The 1% Solution to the National Debt

[SixNein]

As the national debt in the US approaches $16,400,000,000,000 - we approach the 2012 election season - with the talk of fairness and 1% vs 99% in the air - I realized a solution is at hand when combining all of these ingredients.

The national debt of $16.4 Trillion divided by (approx) 35,000 people (the top 1%) approximates $469 million per person. Accordingly, why not extend a one time offer to these people to "pay their fair share"? Specifically, with a one time payment of $500 million (from personal funds) they would no longer be responsible for any future tax obligations.

The Government in turn would commit to a balanced budget moving forward. Does this sound fair?

There is really only two choices for getting our finances in order.
1. We can dramatically reduce spending and raise taxes.
2. We can try to grow our way out.

Both of these options has significant risks. As a business owner, you may one day look at your balance sheet and realize that your company is on an unsustainable path. You could cut your spending and raise prices; however, you will have the risk of running off many of your customers. So your business might be hooked up to life support for an extended period of time. On the other hand, you could take out a loan and use the money to improve your business. You might invest in a better product or machinery to increase production. But if you fail, your going to be in an even worse mess.

 

[JonDE]

There's a big difference in interest payments over 20 years.

The interest on the debt is not as significant as you would think. When you account for inflation it becomes much smaller. Also a good strong economy can easily outgrow the interest payments.
The problem is the deficit, not the debt. I know that seems backwards based on the numbers, but exponential growth is a very powerful force. It is kind of hard to imagine, but if you balanced the budget for the next 20 years, then debt-gdp ratio is going to be cut in half. There would be no real problem with the debt at that point

 

[MarcoD]

There's a big difference in interest payments over 20 years.

All debt always has an economic value 'now.' The twenty years are nicer to economies since it adds the possibility, a bit, to inflate your way out of debt.

There's no magic bullet. You can tax/work it off, or use inflation -a bit,- or default on public debt. That's it.

 

[WhoWee]

There is really only two choices for getting our finances in order.
1. We can dramatically reduce spending and raise taxes.
2. We can try to grow our way out.

Both of these options has significant risks. As a business owner, you may one day look at your balance sheet and realize that your company is on an unsustainable path. You could cut your spending and raise prices; however, you will have the risk of running off many of your customers. So your business might be hooked up to life support for an extended period of time. On the other hand, you could take out a loan and use the money to improve your business. You might invest in a better product or machinery to increase production. But if you fail, your going to be in an even worse mess.

As the government continues to borrow 40% of it's budget - what makes you think a small business will be able to borrow - especially if it's on an unsustainable path?

 

[WhoWee]

All debt always has an economic value 'now.' The twenty years are nicer to economies since it adds the possibility, a bit, to inflate your way out of debt.

There's no magic bullet. You can tax/work it off, or use inflation -a bit,- or default on public debt. That's it.

If you pay the debt now - you don't pay any interest payments in the future. Given rates are at historical lows - the future costs could be substantially higher.

 

[WhoWee]

The interest on the debt is not as significant as you would think. When you account for inflation it becomes much smaller. Also a good strong economy can easily outgrow the interest payments.
The problem is the deficit, not the debt. I know that seems backwards based on the numbers, but exponential growth is a very powerful force. It is kind of hard to imagine, but if you balanced the budget for the next 20 years, then debt-gdp ratio is going to be cut in half. There would be no real problem with the debt at that point

Try to think of the debt pay down deal for the 1% as an equity investment - to require corporate debt - their dividend/incentive will be no future taxation.

 

[chiro]

One thing that should be seriously considered are measures to stop the old ways of encouraging debt.

If you look at countries like for example China, you will find that large of parts (if not the whole) society is structured in a way that discourages debt and encourages savings.

If you want real examples, look at schemes relating to precious metals including gold. Look at the requirements for buying a house and getting a loan: its very very strict. Also for those who are interested take a look at the new PANAM exchange that is being planned to open if the reports are right: real gold in a real vault open to a wide customer base.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be talked about: dealing with the existing debt is of course a problem, but its more important IMO to get everyone to change how they act and this is going to be very very painful for everyone that is addicted to the debt-rollercoaster that many countries are in.

It has to happen across all levels big and small, corporate and non-corporate, employee and employer: literally every level.

A lot of people are making it out that if we 'cut the budget' or whatever that this is a solution: it's not.

Its about breaking some very bad habits. You can pull out all the figures, pull out all the charts talk about all these cuts and whatever, but that is not the problem: the problem is that not only "can" we do it, but we are encouraged to do it and if these two are gone, then things will change out of necessity.

 

[SixNein]

As the government continues to borrow 40% of it's budget - what makes you think a small business will be able to borrow - especially if it's on an unsustainable path?

I suppose it depends on how well the business is able to demonstrate a plan. At any rate, my point is the complexity of the issue.

We could break our federal debt problem into more categories:
1. The taxes collected do not cover government commitments to spending.
2. We have a wicked sick trade imbalance.
3. We have currency imbalances.

Each one of these issues have their own problems and risks.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Here is an idea on part with the original post- institute a program to euthanize people before they become eligible for medicare or social security. Use the resulting budget surplus to employ all the now out-of-work doctors doing scientific research.

 

[JonDE]

Try to think of the debt pay down deal for the 1% as an equity investment - to require corporate debt - their dividend/incentive will be no future taxation.

I wouldn't compare it as an investment as the return on an investment is good when its about 9% per year. No way are they going to get that kind of savings out of it. Or if they do then government reciepts are going to fall drastically and then we still have the same main problem, huge deficit.

 

[JonDE]

Here is an idea on part with the original post- institute a program to euthanize people before they become eligible for medicare or social security. Use the resulting budget surplus to employ all the now out-of-work doctors doing scientific research.

You are comparing one example where someone gives something and gets something in return, to killing people to save money. Its a very poor example.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is an idea on part with the original post- institute a program to euthanize people before they become eligible for medicare or social security. Use the resulting budget surplus to employ all the now out-of-work doctors doing scientific research.

I'm surprised you wouldn't support a plan of this type - the entire debt burden would be placed on persons with accumulated assets - and the debt payments would be eliminated.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't compare it as an investment as the return on an investment is good when its about 9% per year. No way are they going to get that kind of savings out of it. Or if they do then government reciepts are going to fall drastically and then we still have the same main problem, huge deficit.

A return of $45 million per year might be possible for a few - especially if top rates are about to rise significantly - generally though, I agree.

 

[Pattonias]

I really hate that the idea of balancing the budget is so often rejected. I think it is the biggest slap in the face of common since of our day and age. Balanced budgets include planning for borrowing. They just require a plan to pay of the debt.

If we "balanced the budget", and implemented a constitutional amendment that required it remained balanced we would eventually get out of debt. Oh, we would also hate each other.

 

[ThinkToday]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

 

[WhoWee]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

That's a different conversation - do you think a plan to eliminate the national debt with the assistance of the 1% is possible?

 

[Pattonias]

I think anything is possible, but wealth redistribution doesn't solve the problem. The problem is a government which has gotten too used to spending the money of their constituents. They got so used to it that they started borrowing money to make it look like their constituents were getting even more for their money than they originally thought they would.

Today if the debt was wiped clean our current politicians would borrow the current amount of debt again and use it to send us into a golden age with them at the helm. 200 years from now when the debt collectors come calling they will look for someone to pay off the debt for them all over again.

The only way to fix the debt problem is to balance the budget and spend the next few centuries paying down the budget. Once we pay down the debt, then the government can look at incurring a little debt as an investment instead of a policy.

 

[WhoWee]

I think anything is possible, but wealth redistribution doesn't solve the problem. The problem is a government which has gotten too used to spending the money of their constituents. They got so used to it that they started borrowing money to make it look like their constituents were getting even more for their money than they originally thought they would.

Today if the debt was wiped clean our current politicians would borrow the current amount of debt again and use it to send us into a golden age with them at the helm. 200 years from now when the debt collectors come calling they will look for someone to pay off the debt for them all over again.

The only way to fix the debt problem is to balance the budget and spend the next few centuries paying down the budget. Once we pay down the debt, then the government can look at incurring a little debt as an investment instead of a policy.

That's why the OP stated "The Government in turn would commit to a balanced budget moving forward. Does this sound fair?"

 

[Alfi]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

I agree. BUT
The bold part I indicated, introduces the others.
Below the poverty level ... you know ... just a few people ... What are your thoughts to them?

Screw em? If they just died off ... we, the rest of us, would be better off?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's stay focused - please?

 

[MarcoD]

I think, these days, introducing workfare probably means heavy industrial complaints about 'unfair practices.' Maybe minimum wage is just that: workfare?

 

[JDoolin]

It should also be noted that if the government paid off its debts in full right now, then every person that was owed social security and certificates of deposit, government bonds, etc would now have to be paid back in full. I think it would be interesting to explore exactly who would be paid back, and exactly how much, if the top 1% did "pay off the debt."

I'm not sure how the OP got 1% of the population was 35,000. (EDIT: HE EXPLAINS IN POST #6) I come out closer to 3,000,000. 16.4x10¹²/3x10⁶=5.5 million each, but if the top 35,000 want to pay 500 million each, then more power to them.

If you cut it up the other way, with each of the 300,000,000 paying off $55,000 each, you should know that is about how much I make in three years, (living quite comfortably, I might add.) I don't think it is quite feasible to ask me and each of my friends to come up with $55,000 at this time. :)

 

[JDoolin]

I think it would be interesting to explore exactly who would be paid back, and exactly how much, if the top 1% did "pay off the debt."

This question just became even more interesting, as I read "Griftopia" by Matt Taibi... "Except for the right of an elected president to nominate the Fed chief, voters have no real say over what the Fed does. Citizens do not even get to see transcripts of FOMC meetings in real time; we're only now finding out what Greenspan was saying during the nineties. And despite repeated attempts to pry open the Fed's books, Congress as of this writing has been unsuccessful in doing so and still has no idea how much money the Fed has lent out at the discount window and to whom.

Is that part of the 14.6 trillion national debt, or is that something else? In the book, he says "As of this writing, America's international debt is somewhere in the region of $115 trillion, with our debt now well over 50 percent of GDP. This is debt on a level never before seen in a modern industrialized country."

In a sense, I don't care what they do, as long as I'm comfortable, my friends are comfortable, and the money-grubbers leave me alone. I don't need their stinking money. But I do need roads, internet, health-care, food, housing, etc. This stuff matters. I don't care if one guy has a piece of paper with "a billion dollars" written on it, or "a trillion dollars" so long as they leave me alone, and let me enjoy the things that I value.

 

[chiro]

In a sense, I don't care what they do, as long as I'm comfortable, my friends are comfortable, and the money-grubbers leave me alone. I don't need their stinking money. But I do need roads, internet, health-care, food, housing, etc. This stuff matters. I don't care if one guy has a piece of paper with "a billion dollars" written on it, or "a trillion dollars" so long as they leave me alone, and let me enjoy the things that I value.

But this is part of the problem.

The thing is that everyone is looking out for numero uno, and this kind of mentality has caused the very problems that we are trying to avoid.

The idea of 'as long as I'm fine' is obviously good to the individual or even small group of individuals until things 'are not fine'.

Twofish-quant wrote a very good post outlining the fact of how we 'take the system for granted' and that post amongst others gave me some real insight into how much we take for granted and what kind of responsibilities something like standard run of the mill banking is.

We have two-extremes and any set of solutions inbetween: either we all become actively responsible in some way of taking responsibility and making decisions for society as a whole or we just ask someone else to do it all for us.

The first situation requires that people take on more responsibility and deal with more than they 'need to'. It also requires that people take some kind of accountability for the collective and that they take on more than they would otherwise have to.

This kind of situation is good in small communities but its very hard for large complex societies.

The other option is basically to ask someone or some other group to manage the problems that we don't want to deal with and in terms of modern civilization, has been the choice either wanted or unwanted of the people.

This choice means that the people place some kind of 'trust' in the party and hope that they wish to do the job they were asked to do with the interests of the whole in mind. The key word here is the word 'trust'.

We have done the second option and not surprisingly have run into many problems.

If you want to have a system that makes all the important decisions with all the responsibility, then you have to accept that this is not only probable that bad things happen, but also plausible that they will happen.

 

[JDoolin]

But this is part of the problem.

The thing is that everyone is looking out for numero uno, and this kind of mentality has caused the very problems that we are trying to avoid.

The idea of 'as long as I'm fine' is obviously good to the individual or even small group of individuals until things 'are not fine'.

Twofish-quant wrote a very good post outlining the fact of how we 'take the system for granted' and that post amongst others gave me some real insight into how much we take for granted and what kind of responsibilities something like standard run of the mill banking is.

We have two-extremes and any set of solutions inbetween: either we all become actively responsible in some way of taking responsibility and making decisions for society as a whole or we just ask someone else to do it all for us.

The first situation requires that people take on more responsibility and deal with more than they 'need to'. It also requires that people take some kind of accountability for the collective and that they take on more than they would otherwise have to.

This kind of situation is good in small communities but its very hard for large complex societies.

The other option is basically to ask someone or some other group to manage the problems that we don't want to deal with and in terms of modern civilization, has been the choice either wanted or unwanted of the people.

This choice means that the people place some kind of 'trust' in the party and hope that they wish to do the job they were asked to do with the interests of the whole in mind. The key word here is the word 'trust'.

We have done the second option and not surprisingly have run into many problems.

If you want to have a system that makes all the important decisions with all the responsibility, then you have to accept that this is not only probable that bad things happen, but also plausible that they will happen.

I don't think the problem is that everyone is "looking out for numero uno." The problem is that except for a few very goal-oriented individuals, who are looking out for themselves--or more specifically, their own "bottom dollar" very few people have a vision for what goverenment should be.

They only have a good concept of what the governement shouldn't be, hence the electoral races are submarine races, with everyone picking whatever seems "least bad" instead of "best."

We need transparency and accountability, and local control, and shared national vision, and flexible government, and a lot of other stuff.

For most people, if I tell them, "we need transparency and accountability in our government," their response is "That will NEVER happen." They have already resolved themselves to eventual extinction due to other people's dishonesty and greed.

What people really lack is the vision of "government for the people, by the people" because so much of the evidence in our lifetimes says there's no such thing.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare.

I like this idea (especially in the context of unemployment benefits). But since it isn't the norm, there must be some strong arguments against it. What are they?

 

[ThinkToday]

To Alfi,
Has nothing to do with screwing the poverty level folks. They’re the only group I’d give a pass on taxes. It has often been said we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. Look at the Constitution and the role of the "limited"(lol) government that was envisioned in Article I Section 8. IMO, everyone wants more "free stuff", benefits, services, etc., but is that really the role of government envisioned by the founders? By forcing everyone but the poverty level folks off of the "free ride", perhaps (fingers crossed hoping) they'll think about asking/demanding more, knowing the "more" will come from their paycheck as well as others. I'm a 1%er person, and I really don't think I should have to carry the water for someone else that chooses not to because the "system" works fine for them. When we all chip in, we pay for our decisions, good and bad.

Anyone ever gone to watch bear? Where’s a great place to always find bear, usually at night? The dump, 100% guaranteed success (assuming you live in bear country). Anyone think the “modern” bear lost the ability to forage for food or the food in the dump is better for them? Of course not. According to my game warden friends in ME, they go to the dump because it’s easy food and takes no effort. If you live in bear country, you should have been conditioned to controlled your trash (bear bait, otherwise), and controlling access to your home, although according to my friends that live there, that seems a bigger issue with Alaska’s grizzly population. Now, think about welfare and unemployment. Do you think the people on welfare and unemployment for a generation or more are not capable of working? Of course not. IMO, just like the bear, WIC, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, it’s easier, requires no real effort, etc. There isn’t a push to nudge them off the dole. Workfare would do that, IMO.

The 1% will never be able to pay the bills of the 99%, nor should they. Those of you that think they should have clearly never read the works of our founding fathers. I think John Smith had it exactly right at the outset when as head of the Jamestown Council he decreed “ You must obey this for a Law, that he that will not worke shall not eate (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers”. FWIW, yes, that’s the way they spelled things then. Today the top 1% pay about 27% of all federal income taxes and something like 50% pay no federal income taxes. I suspect John Smith would say we are headed on the path of the first settlement at Roanoke.

 

[JDoolin]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

Yeah, unemployment is pretty badly implemented. You're basically punished for finding work. You have a full-time job, for instance, and get laid off, so you're collecting unemployment of $90 a week. Then one week you find a temp-job that let's you work for two days and make $100 that week. Now you are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits because the last job you had was a temp-job.

 

[JDoolin]

To Alfi,
Has nothing to do with screwing the poverty level folks. They’re the only group I’d give a pass on taxes. It has often been said we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. Look at the Constitution and the role of the "limited"(lol) government that was envisioned in Article I Section 8. IMO, everyone wants more "free stuff", benefits, services, etc., but is that really the role of government envisioned by the founders? By forcing everyone but the poverty level folks off of the "free ride", perhaps (fingers crossed hoping) they'll think about asking/demanding more, knowing the "more" will come from their paycheck as well as others. I'm a 1%er person, and I really don't think I should have to carry the water for someone else that chooses not to because the "system" works fine for them. When we all chip in, we pay for our decisions, good and bad.

Anyone ever gone to watch bear? Where’s a great place to always find bear, usually at night? The dump, 100% guaranteed success (assuming you live in bear country). Anyone think the “modern” bear lost the ability to forage for food or the food in the dump is better for them? Of course not. According to my game warden friends in ME, they go to the dump because it’s easy food and takes no effort. If you live in bear country, you should have been conditioned to controlled your trash (bear bait, otherwise), and controlling access to your home, although according to my friends that live there, that seems a bigger issue with Alaska’s grizzly population. Now, think about welfare and unemployment. Do you think the people on welfare and unemployment for a generation or more are not capable of working? Of course not. IMO, just like the bear, WIC, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, it’s easier, requires no real effort, etc. There isn’t a push to nudge them off the dole. Workfare would do that, IMO.

The 1% will never be able to pay the bills of the 99%, nor should they. Those of you that think they should have clearly never read the works of our founding fathers. I think John Smith had it exactly right at the outset when as head of the Jamestown Council he decreed “ You must obey this for a Law, that he that will not worke shall not eate (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers”. FWIW, yes, that’s the way they spelled things then. Today the top 1% pay about 27% of all federal income taxes and something like 50% pay no federal income taxes. I suspect John Smith would say we are headed on the path of the first settlement at Roanoke.

On the one hand you're talking about the people who don't work. On the other hand you're talking about the bottom 50% of income earners. It seems like you're trying to equate those two which is not fair. Some of those bottom 50% income earners are juggling two or three jobs and trying to raise a family. Just because they aren't secure, full-time jobs with benefits doesn't mean they aren't working.

If you make $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, working full time, year round, for 52 weeks a year, that's around $15,000.

Now, what is the median household income in the U.S? It appears to be somewhere around $50,000 from a look here.

In any case, I think your attitude toward the bottom 50%, and food-stamps, WIC etc, is misguided. People who need food-stamps and WIC are not usually bums. They may be working two jobs and still not be able to afford to feed their family.

 

[chiro]

I don't think the problem is that everyone is "looking out for numero uno." The problem is that except for a few very goal-oriented individuals, who are looking out for themselves--or more specifically, their own "bottom dollar" very
few people have a vision for what goverenment should be.

The fact is that its just too much of a hassle for people to worry about more than they have to which includes things like putting a roof over their head, feeding their family, getting their kids to school and then using whatever remaining time they have to wind down and not worry about anything else.

People say they want this and they want that, but if you asked them to get personally involved and have more responsibility, chances are they won't step up to the plate.

It's the same kind of reason that people buy cheap crap and wonder why everyone is losing jobs: you tell them that you can get back your local economy again, but you'll have to pay 50% more (maybe even slightly more) initially.

People won't do it because it is initially painful for them.

They only have a good concept of what the governement shouldn't be, hence the electoral races are submarine races, with everyone picking whatever seems "least bad" instead of "best."

We need transparency and accountability, and local control, and shared national vision, and flexible government, and a lot of other stuff.

Anyone can say whatever the hell they want to, but in the end its only the people that take action that have an effect.

The model we have chosen is that we elect someone and 'trust' them to do a good job. That's it, nothing more to it. Also we indirectly elect people that have been chosen by some other administration to do all the supporting procedures because intuitively one person can't execute a plan by themselves.

In large organized societies this can actually be a good thing, but again the risk is that if the people do things that they "shouldn't" for whatever reason, then it might be so bad as to affect everybody in some manner.

For most people, if I tell them, "we need transparency and accountability in our government," their response is "That will NEVER happen." They have already resolved themselves to eventual extinction due to other people's dishonesty and greed.

What people really lack is the vision of "government for the people, by the people" because so much of the evidence in our lifetimes says there's no such thing.

Again I absolutely stress that you ask how many people are actually going to get up and really do something about any problem that exists.

Most people will say "someone else will do it", or "I can't do it", or "I don't want to do it: it's good enough at the moment". There is always an excuse and its not surprising since doing something about the problem takes a lot of effort and courage to do and comes with the risk of being ostracized, your life made into a living hell and in some cases killed.

Maybe you should ask people next time instead of 'what should be done', something more along the lines of 'would you be willing to take the hard option of taking on more responsibility and short-term pain if X was the case': just make it straight-forward and listen to the kind of 'standards' people have about 'fixing the problem'.

 

[daveb]

Yeah, unemployment is pretty badly implemented. You're basically punished for finding work. You have a full-time job, for instance, and get laid off, so you're collecting unemployment of $90 a week. Then one week you find a temp-job that let's you work for two days and make $100 that week. Now you are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits because the last job you had was a temp-job.

Worse. I was on unemployment and cgot an adjunct poistion at the local community college for 2 semesters. While I was on unemployment, my net amount plus residual from unemployment was less than my previous unemployment. After the contract expired and unemployment resumed, the amount was based on the contract amount, not the amount from my previous job.

All that and I still didn't find another permanent job until almost 2 years.

 

[JDoolin]

The fact is that its just too much of a hassle for people to worry about more than they have to which includes things like putting a roof over their head, feeding their family, getting their kids to school and then using whatever remaining time they have to wind down and not worry about anything else.

People say they want this and they want that, but if you asked them to get personally involved and have more responsibility, chances are they won't step up to the plate.

It's the same kind of reason that people buy cheap crap and wonder why everyone is losing jobs: you tell them that you can get back your local economy again, but you'll have to pay 50% more (maybe even slightly more) initially.

People won't do it because it is initially painful for them.
Anyone can say whatever the hell they want to, but in the end its only the people that take action that have an effect.

The model we have chosen is that we elect someone and 'trust' them to do a good job. That's it, nothing more to it. Also we indirectly elect people that have been chosen by some other administration to do all the supporting procedures because intuitively one person can't execute a plan by themselves.

In large organized societies this can actually be a good thing, but again the risk is that if the people do things that they "shouldn't" for whatever reason, then it might be so bad as to affect everybody in some manner.

Again I absolutely stress that you ask how many people are actually going to get up and really do something about any problem that exists.

Most people will say "someone else will do it", or "I can't do it", or "I don't want to do it: it's good enough at the moment". There is always an excuse and its not surprising since doing something about the problem takes a lot of effort and courage to do and comes with the risk of being ostracized, your life made into a living hell and in some cases killed.

Maybe you should ask people next time instead of 'what should be done', something more along the lines of 'would you be willing to take the hard option of taking on more responsibility and short-term pain if X was the case': just make it straight-forward and listen to the kind of 'standards' people have about 'fixing the problem'.

I'm not making any huge sacrifices, or changing my life for it, but, here's an example. If I happen across a one-sided argument, on Physics-Forums, I can jump in and put in my two cents. True, it's not going to change the world by itself, but I can lead by example. If two people see me doing it, maybe they'll jump in as well.

There are a lot of people that are doing a lot more than I am, of course. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. There are more and more people taking that chance of being ostracized, imprisoned; maybe they're not getting killed, but they're getting pepper-sprayed, and arrested.

They may not know exactly what needs to be changed, but they are willing to take the hard option and short-term pain. But I think that there's another point to be made here. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement want to be a part of their government. They want to be part of the decision-making process.

But most of the people I talk to aren't in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are people who listen to Christian radio stations, and try not to watch the news, because "it's usually bad news anyway," or "it's so boring" and they "don't know which side to believe." That's the scariest thing... We really don't know what to believe. It's this sense that "If I were compelled to act... what if I were on the wrong side?"

No, I think if people knew what to do, they would stand up and do it. The problem is that without transparency and accountability, nobody has any idea what to do. We know we're being lied to, but we don't know who is lying.

 

[ThinkToday]

To JDoolin,

No, not every one of 50% is a bum, and that's too much of an overreach to get to that. The point is 50% pay nothing for federal income taxes, but still demand more perks. They "don't have a dog in the fight", so why would they care if taxes went up on those of us that do pay them? They don't, IMO. When 1% pays 27% of the bills and 50% pay bills for the 50% that don't, there is an incentive for the politicians to keep those dependent voters where they are. "Vote for me and I'll raise your food stamp allowance, vote for me and I'll extend your unemployment, vote for me and I'll increase your welfare payment, vote for me and I'll get you free health care, vote for me and I’ll make sure you can move into a house you can’t afford, etc." When the politicians say “I’ll get you free…”, who do you think they’re getting this free stuff from? Us, of course. So, getting back around to the point of my post, how do you make people care about work and taxes? John Smith had it right, unless there is a compelling reason why you can’t work, you must work if you want to eat. The more you want, the more you have to work…… just like you and me. Dump the freebee notion of “giving” people services. I want to see full blown workfare for every benefit someone collects that is beyond what the pay for as a tax payer. At that point, perhaps they’ll care about the cost of things people ask for.

And to your point, yes, there are working poor. My wife chose to teach in a school that is 85% disadvantaged children. It’s easy to tell those families (incl. single parents) that stay out of crime, drugs, drink, and live in solid families that long for their children to have a better life, and they can do ok. They’re not rich in material things, but they are so unshakably solid, which reminds me of my family history. It’s also easy to see those parents that don’t give a rats butt about their kids and threaten the teachers that call home about their child’s homework, grades, or attendance. I’d have the parent’s benefits, tax refunds, etc, linked to their child’s health, academics, etc., and perhaps they’ll give a damn then. You can’t make people better themselves, but you can punish them for their failures by controlling what they are “given” by us.

And, as a side note, fix the borders, and require and enforce e-Verify so lower level entry jobs are there to get people, incl. teenagers, along a productive lifelong path of work. I remember back in the 70s when my employer first started bringing in Mexican workers. They worked hard, yes, but they displaced about 50 teenagers, teachers, and others that needed the summer jobs too.

 

[Oltz]

Lets remember that based on Adjusted Gross income in 2009 the "top 50%" had an income floor at $32,396 Top 25% was $66,193.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

And remember AGI is after your deductions and children and spouse and whatever else.

With that in mind what is the poverty level? $20,000 AGI? 15? or do we define it by saying the bottom 20% of incomes and have it float?

I think at some point we need to define these things instead of using vague terms like "the poor" I do not feel the entire bottom 50% of incomes is the poor but some people seem to.

On the one hand you're talking about the people who don't work. On the other hand you're talking about the bottom 50% of income earners. It seems like you're trying to equate those two which is not fair. Some of those bottom 50% income earners are juggling two or three jobs and trying to raise a family. Just because they aren't secure, full-time jobs with benefits doesn't mean they aren't working.

If you make $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, working full time, year round, for 52 weeks a year, that's around $15,000.

Now, what is the median household income in the U.S? It appears to be somewhere around $50,000 from a look here.

In any case, I think your attitude toward the bottom 50%, and food-stamps, WIC etc, is misguided. People who need food-stamps and WIC are not usually bums. They may be working two jobs and still not be able to afford to feed their family.

I guess my point is if we define a term either with a percentile or an AGI we can get passed these arguments. Blanket statements about needing to expand the tax base or about the bottom 50% all being poor and needing to not pay taxes are just opposing sides talking past each other.

 

[JDoolin]

You can’t make people better themselves,

Sorry to clip your response, but I just wanted to question this one assertion.

I think actually, you can make people better themselves, but there would need to be a political will behind it. As a case in point, have you ever had any military training?

Right now, the "forced betterment" of our lower classes is called a "corrections facility," or more commonly "prison."