Rep. George Cleveland, R-Onslow Doesn't Believe in Extreme Poverty in NC

[Deacfreak07]

This is all completely incorrect. Our system is heavily slanted the other way, towards maximizing employment. You say taxes are higher on employment, but there is no federal employment tax while there is a 15% tax on all capital gains, completely separate from the income tax. In addition, we offer subsidies that entice people to join the labor force. The Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, etc. Further, it's not as simple as, "when profits aren't high enough, workers lose their jobs". How does that make any sense? Firms never hire workers that cost them money. The only situation in which they would lay off workers is if they faced an immediate liquidity or solvency crisis, and the only way that laying off workers would actually increase their profit margins would be if the firms took losses from hiring the workers to begin with. Usually this only happens when the government entices firms to make hires that wouldn't be profitable in exchange for certain benefits.

Regulations on investment are stringent, especially with the passage of Dodd-Frank and the coming implementation of the Volcker Rule. If you truly want to have a system that is slanted towards getting people to work, then you should be against Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, minimum wage laws, and unions.

If you truly want people to work for a living, you should admit that the minimum wage is horribly insufficient as is.

 

[HeavyPetter]

Look at it as earning thos civil liberties. I have give that concept zero thought but it seems appealing to have to earn some of your rights in this way.

The DofI states men (not women) "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

 

[PhDeac]

This is all completely incorrect. Our system is heavily slanted the other way, towards maximizing employment. You say taxes are higher on employment, but there is no federal employment tax while there is a 15% tax on all capital gains, completely separate from the income tax. In addition, we offer subsidies that entice people to join the labor force. The Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, etc. Further, it's not as simple as, "when profits aren't high enough, workers lose their jobs". How does that make any sense? Firms never hire workers that cost them money. The only situation in which they would lay off workers is if they faced an immediate liquidity or solvency crisis, and the only way that laying off workers would actually increase their profit margins would be if the firms took losses from hiring the workers to begin with. Usually this only happens when the government entices firms to make hires that wouldn't be profitable in exchange for certain benefits.

Regulations on investment are stringent, especially with the passage of Dodd-Frank and the coming implementation of the Volcker Rule. If you truly want to have a system that is slanted towards getting people to work, then you should be against Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, minimum wage laws, and unions.

You're taking it in a different direction by talking about a "federal employment tax". But since you're going to mention it, there are plenty of costs related to employment that don't necessarily go to the worker that make hiring a liability.

As far as capital gains, you say "there is a 15% tax on all capital gains, completely separate from the income tax". All investments haven't already been taxed as income. Capital gains are new money taxed at a different rate.

 

[Haros]

Gotcha...or they can do social service which is not government related. Plenty of non-profits that would qualify that would help the common good and have nothing to do with government.

I like the idea a lot in theory, but do think there are some practical barriers to implementing this.

1) You would have to pay, at worst, a living stipend to all the 18 year-olds that either pays at the poverty level so people can afford rent, or provides housing/food/shelter.
2) If the government is the source of these service jobs, that's a lot of money to shell out to pay living wages for a year to every 18 year-old in the country.
3) If the source of the jobs is non-public not-for-profits: a) most of them also rely on government funding for a sizable part of their budget, b) there are already more applicants than programs in many locations, and
4) As currently set up, they are disproportionately located in cities and more expensive locations.

Trying to set all this up with the federal and most state government budgets as stretched as they already are seems like a nightmare, even if it stems from the best intentions.

 

[Wrangor]

Agree that the financial implications are enormous. I still love the idea. With regards to military and educational tracks - we are already paying those positions, it might even be cheaper with this idea. The social work track would take some extra money that is for certain, but it could be money spent towards true development instead of merely relief.

 

[SCDeac]

What are the statistics when you take out donations to a church, mosque, etc.? Money going to pay a pastor's salary isn't doing much to promote economic uplift.

The same question could be asked of tax dollars supporting bureaucrats who administer programs or inpsect some kiddie's lunch at school that mommy packed. Money going to pay federal employees at Department or Agency XYZ isn't doing much to promote economic uplift....whatever the hell that is.

 

[TexasDeac10]

What are the statistics when you take out donations to a church, mosque, etc.? Money going to pay a pastor's salary isn't doing much to promote economic uplift.

I'm too lazy to find the studies on this stuff right now, but I believe the literature controls for donations to churches, etc.

I had a prof that was big on this idea, and he'd cite this study all the time. Controlling for just about everything, the Pubs still come out on top when it comes to giving.

 

[bmoneydeac]

I'm too lazy to find the studies on this stuff right now, but I believe the literature controls for donations to churches, etc.

I had a prof that was big on this idea, and he'd cite this study all the time. Controlling for just about everything, the Pubs still come out on top when it comes to giving.

not to mention, i would guess that giving to a church (even if it is funding the pastor's salary or the light bill) leads to more on work, community service, more charitable giving, etc. by the members of the church. essentially that a thriving church creates more of a culture of community service, even if it is not money directly contributed by the church. i'd like to see a study of whether church goers are more likely to contribute to other charities and contribute their time to community service.*

*haven't been to church in 5 years or so.

 

[PhDeac]

TexasDeac10 do the studies you're referring to include charitable giving that isn't reported as a tax deduction?