PDA

View Full Version : Entitlements, Not Tax Cuts, Widen the Wealth Gap



red states rule
11-28-2011, 03:50 AM
I have never had a rich person take my money from me - only the government. I do not care someone has more money than me - only Dems seem to care

Now we have more proof the Dems contant transfers of wealth are a waste and are hurting the people they are supposed to be helping






But House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, in a 17-page paper based largely on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of income trends between 1979 and 2007, has done so.Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, makes the point that the government redistributes income not only through taxes but also through transfer payments, including Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and unemployment benefits. The CBO study helpfully measures income, adjusted for inflation, after taxes and after such transfer payments.

Many may find the results of the CBO study surprising. It turns out, Ryan reports, that federal income taxes (including the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit) actually decreased income inequality slightly between 1979 and 2007, while the federal payroll taxes that supposedly fund Social Security and Medicare slightly increased income inequality. That's despite the fact that income tax rates are lower than in 1979 and payroll taxes higher.

Perhaps even more surprising, federal transfer payments have done much more to increase income inequality than federal taxes. That's because, in Ryan's words, "the distribution of government transfers has moved away from households in the lower part of the income scale. For instance, in 1979, households in the lowest income quintile received 54 percent of all transfer payments. In 2007, those households received just 36 percent of transfers."

In effect, Social Security and Medicare have been transferring money from low-earning young people (who don't pay income but are hit by the payroll tax) to increasingly affluent old people.

The Democrats, perhaps following the polls and focus groups, have been protecting these entitlement programs that have done more to increase income inequality than the Reagan and Bush tax cuts put together.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/28/entitlement_not_tax_cuts_widen_the_wealth_gap_1121 89.html

fj1200
11-28-2011, 10:24 AM
Yup, a government program is the very cause of the thing that they seek to remedy.

logroller
11-28-2011, 01:20 PM
Yup, a government program is the very cause of the thing that they seek to remedy.

Crazy talk- next thing you'll say is printing more money doesn't make us a wealthier nation. ;)

fj1200
11-28-2011, 01:29 PM
Crazy talk- next thing you'll say is printing more money doesn't make us a wealthier nation. ;)

Put me in charge of the Fed and I'll make you a millionaire. ;)

logroller
11-28-2011, 01:34 PM
Put me in charge of the Fed and I'll make you a millionaire. ;)

Are you quoting bernanke's cover letter or resume?:link:
:laugh2:

fj1200
11-28-2011, 01:39 PM
Are you quoting bernanke's cover letter or resume?:link:
:laugh2:

:laugh: It's the Monetarist's mantra whether they like it or not.

ConHog
11-28-2011, 11:31 PM
Yup, a government program is the very cause of the thing that they seek to remedy.


Very true, now if they actually ran the programs right they would work of course, but who in their right minds would trust the government to run anything right?

fj1200
11-29-2011, 05:56 AM
Very true, now if they actually ran the programs right they would work of course, but who in their right minds would trust the government to run anything right?

That's the thing, even running it correctly still leads to worsening the original problem.

ConHog
11-29-2011, 12:35 PM
That's the thing, even running it correctly still leads to worsening the original problem.

I don't think that is true for EVERY program FJ

Let's just talk about SNAP (food stamps)

If done correctly, as an emergency and TEMPORARY program food stamps are a good thing. The problem is as far as I know there is no cutoff limit. I've looked over various governmental websites and nowhere can I find where it says anything more than you have to reapply every 6 months.

It's a huge carrot with NO stick, that is the problem.

fj1200
11-29-2011, 01:24 PM
If done correctly...

That's quite the "if" you've got in there. I'm sure those running the program and those voting to authorize the program are of the mind that it's done correctly.

ConHog
11-29-2011, 01:30 PM
That's quite the "if" you've got in there. I'm sure those running the program and those voting to authorize the program are of the mind that it's done correctly.

I'm quite sure you're right. I think they view them as being ran correctly because they don't WANT them to be just temporary help. So in that sense, you are right, they do more harm than good. But would you agree that allowing people who really need the help to have temporary access to food stamps for instance is a good thing? And yes of course we've all seen the abuses. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the honest guy, or gal, that has found themselves in a tight spot and uses food stamps for a few months or maybe even a year until they can get themselves back on their feet. I have no problem helping THAT person. I suspect, and hope, that neither do you.

fj1200
11-29-2011, 02:14 PM
... I'm talking about the honest guy, or gal, that has found themselves in a tight spot and uses food stamps for a few months or maybe even a year until they can get themselves back on their feet. I have no problem helping THAT person. I suspect, and hope, that neither do you.

Of course I have no problem with that, providing assistance for those who truly need it rather than the typical program that may originally seek to help only those but quickly snowball into a program that has results that are contradictory to its original intent.

ConHog
11-29-2011, 03:00 PM
Of course I have no problem with that, providing assistance for those who truly need it rather than the typical program that may originally seek to help only those but quickly snowball into a program that has results that are contradictory to its original intent.

and that it what I was referring to when I said if ran right. I submit though that the government will never run anything right and therefor you conclusions about the programs will never work is probably correct.