|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2011 : 09:18:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Dammit, I've been trying to avoid it because I've been trying to convince myself that I am just misunderstanding..but what you, Kil, and even Dave to some extent are advocating is pure socialism. Socialism is where everyone shares everything equally no matter how hard each individual works. I'm just not buying into it. |
I wouldn't either. I'm not interested in sharing my stuff equally with others, but I am interested in ensuring that people who haven't had my good fortune aren't hampered by their circumstances in finding opportunities to thrive.
To that end, my ideal society would have the government supplying food, clothing, housing, medical care, Internet access, education (through at least an associates' degree) and transportation to anyone who wants them, regardless of income. Because starvation, illness, ignorance (etc) are all hurdles many people cannot leap by themselves in their quests to become productive members of society.
I'm not talking about angus beef and Nikes, of course. In this hypothetical society, if you want better than what the government has to offer, you'll have to work for it. But there's no reason for us lucky folks to allow a person who wants to start a career to fail because he doesn't have enough food to fuel efficient learning, or because the other homeless people under the bridge keep him awake all night, or because an undiagnosed cancer will kill him.
No reason, that is, except for an "I got mine, all the rest of you can fuck off" attitude. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 09:27:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
That's a deduction to income. It translates to a couple of bucks off on the tax. |
35% of $3,650 is a tax savings of $1,277.50, or more than the child tax credit for high income people. At an overall tax rate of 27.4%, the $3,650 deduction equals the child tax credit's base amount. But even in the 15% tax bracket, it's a tax reduction of $548, which is more than a 10% reduction in total tax for a married couple with an AGI of $40K. The standard deduction doesn't become pocket change until you're making millions. |
Compared to the new expense for child daycare, it is peanuts. At my tax level it's roughly $900. Add that to the reduced child tax credit and we are talking about $2,000 per kid per year. Compared to the $13,000+ per year per kid for the proposed handout.
| Except it cost so fucking much to live here. |
What's cheaper about living elsewhere?
|
The world pushes their big pharma costs onto us for starts. Then there's the whole we pay people to do nothing (payments for crop subsidies, not Welfare/SSDI), we're the world's police force, we prop up governments with cash payments, and we subsidize big business. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 09:30:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Dammit, I've been trying to avoid it because I've been trying to convince myself that I am just misunderstanding..but what you, Kil, and even Dave to some extent are advocating is pure socialism. Socialism is where everyone shares everything equally no matter how hard each individual works. I'm just not buying into it.
|
No. But I'm not vilifying socialism either. I'm recommending a balance between free market economy and social programs for a more productive citizenry. We already have some of that. I just think it's too heavily weighted on the free market side of things. I know that because we provide less services to our citizens than any other industrialized nation. And people falling into poverty is growing, the middle class is disappearing, and the lions share of the wealth of this country is now in the hands of the top 4%. It wasn't always like that. We have gone too far in only one direction. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 09:57:15 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | Socialism is where everyone shares everything equally no matter how hard each individual works. I'm just not buying into it. |
If you think we're advocating "pure socialism" then you are either misunderstanding us, or you don't understand what pure socialism is.
Public education is free for all. That doesn't stop some families from earning five million dollars a year while other earn 30K a year. So why the hell would free day care force everyone to share everything equally? Honestly, Ebone, how do you jump all the way to that incredible extreme based on anything I, Kil, or Dave has written? Almost every other developed nation - many of which have been mentioned in this conversation - is more socialistic (higher taxes, more social programs) than the USA, and none of them even come close to everyone sharing everything equally. What you have accused us of advocating is simply false and amounts to a straw man argument.
Also, I just gotta make a comment on way you phrased this. Your phrasing implies that people make more money if they work harder. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. You should get a job as a stand up comedian. If you can't honestly look at the world and realize that other factors (class and status of family, race, sex, health, intelligence, and just plain luck) play a much larger role in determining income and wealth than how hard an individual works, then, well, I guess I'm speechless.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 10:46:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Also, I just gotta make a comment on way you phrased this. Your phrasing implies that people make more money if they work harder. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. You should get a job as a stand up comedian. If you can't honestly look at the world and realize that other factors (class and status of family, race, sex, health, intelligence, and just plain luck) play a much larger role in determining income and wealth than how hard an individual works, then, well, I guess I'm speechless.
|
Actually people make more money when they work smarter.
I don't beleive in luck unless your definition of luck is "When preparation meets opportunity". |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 11:53:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Compared to the new expense for child daycare, it is peanuts. At my tax level it's roughly $900. Add that to the reduced child tax credit and we are talking about $2,000 per kid per year. Compared to the $13,000+ per year per kid for the proposed handout. |
Where does that number come from? Only a few states even approach that level, and that's for private day care of infants (which I would think would be the least-likely service for people to use). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 12:03:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Actually people make more money when they work smarter. |
And there's not a lot of training for working smarter given out in public schools.| I don't beleive in luck unless your definition of luck is "When preparation meets opportunity". |
Well, I certainly didn't prepare for the family I was born into. The opportunities that gave me in my youngest years can't have been due to my working smarter, so they may as well have been random, or due to luck.
But more importantly, nobody who hasn't been a hermit all his life can say that he had no help whatsoever in life from other people. People owe a lot of thanks to tiny social programs (food safety, roads, the Internet) even if they don't take advantage of the big ones. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 12:24:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Compared to the new expense for child daycare, it is peanuts. At my tax level it's roughly $900. Add that to the reduced child tax credit and we are talking about $2,000 per kid per year. Compared to the $13,000+ per year per kid for the proposed handout. |
Where does that number come from? Only a few states even approach that level, and that's for private day care of infants (which I would think would be the least-likely service for people to use).
|
From extrapolation from Marf's supplied numbers. To be fair, I used the lesser of the two figures plus a fudge factor to make it more towards the median for her area. She quoted top of the line at $1,600/month and $800/month for confinement type daycare.
We are still talking about a multiplier in the amount of tax aid per child that the parents get. I am skeptical that the amounts charged will stay static when coupled with a Federal program where the income is guaranteed.
I also note that the places paying the most for daycare are also states in which the most opportunity for employment exists. It is also an average and not regional. This artificially drives down the cost reported. Rural areas charge less based on needs, opportunities, and what the market will bear. Urban areas charge more.
Urban areas are more acutely hit by the child care bill than rural areas. Going for a number that will be truly useful for the working poor and help the most number of people would push the number well above $13,000. (Extrapolation for the volume of working poor per urban areas vs rural.) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 13:21:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
From extrapolation from Marf's supplied numbers. To be fair, I used the lesser of the two figures plus a fudge factor to make it more towards the median for her area. She quoted top of the line at $1,600/month and $800/month for confinement type daycare.
We are still talking about a multiplier in the amount of tax aid per child that the parents get. I am skeptical that the amounts charged will stay static when coupled with a Federal program where the income is guaranteed.
I also note that the places paying the most for daycare are also states in which the most opportunity for employment exists. It is also an average and not regional. This artificially drives down the cost reported. Rural areas charge less based on needs, opportunities, and what the market will bear. Urban areas charge more.
Urban areas are more acutely hit by the child care bill than rural areas. Going for a number that will be truly useful for the working poor and help the most number of people would push the number well above $13,000. (Extrapolation for the volume of working poor per urban areas vs rural.) |
I think the method of estimation is bad, since the costs of private day care include multiple, independent HR departments and insurers which would be eliminated with a public service. The Federal government also won't be trying to turn a profit, so we can lop 20% off the top, at least.
If each public day care worker were to cost $40K/year and watch ten kids, then we would need three million of them to watch the 60% of the 50 million kids under 12 this year which might use public day care. Three million workers times $40K is $120 billion, or about $850 per tax return. Of course, since the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay about 3% of the total income taxes collected, they'll only pay, on average, $25 in taxes per year to the civil servants, but they're the ones who really need public day care, anyway.
Even if we quadrupled it to cover utilities, land, management, maintenance, older kids, overuse, lawsuits and other costs, I can afford to pay $3,300 per year in taxes to ensure that everyone has access to free day care. The cost-benefit ratio is a no-brainer for me (even though I doubt I'd use the service more than a couple days a year), especially when it will turn some low earners into high earners and thus bring the tax equation more into balance in future years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 14:13:26 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote:
Actually people make more money when they work smarter. |
That so? Man, I guess Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Paris Hilton "work smarter" than most the regulars here on SFN. Huh.
Class and connections wasn't the major player in George W. Bush's rise to personal wealth and power - he just worked smarter!
And all those African Americans who are disproportionately represented under the poverty line, that's not due to a legacy of slavery and generations of discrimination. They just don't work as smart as white people!
Women making less than 80 cents on every dollar that men earn for the same jobs - they aren't working smart enough!
| I don't beleive in luck unless your definition of luck is "When preparation meets opportunity". |
No such thing as bad luck? So the friend I mentioned who lost his job (and his partner) after a car accident and brain injury, we shouldn't call that bad luck, huh? What do we call it then? According to this, 99,000 people a year in the USA will have accidents resulting in brain injuries that "will be severe enough to to cause a lasting, long-term disability." That's just one kind of bad luck. There are all kinds. But, no, you're right, luck has nothing to do with stuff like this.
And good luck has nothing to do with the success of an art dealer who becomes a millionaire off a single piece he bought just 'cause he liked it 30 years ago (after which the artist became insanely famous - this really happened to a dealer I know.) Being in the right place at the right time has nothing to do with artistic success - it is just a coincidence that the teeny tiny number of artists who make it in the art world are white, men, who have either connections with the establishment or money to buy vanity shows and ads in major art publications. The Gee's Bend Quilters being "discovered" by the established art world and subsequently going from back woods poverty in Alabama to wealth practically overnight wasn't luck, it was inevitable, y'know, 'cause they were working smarter! Jeff Koons didn't buy his way into fame, he's just brilliant! You're right, there's no such thing as luck. I'm totally convinced!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 16:43:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
From extrapolation from Marf's supplied numbers. To be fair, I used the lesser of the two figures plus a fudge factor to make it more towards the median for her area. She quoted top of the line at $1,600/month and $800/month for confinement type daycare.
We are still talking about a multiplier in the amount of tax aid per child that the parents get. I am skeptical that the amounts charged will stay static when coupled with a Federal program where the income is guaranteed.
I also note that the places paying the most for daycare are also states in which the most opportunity for employment exists. It is also an average and not regional. This artificially drives down the cost reported. Rural areas charge less based on needs, opportunities, and what the market will bear. Urban areas charge more.
Urban areas are more acutely hit by the child care bill than rural areas. Going for a number that will be truly useful for the working poor and help the most number of people would push the number well above $13,000. (Extrapolation for the volume of working poor per urban areas vs rural.) |
I think the method of estimation is bad, since the costs of private day care include multiple, independent HR departments and insurers which would be eliminated with a public service. The Federal government also won't be trying to turn a profit, so we can lop 20% off the top, at least.
If each public day care worker were to cost $40K/year and watch ten kids, then we would need three million of them to watch the 60% of the 50 million kids under 12 this year which might use public day care. Three million workers times $40K is $120 billion, or about $850 per tax return. Of course, since the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay about 3% of the total income taxes collected, they'll only pay, on average, $25 in taxes per year to the civil servants, but they're the ones who really need public day care, anyway.
Even if we quadrupled it to cover utilities, land, management, maintenance, older kids, overuse, lawsuits and other costs, I can afford to pay $3,300 per year in taxes to ensure that everyone has access to free day care. The cost-benefit ratio is a no-brainer for me (even though I doubt I'd use the service more than a couple days a year), especially when it will turn some low earners into high earners and thus bring the tax equation more into balance in future years.
|
I'm glad you can. As I am living paycheck to paycheck with legal bills, I can't afford that much.
I also doubt your estimates. You have to keep the 20% for the waste inherent in any government program. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 18:38:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I'm glad you can. As I am living paycheck to paycheck with legal bills, I can't afford that much. |
My bills amount to almost my whole paycheck, too. But to get public daycare running, I'd sacrifice something. Cheaper cell-phone service. Slower Internet. Worse cable. Nix Netflix. No, Netflix stays, I'd sell my blood instead.| I also doubt your estimates. You have to keep the 20% for the waste inherent in any government program. |
I was hoping that quadrupling the workers' base cost would cover that and more. But that's way too much. Day care would be a $480 billion behemoth like Medicare, and it's ridiculous to think that day care would cost that much. We're not talking about hiring people with eight years of medical school to pay off, we're not talking about stocking day care centers with expensive medical devices and pharmaceuticals. We're cutting massively back on redundant costs that Medicare still pays. Let's try a 2x multiplier, at most. $240 billion to watch after 30 million kids. $8,000 per kid per year, average, which is actually consistent with the prices linked to earlier.
Assuming we don't want to implement this as another payroll tax, but instead fund it generally, we get to spread the cost out over income, excise, corporate and other taxes. Only 70.3% of the cost of the program would be shouldered by taxpaying people/families, or $168.75 billion.
Using 2008 data, if a person/family had an AGI of more than $1,803,585 (the top 0.1% of earners), they would help pay for 18.47% of the program, or $222,630 per tax return on average (the lowest in the group would pay much less than the highest income people, of course).
If a person/family had an AGI between $380,354 and $1,803,585 (the top 0.1-1% of earners), they would help pay for 19.55% of the program, or $26,191 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $159,619 and $380,354 (the top 1-5% of earners), they would help pay for 20.70% of the program, or $6,240 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $113,799 and $159,619 (the top 5-10% of earners), they would help pay for 11.22% of the program, or $2,706 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $67,280 and $113,799 (the top 10-25% of earners), they would help pay for 16.40% of the program, or $1,318 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $33,048 and $67,280 (the top 25-50% of earners), they would help pay for 10.96% of the program, or $529 per tax return.
And if a person/family had an AGI less than $33,048 (the bottom 50% of earners), they would help pay for 2.7% of the program, or $65 per tax return.
Of course, these numbers are applicable to any Federal program funded through income taxes. Multiple them by about 3 to find how much of your tax money is going to the defense budget, or divide them by 2 to find out how much you're paying for veteran's benefits, for a couple examples. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 19:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I'm glad you can. As I am living paycheck to paycheck with legal bills, I can't afford that much. |
My bills amount to almost my whole paycheck, too. But to get public daycare running, I'd sacrifice something. Cheaper cell-phone service. Slower Internet. Worse cable. Nix Netflix. No, Netflix stays, I'd sell my blood instead. |
I have nothing left to sacrifice.
My cell phone is a pre-paid thing that costs about $100/year. Internet is required for my work as is a home phone. No cable. Satelite comes bundled with the phone and internet. $130/month for all three combined. I don't eat out. I donate $100 to various charities over the year. No car payment. Rent and utilities. Well gotta have those. I keep the temp reasonable and all the lights here are CFLs. I'm not seeing $1,300 dollars worth of bills I can reduce.
| I also doubt your estimates. You have to keep the 20% for the waste inherent in any government program. |
I was hoping that quadrupling the workers' base cost would cover that and more. But that's way too much. Day care would be a $480 billion behemoth like Medicare, and it's ridiculous to think that day care would cost that much. We're not talking about hiring people with eight years of medical school to pay off, we're not talking about stocking day care centers with expensive medical devices and pharmaceuticals. We're cutting massively back on redundant costs that Medicare still pays. Let's try a 2x multiplier, at most. $240 billion to watch after 30 million kids. $8,000 per kid per year, average, which is actually consistent with the prices linked to earlier.
Assuming we don't want to implement this as another payroll tax, but instead fund it generally, we get to spread the cost out over income, excise, corporate and other taxes. Only 70.3% of the cost of the program would be shouldered by taxpaying people/families, or $168.75 billion.
Using 2008 data, if a person/family had an AGI of more than $1,803,585 (the top 0.1% of earners), they would help pay for 18.47% of the program, or $222,630 per tax return on average (the lowest in the group would pay much less than the highest income people, of course).
If a person/family had an AGI between $380,354 and $1,803,585 (the top 0.1-1% of earners), they would help pay for 19.55% of the program, or $26,191 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $159,619 and $380,354 (the top 1-5% of earners), they would help pay for 20.70% of the program, or $6,240 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $113,799 and $159,619 (the top 5-10% of earners), they would help pay for 11.22% of the program, or $2,706 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $67,280 and $113,799 (the top 10-25% of earners), they would help pay for 16.40% of the program, or $1,318 per tax return.
If a person/family had an AGI between $33,048 and $67,280 (the top 25-50% of earners), they would help pay for 10.96% of the program, or $529 per tax return.
And if a person/family had an AGI less than $33,048 (the bottom 50% of earners), they would help pay for 2.7% of the program, or $65 per tax return.
Of course, these numbers are applicable to any Federal program funded through income taxes. Multiple them by about 3 to find how much of your tax money is going to the defense budget, or divide them by 2 to find out how much you're paying for veteran's benefits, for a couple examples.
|
Squeeze blood out of another turnip. This one is dry.
Adding new programs when we can't adequately fund the old ones is madness. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 20:19:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Squeeze blood out of another turnip. This one is dry. |
I'd actually rather squeeze it out of the defense budget, which is stupidly high because the terrorists won on 9/11.| Adding new programs when we can't adequately fund the old ones is madness. |
No shit, which is why "Day Care Should Be Free" isn't so much "let's start this thing up right now" as it is about discussing the costs and benefits to society as a whole, if we had our druthers. I'm sure if you could go back in time and have a do-over or two, there would be a lot fewer legal bills clogging your monetary stream, yes?
The numbers I put up were illustrative, only. I still can't believe that public day care would cost $240 billion. But when spread out in our progressive tax structure, it's not that expensive compared to any individual's income. $1,300 a year is less than your combined satellite, phone and Internet.
If you could describe your utopian government, with you having no personal debts, would it include public day care or not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 05:52:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Squeeze blood out of another turnip. This one is dry. |
I'd actually rather squeeze it out of the defense budget, which is stupidly high because the terrorists won on 9/11.| Adding new programs when we can't adequately fund the old ones is madness. |
No shit, which is why "Day Care Should Be Free" isn't so much "let's start this thing up right now" as it is about discussing the costs and benefits to society as a whole, if we had our druthers. I'm sure if you could go back in time and have a do-over or two, there would be a lot fewer legal bills clogging your monetary stream, yes?
The numbers I put up were illustrative, only. I still can't believe that public day care would cost $240 billion. But when spread out in our progressive tax structure, it's not that expensive compared to any individual's income. $1,300 a year is less than your combined satellite, phone and Internet.
If you could describe your utopian government, with you having no personal debts, would it include public day care or not?
|
No, it wouldn't.
Although my Utopian (and admittedly impossible) government would be very hands-offy when it came to such things. The government would shrink significantly. They would be in charge of defense and the other enumerated goals in the Constitution. All religiously based laws would be immediately repealed. Laws would reflect some sort of logic. Money would be spent for the unemployed, disabled, and veterans to the level required to really assist them. Infrastructure projects would be proactive instead of reactive. A high level of accountability would be expected of any individual holding governmental purse strings. And none of this "GBLT are unfit parents/members of society" BS.
We have enough problems with government run schools that have covert "convert the heathen" programs. I fear that daycare would exascerbate the problem. Daycare has the children during their most formative years. I think that those messages should be conveyed by the parent(s) of the children. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
