Your city would get some more money for a little while, and then it would be hurting.

This is really a ramble from the original intent of the thread.

[Barb_]

Alright, I've gotta go make coffee. Luck 'o the Irish to you all. Don't forget to wear green ðŸ€

[Tanaqui]

SKL, it's not unreasonable to ask you to provide a source for your claims. "I'm a tax expert" is not a source. If you're in the business, then it should be even easier for you to back up your claims than for the rest of us to do so.

[SKL]

Wait, I have to go back and address this. Are we comparing our poor to developed countries or to emerging countries? Because I'm going to have to take issue with that statement. I'd like to add that if this administration succeds in getting a smalll portion of the proposed budged passed we are going to look like a developing country.

 

I compared our poor to their middle class.  Their middle class who are not living in luxury, but who consider themselves to have "enough."

 

My point is that we need to put things in perspective when we talk about what "enough" is.  We are a very spoiled country.  When we have fundraisers to ensure the poor children have $100+ shoes (yes Shoes for Kids told me that is really important), we have a perspective issue.

 

Enough will never be enough in some people's minds.  That's just simply not helpful.

 

We live in a country where we are not allowed to offer certain kinds of help because ... well I can't articulate why.  The lady who was fined for giving poor kids free sandwiches because she didn't have a food service license.  Restaurants are not allowed to give away prepared food, they have to throw it in the garbage.  People in subsidized housing are not allowed to share the way many of us do.  We have lots of room for improvement like I said.  But in general, its not "how much" we redistribute but how we do it that is the problem.

[SKL]

SKL, it's not unreasonable to ask you to provide a source for your claims. "I'm a tax expert" is not a source. If you're in the business, then it should be even easier for you to back up your claims than for the rest of us to do so.

 

You have the same access to internet that I have.

 

When you are paying me a fee, I will feel obligated to provide you with backup when you ask for it.

 

Why are you even hounding me, when your own research told you that right now, our effective corporate tax rate is one of the highest?  Do you need to see the multinational comparison for every year since 1900 in order to accept that tax expense differentials are a factor in where corporations locate their operations over time?

[SKL]

Never mind, no point ....

Edited March 17, 2017 by SKL

[Paige]

Some towns do fight for their Main Streets and win. They vote to keep out Costco and Walmart. It happens all the time. Mill jobs are not gone, they moved. It wasn't just capitalism. The government helped move them. 

 

Only those doing well can afford to pay a premium to shop at local stores instead of Walmart and Costco. When towns fight to keep Walmart out, they are saying that they are ok paying higher prices to support locals. It's a nice ideal if you can afford it. But, who is really voting for that? I bet it is the local business owners and their relatively wealthy friends. It's not the people in town who are barely making it and who don't care where they shop if it means they can provide more food for their families.

 

Wealthy neighborhoods have more boutique/local shops. Poor neighborhood have The Dollar Store. 

 

I don't shop at Walmart if I can avoid it. There's something about the lights and crowds that gives me a headache, but that is a privilege for me. I know many people who only shop at Walmart and who would suffer, actually suffer, if they had to budget for buying groceries at a local store. It's capitalism that makes people shop at Walmart- they can get more for less money. Some people don't care if it's cheap crap from China because the choice isn't between low quality and high quality for them. It's between low quality and nothing. 

[Guest]

Not all of us. The wealthy aren't. I know I have family who would help and we can afford health care, insurance, etc.

 

The problem is... there are too many people who don't have enough "outside backing."

 

Then there's this dumb (I'll say it) belief in the US that one has to do it all themselves or something is wrong with them. Getting help isn't wrong. It's smart. Communities (even up to the country level) need to be able to depend upon each other because none of us know who is going to draw the short straw. We're in this life together - as individuals, many will fall and few will do as well as they could have.

There is a distinction you're not making - not that we have to do it ourselves, but that it isn't the job of the federal government, or oftentimes even state and local, government. But that seems to be an unbridgeable divide in thinking, unfortunately. I can't get behind it if we aren't talking about the destitute, disabled, or those otherwise unable to care for themselves reasonably by way of work and resources. Plenty of excellent writing on the topic if you want to understand it - I really love Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell for this topic.

 

But I do believe you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing those you disagree with. The opposite of 'it's not the government's job' isn't 'every man for himself', but rather that not all functions of care in a society, or even most, are best executed under the purview of the state.

 

And I'm sure there will be plenty of caterwauling and pushback on this topic and I'm frankly not interested in discussing it further. I know the arguments and no minds will be changed here, but the fact remains the 'voting against one's best interests' argument is absolutely insulting in that it assumes that getting the biggest piece of one's fiscal pie matters more than rhe potential ramifications of mortgaging the future to pay for today. My children deserve better than the debt burden they're inheriting precisely because of this line of thinking.

 

There is absolutely a time and place for federal programs and assistance, especially in the realm of basic access to education, maintained public utilities, and health services. But we kid ourselves to think it is a linear relationship from there on all other measures of help - that good is proportionally increased by spending and aid and the drawbacks remains stagnant at a low level too. Principles of Basic Economics is a fantastic book on this very subject.

 

And that's all I'll say about that. I absolutely detest this topic, especially on a forum. I'm an idiot for even being drawn in to make comment.

[historically accurate]

I compared our poor to their middle class.  Their middle class who are not living in luxury, but who consider themselves to have "enough."

 

My point is that we need to put things in perspective when we talk about what "enough" is.  We are a very spoiled country.  When we have fundraisers to ensure the poor children have $100+ shoes (yes Shoes for Kids told me that is really important), we have a perspective issue.

 

Enough will never be enough in some people's minds.  That's just simply not helpful.

 

We live in a country where we are not allowed to offer certain kinds of help because ... well I can't articulate why.  The lady who was fined for giving poor kids free sandwiches because she didn't have a food service license.  Restaurants are not allowed to give away prepared food, they have to throw it in the garbage.  People in subsidized housing are not allowed to share the way many of us do.  We have lots of room for improvement like I said.  But in general, its not "how much" we redistribute but how we do it that is the problem.

 

IIRC, you're the one who took Barb to task for saying "all". Now, it appears you are doing it. 

 

America's poor are all greedy people who will refuse any but the most expensive shoes. All middle class people in developing countries are completely satisfied with their lot in life even though they don't have as much as America's poor people. Do you have evidence for this? I've never visited a developing country, so I do not have firsthand knowledge. But, as far as I know, people are the same world-wide in greed and contentment overall. I'm assuming that there are outliers in every level of income and every country in the world; some people are more prone to greed & envy; some people are more prone to contentment. Without evidence I don't know that I believe that America's poor are more prone to greed than some other country's middle class.

 

As for the Shoes for Kids charity, I agree it seems stupid. But then I hear about how much charities (often already running on a shoestring) have to pay for disposal of crap that is only fit for the landfill. So, I guess I can understand how they would only accept new (I disagree about the price limit though). 

[Twolittleboys]

I didn't read the article and only about half the posts so maybe I am not understanding this but:

 

I have no problem with for example "subsidizing" healthcare (or education etc.) for some. There will always be people who make less than others: maybe they are less smart or less hard-working or less healthy or just didn't have the same advantages as far as schooling etc. is concerned. There are people working in jobs that do not pay as well but we still need those jobs to be done. Some people make a decent amount of money but just have more expenses (bigger families etc.). I think it is the Christian/ethical duty of people who can pay a bit more to help those who need help (and it is quite possible to be part of either groups at different times during ones life).

 

But I don't have any patience or understanding for preserving some mythical "culture" and perpetuating the problem. I do think cultural identity is important and there is nothing wrong with consciously keeping family traditions, religious observations, leisure time activities, local dialect etc. I am all for that. But (and maybe I misunderstood what I read) if it comes to refusing education/healthcare to be able to continue in mining (or whatever) jobs I just don't get it. Yes, if you are already in a job like that you may have to go on doing it but at a minimum wouldn't you want your kids to find a more sustainable profession?

[JoJosMom]

I would argue that it isn't the government's job to help create jobs that are obsolete. It is, however the government's job to provide a safety net while people are training for new skills or are injured and unable to work or are past the point of starting over or raising small children and must choose between leaving them alone or homelessness.

 

Jobs become obsolete. They just do, it stinks. I know someone who graduated with a degree in cartography in 1991, just as computers were taking off. He's still paying off student loans for a useless degree while working as a hotel manager with very few benefits. My grandad moved out of Appalachia in 1960--they led their families and friends to move to Florida because that's where the jobs were. The family and friends he left behind are still there, many poor and most Trump votors. Their kids are leaving because there's no more mill work and no more furniture factories. The world moves on, life changes. Tou can't preserve a way of life that no longer exists. This isn't the big picture, its myopic.

 

NM.  Just devolving into the same thing.

 

Interesting link, OP.  Thank you for sharing.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JoJosMom

[TechWife]

Some jobs do indeed become obsolete. Punch card computing, for instance. We are still using wood in society the last time I looked around. We are still using energy that comes from coal and oil. Mining and logging are two industries that are nowhere close to obsolete, that is why I mentioned them. They are industries that could be flourishing responsibly without senseless intervention. With real planning we will always need trees and their byproducts. There would be mill work (because we are all still buying new furniture and building new houses) if there were not a war on industry in this country. Mills are simply not obselete just because you want to send those jobs somewhere else.  We are all still driving cars and yet Michigan has problems. When American industry cannot compete fairly the workers see that. 

 

When you make war on a culture, you must expect that culture to fight back. They are fighting back. They will vote for the next Trump rather than a Democrat who wants to give out handouts. They don't want handouts. They want a future. And vague promises arn't enough. They understand that their jobs are not obsolete, they are just moving to other countries to people who will do them for pennies on the dollar. 

 

Coal jobs are not coming back, it's just a fact. Even if coal mining were to increase, the work would not be done by people, but by machines. 

 

Mining 24 Hours a Day with Robots 

 

Robotics, driverless tech are taking over mining jobs 

 

The Mining Industry in 2016: Sensors, robots and drones, oh my! 

[Farrar]

Some towns manage to have both Wal-Mart and a resurgent main street. I've been a bit amazed by my grandparents' small town, where I watched Wal-Mart destroy the downtown as a child and as an adult have watched the downtown come back with very different businesses like restaurants and hotels and artisans. It's still quite jarring to me to see, honestly.

 

My grandparents picked cotton and peanuts and worked in textile mills. They never, in a million years, wanted that for their kids or grandchildren. They didn't even want that life for themselves. Every time my grandmother ever mentions her hard labor childhood, she says something like, "That was back breaking work." When they were in their 50's, they had to find other jobs and were glad to be able to do so. I think the whole "way of life" thing is about wanting your community to continue and wanting your children to be able to make a living. If the only ways to make a living require a radically different education in a different community, then that's going to feel impossible to people. But if you can find ways to bring new jobs and restructure education in ways that make sense, then I think that's what people want - even if it's not what they know they want.

 

Manufacturing jobs are not necessarily gone forever. Things will always need to be made. But what those jobs are, what they look like, etc. inevitably will change.

 

I think coal *is* gone for good. There will continue to be some coal jobs for many years to come, but it's a diminishing resource with a high cost to the environment that's not as efficient as other fuel sources. Unlike, say, bringing manufacturing back, which could happen, I don't know how coal comes back.

[TechWife]

Logging and mining are far from obsolete.  They are simply disfavored by liberals who prefer to ship those "messy" industries overseas. 

 

 

Overseas - you mean where the jobs are being done by robots? It would be the same here - an increase in coal mining would simply mean an increase in automation, not an increase in jobs. 

[creekland]

There is absolutely a time and place for federal programs and assistance, especially in the realm of basic access to education, maintained public utilities, and health services. 

 

Interesting that you mention these in your post, because the only one I added that you did not was food... ;)  (You added maintaining public utilities which I agree with.)

 

IMO, the gov't is really only responsible for the foundational needs safety net - and we all need to contribute to it with those among us who are wealthy paying in more simply because we are able to do so.

 

Needs, to me, include food/water, education, health, clothing, and shelter.  Education includes K-12 and post high school (vo tech or college or similar) since in today's world, that's incredibly needed for many people.  Health includes universal health that is free at point of service for all basics from basic flu to cancer.  Clothing seems to be able to be handled by charities.  Shelter is a tougher one to work out due to supply/demand.

 

In all of these cases, those who want more than the gov't safety net can still get it - just like we can choose to homeschool rather than using the local ps - but the safety net should still be there to try to give everyone the chance to succeed - not just those with luck and/or financial backers of their own (like family).

 

No system will ever be perfect, but the one we have now sure isn't good (unless one is wealthy) - esp when compared to other first world countries.

[Barb_]

.

 

And I'm sure there will be plenty of caterwauling and pushback on this topic and I'm frankly not interested in discussing it .

I'm supposed to be off of here, but two quick points. The phrase quoted above is a good example of "why we can't talk to one another." Disagreement isn't caterwauling. That wasn't fair.

 

Second point is, "voting against their insterests" means voting for someone who is diverting funds from what we NEED, and struggling communities need most. I'm sure those kids watch pbs, use the local health clinic, use the senior bus transport service to get them to their doctor's appointments. Meals on wheels, libraries, traveling museum exhibits. I spend a lot of time in small towns in GA, NC, MO, IL, and TN and I see the invisible hand of government everywhere. It's in places they depend on and take for granted. The current administration would love to cancel the vast majority of programs that make life worth living and divert that to the military and a vast monument to our leader on the southern border. That sounds like some of the ancient cultures we've studied this year. .

 

ETA: Oh duh, forgot my point. The debt burden doesn't look like it's going anywhere--the money is just being spent less humanely.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[SKL]

IIRC, you're the one who took Barb to task for saying "all". Now, it appears you are doing it. 

 

America's poor are all greedy people who will refuse any but the most expensive shoes. All middle class people in developing countries are completely satisfied with their lot in life even though they don't have as much as America's poor people. Do you have evidence for this? I've never visited a developing country, so I do not have firsthand knowledge. But, as far as I know, people are the same world-wide in greed and contentment overall. I'm assuming that there are outliers in every level of income and every country in the world; some people are more prone to greed & envy; some people are more prone to contentment. Without evidence I don't know that I believe that America's poor are more prone to greed than some other country's middle class.

 

As for the Shoes for Kids charity, I agree it seems stupid. But then I hear about how much charities (often already running on a shoestring) have to pay for disposal of crap that is only fit for the landfill. So, I guess I can understand how they would only accept new (I disagree about the price limit though). 

 

I didn't call anybody greedy (or any other derogatory name), and obviously "completely satisfied" is not something any amount of money can buy.

 

I've been to many developing countries and I have many friends who grew up in them.  It does give one perspective when one sees how content most people are with what Americans consider "not good enough."  My friends from developing countries were pretty shocked when they came here and found out what "poor" means to us.  And this is something liberals and conservatives can agree on:  we tend to be wasteful compared to the rest of the world, even if you compared our bottom 10% to the world average.  Yes, there are some things we do not distribute as effectively as we should, and I'd like to see more focus on those things.

 

As for the $100 shoes, that was said to encourage people to donate $$$ which would be used to buy boys the popular Jordan-whatever shoes of the day.  There wasn't a question of people donating dirty nasty shoes.  (Though, I recall pulling some old shoes out of a garbage pile for my kid brother to wear, and 100% of my school shoes as a kid were from the Salvation Army, so the importance of "new" is also relative.)

[Dmmetler]

Please go back and read what I actually said. You might notice my words were in the past tense, as were many of the corporate moves out of the US.

 

I have been a tax professional for 25+ years.

 

You are free to do your own research or to disbelieve what I say. I really don't care. I was responding to the person who argued that companies didn't move because of anything the government did, i.e., the government did not give them a tax incentive to move. Well, a high tax rate compared to other potential sites is a negative incentive to stay = positive incentive to move. Many other countries have encouraged companies to locate there by cutting their tax rates. It is a very strong incentive; denying it isn't helping anything.

The corporation DH works for has moved several times in the last 20 years due to tax breaks. It is cheaper for them to move the company, build a new corporate campus, and pay relocation for employees they consider essential than to stay in place. And employees they consider to be easy to replace just get fired and replaced once they move, because a building custodian or receptionist or mailroom clerk can't afford to relocate on their salary-particularly not if the place the company is relocating to has a higher cost of living.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that if it ever becomes significantly cheaper for them to leave the USA entirely, they will do so.

Edited March 17, 2017 by dmmetler

[Guest]

I'm supposed to be off of here, but two quick points. The phrase quoted above is a good example of "why we can't talk to one another." Disagreement isn't caterwauling. That wasn't fair.

 

Second point is, "voting against their insterests" means voting for someone who is diverting funds from what we NEED, and struggling communities need most. I'm sure those kids watch pbs, use the local health clinic, use the senior bus transport service to get them to their doctor's appointments. Meals on wheels, libraries, traveling museum exhibits. I spend a lot of time in small towns in GA, NC, MO, IL, and TN and I see the invisible hand of government everywhere. It's in places they depend on and take for granted. The current administration would love to cancel the vast majority of programs that make life worth living and divert that to the military and a vast monument to our leader on the southern border. That sounds like some of the ancient cultures we've studied this year. .

Careful - no government program makes life worth living, not even for libraries and museums. That is such dangerous thinking.

 

And I stand behind my wording. If disagreemnt was all that went on around the net, and even here, you'd have a lot more diversity of thought instead of people entirely too fed up to even discuss it, and just ignoring the drama and voting the way they feel while so many sit around confused and head scratching, trying to figure out why those rubes can't just see it their way. That's damn insulting.

 

Creekland, your definition of basic and mine are worlds apart. Nuff said.

[Barb_]

Careful - no government program makes life worth living, not even for libraries and museums. That is such dangerous thinking.

 

And I stand behind my wording. If disagreemnt was all that went on around the net, and even here, you'd have a lot more diversity of thought instead of people entirely too fed up to even discuss it, and just ignoring the drama and voting the way they feel while so many sit around confused and head scratching, trying to figure out why those rubes can't just see it their way. That's damn insulting.

 

Creekland, your definition of basic and mine are worlds apart. Nuff said.

Libraries,museums, arts make life worth living. And if the government helps to provide that, more power to them. I fail to see the danger.

[creekland]

Second point is, "voting against their insterests" means voting for someone who is diverting funds from what we NEED, and struggling communities need most. I'm sure those kids watch pbs, use the local health clinic, use the senior bus transport service to get them to their doctor's appointments. Meals on wheels, libraries, traveling museum exhibits. I spend a lot of time in small towns in GA, NC, MO, IL, and TN and I see the invisible hand of government everywhere. It's in places they depend on and take for granted. The current administration would love to cancel the vast majority of programs that make life worth living and divert that to the military and a vast monument to our leader on the southern border. That sounds like some of the ancient cultures we've studied this year. .

 

ETA: Oh duh, forgot my point. The debt burden doesn't look like it's going anywhere--the money is just being spent less humanely.

 

This is a good point.  When I was talking about safety nets, I meant just that - basics humans need to have a chance to grow up and be all they can be - food, health - education.

 

I still feel our tax dollars are spent well when they do other things like National Parks, libraries, museums, etc - things everyone can enjoy.  

 

I've seen the difference public vs private means here at Gettysburg (the National Military Park).  There used to be a museum free to the public, run by the gov't, where one could view artifacts - tons of artifacts.  It was loved.  Then someone got the bright idea that a private firm could do something better.  They promised it would stay free.  So now we have a history lesson museum - well done - but with only a few actual artifacts (the rest are in storage).  And it hasn't been free since the day it opened.  It's $15 to get in, $10 for kids.  So if you have extra bucks in your budget, you can enjoy it.  If you're struggling, forget it. 

 

What we had before was better - supported by public tax dollars and totally open to the public - all of the public.

 

There have always been plenty of private attractions in the area for those who wanted to add more to their visit...

[creekland]

Creekland, your definition of basic and mine are worlds apart. Nuff said.

 

That's rather scary TBH.

 

Libraries,museums, arts make life worth living. And if the government helps to provide that, more power to them. I fail to see the danger.

 

I'd argue that they help provide education and there's little doubt statistically that the more educated one is, the better they tend to do in life financially.  I don't want that education reserved for the financially better off to start with.  I want it available to all.  Then folks can do with it as they please making their choices.

[Guest]

A lot of this depends on where you live.Main street here was done in by taxes and the school district dropping honors/AP. A huge population shift featuring middle class exit occurred. Stores had no customers..the poor couldn't afford the higher prices and the rich shop where they work.

[Farrar]

Clear language would be to say that when someone doesn't pay a tax (legally) it is a loss of tax revenue for the government. It is false language to say that it is a "cost" paid by the government.

 

A tax is a personal or corporate expense. A personal or corporate loss of income that has been "taken" by government in order to pay for government's expenses. It is NOT a government cost or expense.

 

"Corporate welfare" is a political term. The corporation earned revenue, and the government is taking some of it through taxation. The amount (%) it takes is up for debate and political policy. It is NOT a government expense nor cost.

 

ETA I haven't read all of the comments so I 'm commenting as a general thought.

 

If a business were charging everyone $10 for a set of services, but the business decided to give a "friends and family" discount to the people they like and only charge $5, then most people, colloquially, would call that a "cost" to the business. When the government decides not to take taxes that it otherwise would take, that costs them some of their revenue. Which is fine. Giving a discount for behaviors they want makes sense. It saves them having to do it. Except... in the case of health care, it means that only the people already in the system can get access to that discount. Everyone else must pay without the discount. The richer you are, the more you benefit.

[Guest]

..

Edited March 22, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Barb_]

There are many federal block grant programs that allot money for programs that the states are free to use. Many of these block grant programs are currently on the chopping block.

[Barb_]

I think that the poorer you are, the more you benefit under the ACA, too, if that's what you're referencing.

Not so under the currently floating healthcare bill. But I think Farrah is referencing the article.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[Anne in CA]

"Senseless intervention" like laws that say you can't dump coal dust in rivers? Can't pollute the air?  (Clearly acid rain is a hoax invented by the Chinese.) Must run the mine in a way that is safe for miners?

 

The reason American auto manufacturers got into trouble was because they fought like hell against fuel efficiency standards and continued making big gas-guzzling cars while manufacturers in the rest of the world invested in smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, which was what people wanted.

 

The idea that there's a big future in coal mining is absurd. We can give the coal companies big tax breaks and remove all restrictions related to pollution, but all that does is postpone the inevitable for one more generation while trashing the environment.

 

 

 

You don't prepare for the future by pretending that it's still 1950 and nothing will ever change. Trying to bring back coal mining jobs while simultaneously slashing funding that helps low income people attend college, where they might actually have a chance to prepare for the jobs that really will exist in the future, is just insane.

I am not at all happy with how things are going now, make no mistake. 

 

I do not think we should let any industry ruin the environment. Not at all. But if you have not been a farmer or a miner or a logger you could not understand the senseless regulations they operate under every day. My own father lost his farm to a 400k EPA cleanup over some harmless chemicals my grandfather had treated fence posts with in the 60's. It was a scam. I am not just saying that because of bitter grapes. My aunts did a lot of research on this and there really was no problem with the chemical after all those years. The EPA may very well not be a total scam, but they do pick on the weak just like the IRS. 

[Barb_]

I am not at all happy with how things are going now, make no mistake.

 

I do not think we should let any industry ruin the environment. Not at all. But if you have not been a farmer or a miner or a logger you could not understand the senseless regulations they operate under every day. My own father lost his farm to a 400k EPA cleanup over some harmless chemicals my grandfather had treated fence posts with in the 60's. It was a scam. I am not just saying that because of bitter grapes. My aunts did a lot of research on this and there really was no problem with the chemical after all those years. The EPA may very well not be a total scam, but they do pick on the weak just like the IRS.

:grouphug: I'm sorry your family suffered.

[Murphy101]

Careful - no government program makes life worth living, not even for libraries and museums. That is such dangerous thinking.

This is simply not accurate. Life is worth living simply by virtue of life being a core good. And yet without a healthcare program, my dh's life will not be worth living bc he will be dead. Currently where I live, if for some reason we cannot find the funds to pay for his insulin or pump or pump supplies - then he won't get them. There is ONE charity that for a few hours once a week *might* be able to get his enough insulin or pump supplies for a week, IF he gets in line around 3am to wait for them to open at 10 and IF he gets in the door before they run out of money. And then when that one bottle is empty and the pump inserts used, he'd be right back in the same boat unless and until more money suddenly came along. And of course, while he is trying to get that, he wouldn't be making any money at work. This is the reality of far more people than anyone wants to recognize. It's not talked about bc being in that situation is deemed humiliating and deserved. So far, thank god, we have not had to resort to this. But all it would take is one illness or injury or just too long between contract jobs paying out.

 

I went hungry rather frequently as a child. Obviously I still think my life was and is worth living, but I also think a breakfast now and then would have been nifty. No one wants to only survive and even those who are okay with just surviving want more than that for their children. I'm sure there's exceptions to that. My own parents didn't give a flip about their children's lives being even as good as theirs. But society and law generally shouldn't be based on the exceptions being made the standard.

 

And I stand behind my wording. If disagreemnt was all that went on around the net, and even here, you'd have a lot more diversity of thought instead of people entirely too fed up to even discuss it, and just ignoring the drama and voting the way they feel while so many sit around confused and head scratching, trying to figure out why those rubes can't just see it their way. That's damn insulting.

I'm not confused. I know exactly why people voted DT. I'm not insulting anyone. I'm thinking to heck with who did what and why. This is where we are. What are we going to do about it?

 

There are hungry people that need fed. The government is The People. And as a Christian, I know people are called to feed the hungry. It's not some crazy leap of reason to think a large group of people pooling resources can more effectively do so. The govt is nothing more than a large group of people deciding how their society should work.

 

Creekland, your definition of basic and mine are worlds apart. Nuff said.

Not really enough said. What of her list do you disagree with? Do you disagree with all of it, the implementation of it, or that it is needed at all? If you think those are social goods, how otherwise do you propose meeting those needs or social goods?

 

Because just saying NO BIG GOVERNMENT! Doesn't solve the problems either.

[EmseB]

The govt is nothing more than a large group of people deciding how their society should work.

 

 

 

 

It is more than that. The government has the threat of violence behind it to make people comply with how they think society should work. That's the defining difference between charity and taxes.

 

You can argue, of course, that people should be forced with the threat of violence to fund whatever you deem appropriate.  But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's charity or goodwill in any sense of the word.

 

I don't know if this whole thing has crossed beyond the philosophical into straight politics and will get shut down momentarily, but, anyway.

[Innisfree]

For the people arguing that charities, rather than government, should meet needs like food, shelter and healthcare:

 

How does this actually work?

 

How can a charity reliably collect and distribute enough money and other forms of aid to meet the need? The benefit of doing it through taxes is that, as a society, we can decide who contributes, and how much, and have a mechanism for collection and distribution. How else is it possible to meet everyone's needs?

 

How does a needy family find the aid, if it is all provided by private charities?

 

Do they go from church to church, hoping someone can provide food or keep the power on? Then what about next week, and the week after that? How about medical care?

 

I'd like to understand better how others envision this system working.

[Dmmetler]

I am not at all happy with how things are going now, make no mistake.

 

I do not think we should let any industry ruin the environment. Not at all. But if you have not been a farmer or a miner or a logger you could not understand the senseless regulations they operate under every day. My own father lost his farm to a 400k EPA cleanup over some harmless chemicals my grandfather had treated fence posts with in the 60's. It was a scam. I am not just saying that because of bitter grapes. My aunts did a lot of research on this and there really was no problem with the chemical after all those years. The EPA may very well not be a total scam, but they do pick on the weak just like the IRS.

At the same time, programs also exist that support the weak. As an example, buried in the farm bill, the USDA has funds for preservation and research of potentially threatened species on private farmlands. The reason is simple-if a farmer can be paid for not farming that acre of land that borders a creek that happens to provide habitat for the Red Legged frog, and therefore keep the frog off the endangered species list, that avoids triggering regulations that make it illegal for the farmer to farm land within a several acre buffer zone around said stream with no financial compensation. Sometimes it can be as simple not planting a specific variety near that habitat-but the land can still be farmed, and the USDA funds mitigate any costs.

 

So, one of the workshops at DD's recent conservation conference was on how to help farmers access said funds. It's a pretty neat piece of work that has major, measurable benefits to both small farmers and to biodiversity.

 

It is those little programs, often only a small slice of the budget for even one department, that tend to be on the chopping block. The ones that prevent big expenses down the road. Funding testing into chemicals before they are used on fields or in industry avoids creating superfund sites that cost hundreds of thousands to clean up.

[Guest]

..

Edited March 22, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Corraleno]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.

 

:confused1:  :confused1:  :confused1: 

 

You can't fund cancer treatment with a spaghetti dinner. You can barely fund one ER visit with a spaghetti dinner. 

 

What happens to the person who doesn't have extended family, or their extended family can't or won't help? Sucks to be them, they just die?

[Innisfree]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.

 

Do you feel this sort of aid would be adequate to meet all the needs which government agencies currently fill?

 

What happens to people who are socially isolated?

 

My sense-- and I'm in an area with a middle-of-the-road cost of living, a fair number of wealthy folks, lots of middle-class, and pockets of real poverty-- is that no number of spaghetti dinners will fill the need. There are simply too many needs, of too many sorts.

 

The reason so many government programs have developed is that there actually is real complexity in meeting needs. If government doesn't do it, then any other organization which truly fills the same needs would develop the same complexity. But how would any other organization get the necessary funding?

[SKL]

Tax-funded welfare is a reality and will continue to be.  I don't think that's really being debated.

 

The problem is largely in the bureaucracy that takes up resources, prevents transparency, and breeds corruption.  The same kind of corruption that people think they are preventing when they set up the bureaucracy.

 

Wealth transfers do not need to be hidden in all sorts of convoluted programs called "insurance" etc. etc.

[Guest]

My sense is that there are many who refuse to take part in their community until they have a need. Others refuse to educate themselves,and instead conduct themselves in a manner which is costly to any community. its rather sad to see grandma planting extra rows while grandchild holds out the hand,for ex. And even sadder to see someone choose a nonhealthy lifestyle and go on insulin. Its complex, but in the end it is a community that decides where it wants to put its surplus. That community will be whatever the people think works best,according to their abilities. Its not going to be taxation without representation, Because that starves the workers, and without workers there is no surplus generated. Work has to leave the worker enough for his family.