You know the real reason they killed it is because those are Bush campaign promises and if they passed it through Bush woulden’t have a leg to stand on. After all why would you vote for Bush if his tax cuts are already in place?
Easy to say, harder to do. Not all services provided by the state are economical for a private entity to provide. Some are right near impossible to provide on a cost-effective basis. Regard health services and Medicare. Or general postal service (assurance of postal delivery to all households) – of course with the quasi-privitization of the Postal Service and its transformation into a monopoly this point is blurred a bit, but perhaps the difference between a state regulated private monopoly and a bureacracy is not that great.
As for the whinging about welfare services, while the short-sighted see this as theft, others might look to the positive externalities of social stability and a largely healthier and more stable population of workers. All in all, much of the anti-tax commentary I’ve seen is incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Danielinthewolvesden wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. I am a solid Gore supporter, but I really despise so-called “targeted” tax cuts. Why make the tax code even more complicated? I wish Gore would drop the tax cut issue and just focus solely on paying down the debt. Sadly, every candidate for President seems to feel the need to pander on the tax issue. I think a better approach for Gore might have been to reduce tax rates across the board and then offset that with elimination of several so-called “corporate welfare” programs.
Asmodean said: You know the real reason [Congressional Republicans] killed [the introduction of a bill implementing Bush’s proposed tax cuts] is because those are Bush campaign promises and if they passed it through Bush woulden’t have a leg to stand on. After all why would you vote for Bush if his tax cuts are already in place?
Well, if you have no reason to vote for Bush except the hope of a tax cut, you better find somebody else to vote for. The New York Times reported yesterday that the House had passed a measure to commit 90% of next year’s budget surplus to paying down the debt, and it’s expected to pass the Senate easily too (though I don’t know what its veto chances are). I think paying down the debt is an excellent move, but there’s no way they’ll do it simultaneously with making massive cuts in tax revenues. The Bush plan is not only a net giveaway from the middle class to the wealthy, it’s a pipe dream to boot, with no serious purpose other than to score votes.
Here’s the quote I was able to find on the NYT website about the deficit-reduction bill; it reports the bill passing out of committee last week (yesterday’s print edition had the item about its passing the House, but I can’t find it online).
And as long as I’ve got the podium, what on earth is with all this squalling about the earned income tax credit? Here’s a measure targeted specifically to the relief of the working poor—you have to earn income to get an earned income credit—and people are howling about what a terrible idea it is! Do you have a better and more effective idea for helping ensure that people who work for their living—often at much more laborious or dangerous jobs than yours or mine—can have enough to live on? Would you rather double the minimum wage? Would you rather expand the range of subsidized government services?
Geez, I thought that what you anti-welfare types objected to was giving government assistance to people who “don’t deserve it” and “don’t pull their weight.” Now here come the working poor, struggling to earn a living rather than give up and go on welfare, which sure sounds like pulling one’s weight to me, and you don’t think they ought to be helped either! What’s your alternative solution? Bear in mind Collounsbury’s point that “investing” in the working poor via tax credits often saves the whole society money in the long run, too.
I thinks it’s all just a bunch of bullshit. Any guy that runs for any office always chants the “gonna lower taxes” mantra.
Kimstu, FWIW, I agree with you about the EITC. (Surprise!) Given the system we have now, and given that it isn’t going away anytime soon, I prefer incentives to disincentives. Of course, I have a vested interest–namely, a sister with three young children at home and no spouse.
Given the system we have now, and given that it isn’t going away anytime soon, I prefer incentives to disincentives.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Phil. I think a welfare system that makes it harder and more expensive for people to work than not to work—and then labels them “lazy” and “useless” when they make the economically sound decision not to work—is simply diabolical.
You can earn $2000 a year (or a mere 9 weeks work at minimum wage) and get the EITC. The term “working poor” includes not only the poor mom of five whose father died saving babies from a burning orphanage, but also the drunk who works only long enough to buy a binge.
loaded, loaded question. back it up Kimstu. What does a dangerous job pay these days? What is your definition of a dangerous job? People who make little pay nothing, or next to it, in taxes. THe eitc pays money to those who make little. Earn little, get rewarded. WOrk hardly at all, get a bonus. is this a good way to encourage hard work?
What is exactly the definition of working poor? Rhetorical, inflamatory terms get nothing.
How does it save society money?
My solution: you work, you get paid. not enough money? work harder or smarter.
People around the world flock here to live the life of the “working poor”.
BTW, I hope you are not insinuating, that people who are poor are always at fault for it.
My father was laid off and tried to find a job. He couldn’t, and this was during the BUSH admin. And he was laid off because his boss was a crook. So he collected unemployment…hmmmm…I guess he was just a lazy ass living off the government…hmmmm…?
well, unemployment insurance is paid for by the employer. But that aside, I am not talking about short tem unemployment insurance. Nor am I talking about welfare. I am talking about tax cuts, in aparticular, EITC. This is a benefit wherin those who make little, and pa no taxes in the first place, get money from the government as a “bonus” for making very little.
Think about it. you get paid more for making less, or as I see it, for working less. Work less, get paid more. Work more, get paid less. In this Skinner Box, the subject gets treats for not pushing the lever.
Oh sure! Yeah, I want to live on food stamps so I can work less and make MORE>…
Obviously, you haven’t known anyone who suffered from REAL POVERTY.
The minimum wage is NOT a living wage.
Mr. Z. said: *You can earn $2000 a year (or a mere 9 weeks work at minimum wage) and get the EITC. The term “working poor” includes not only the poor mom of five whose father died saving babies from a burning orphanage, but also the drunk who works only long enough to buy a binge. *
In the first place, why wouldn’t we want to encourage people to work even for as short a period as 9 weeks a year? Yes, it’s not a good thing to work solely for booze money, but a mere 9 weeks of work is still some work, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t provide incentives for people to work.
And in the second place, the EITC benefits to people (especially non-parents) who are working very little are minuscule. The non-parent credit from the EITC table for an AGI of $2000 is about $150. Furthermore, as this report on the EITC points out,
So a lot more EITC money is going to your “poor mom of five” than to your no-good drunk.
*[Kimstu:] “Do you have a better and more effective idea for helping ensure that people who work for their living—often at much more laborious or dangerous jobs than yours or mine—can have enough to live on?”
loaded, loaded question. back it up Kimstu. What does a dangerous job pay these days? What is your definition of a dangerous job? *
I didn’t attempt to define a “dangerous job” or make assumptions about who has one: I simply said that many low-wage workers’ jobs are more laborious or dangerous than yours or mine. Do you scrub floors all day, or bend over sewing machines in poorly-ventilated rooms, or breathe in fertilizer dust as you work in the fields? No? Then I think many low-wage workers have more laborious or dangerous jobs than yours.
*People who make little pay nothing, or next to it, in taxes. THe eitc pays money to those who make little. Earn little, get rewarded. WOrk hardly at all, get a bonus. is this a good way to encourage hard work? *
Yes. From the report I cited earlier:
*What is exactly the definition of working poor? Rhetorical, inflamatory terms get nothing. *
All poor people earning income. You think that because some of them don’t work very much or very hard, that none of them deserve any help?
*How does it save society money? *
Exactly as Collounsbury said: “the positive externalities of social stability and a largely healthier and more stable population of workers.” For one thing, it encourages people to remain in the relatively responsible and law-abiding culture of the productive workforce, rather than the common (and very costly to society) alternatives of self-destructive and/or criminal activities.
*My solution: you work, you get paid. not enough money? work harder or smarter. *
Nice try, Mr. Z., but I asked for a “better and more effective” solution to the problem of many working people’s not having enough to live on. I doubt that your shoulder-shrugging non-idea would actually end up being more effective in that regard than the EITC.
the proper incentive for work is pay. Those not working either choose to live without money, or do not work because the government encourages them not to through various bnenefits. I sincerely doubt that a single parent is going to go be motivated to work for $336 in tax credit when $25,000 a year failed to motivate them.
You implied that lower wage jobs are laborious and dangerous. some are, some aren’t. Many laborious and/or dangerous jobs pay very well. my point was that you are trying to dramatize the lives of the poor to bolster your argument.
*People who make little pay nothing, or next to it, in taxes. THe eitc pays money to those who make little. Earn little, get rewarded. WOrk hardly at all, get a bonus. is this a good way to encourage hard work? *
What is poor? Why do people who don’t work very hard “deserve” our money? If I work less hard, should I get paid more? Sounds good to me.
The problem is that there are many incentives to NOT work. The biggest wone being that it is easier and more fun to bum around. Others are the cost of day care, SSDI, Unemployment, welfare, tuition aid, medicare, section 8, etc. I would suggest eliminating disincentives. For th government to supplement wages in order to coax opeople to work seems ludicrous. Tighten the requirements for social services and you will see people forced to work.
As for the whole “single mom” thing, last I checjked, having kids was a choice. Making bad choices should not be rewarded any more than not working is. I have two employees who are single moms with multiple kids. Sure it is tough on them. But life is tough if you make stupid decisions. I just don’t think that we should subsidize them.
*The problem is that there are many incentives to NOT work. *
And the EITC, on the other hand, is an incentive TO work—and apparently a pretty effective one. I see no evidence to support the assertion that more people would be working harder if we eliminated it.
I did not say that more people would work harder if we eliminated the EITC. What I said was that more people would work harder if we tightened the requirements for benefits paid to those who dont work.
Let’s take the $2000 a year income person for example. That person gets EITC, food stamps, possible welfare, free medical treatment, cheap or free housing, and so on. If they work a fulltime minimum wage job they get only $11,000 per year, which is not enough to buy all the goodies they were getting before.
So why should that person work? Is the EITC enough to encourage them to work more? I believe that it is not.
Eliminate the rewards of not working and people will work more and harder.
Mr.Zambezi said:
I agree that hard cold cash should NOT go directly to public in the form of an tax credit. However, I am highly in favor of supporting day care centers for low income families whose criteria would be to allow single/low income parents find work or pursue approved job training or schooling.
Well, Mr. Z., what you said a couple of posts ago was:
*“Nor am I talking about welfare. I am talking about tax cuts, in aparticular, EITC.” * So I talked about the EITC and the reasons I think it’s a good thing. If you now want to talk about non-tax-cut benefits that provide disincentives for working (which I agree are problematic, as I already said to Phil), fine.
By the way, I’m curious: do you really believe that anybody working a full-time minimum wage job that doesn’t pay them enough to live on is simply not working hard enough? Are insufficient wages always just the worker’s own fault? If so, where’s your evidence for considering that to be true? If not, then why don’t at least some of these hardworking people deserve some help from you and me?
With all due respect, Mr. Z., your definition of “people who don’t work very hard” appears to be “people who, although they may work full-time jobs at low wages, don’t work as hard as I imagine I would if I were in their position, which I’m not.”
You guys leave Mr Z alone! Everyone knows that poor people just really want to be poor. They don’t work because they are all lazy. Those single mothers decided to have kids didn’t they? I mean (aside from my next door neighbor who was widowed with an infant and my sister’s friend whose husband turned to drugs and took off) those women were all just plain irresponsible (and loose too)! Can’t you all see that whenever you try to help someone you’re just keeping them down by teaching them that they can expect help? By God, whatever happened to the old idea of sink or swim? Cut them off I say! Let the poor folks fend for themselves! They’ll either work harder or starve to death. Either way, less poor to go around.
You know Mr. Zambezi, I have heard a lot of good arguments against welfare that relied on the disincentive aspects (though never aimed at the EIC). But I have rarely heard anyone who so consistently portrayed the poor as being lazy and undeserving as you seem to do. Your frequent “why should I have to pay” and “they made their choices” lines, coupled with your offhand dismissal of examples of people that the system actually helps, you strike me as someone who really doesn’t give a damn about people so long as you’ve got yours.
I know that it is hard for some of you to think that not giving alms to those that don’t work is mean, nasty and stingy. And I know that some of you get pretty ticked at my conservative caterwailing. But some of oyu are putting words in my mouth. Its Ok, I have been known to do the same. For the record:
When I say “people who do not work hard” I am not referring to the person working full time and not able to make ends meet. That described my mom when I was a kid. I know what it looks like. I am talking about people who choose to not work, or who work far less than they are capable.
Now as to people who have trouble making ends meet, I submit that many are in that position because of life choices: drug addiction, choosing to have a family that they can’t support, dropping out of highschool, etc. At some point, people must accept responsibility for their actions. For those that made bad choices, I have sympathy. But that does not meen that we are obligated to correct the fiscal outcomes of those choices.
For those that are in a bad way because of some misfortune or disability, it is to the benefit of society to maintain them at a certain palatable level of existence.
I object, philosophically, to the policy of a reward system that pays one more for being less productive. I would suggest that, if one must give money away, the EITC be trashed and the funds used for daycare. Daycare is a real disincentive to work. If it is affordable, I believe that teh liberals beloved “single mom” would rush out to get a job.