Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Finally, we agree. Your observation makes a good case for wealth redistribution now.

(Note: the OP "study" is really about redistribution of assets)

Income tax is generally targeted at working-class people. Wealth lives by their wealth, not income. You make a good point for a targeted wealth tax.

 

I'm unclear as to where you agree as nothing I wrote had anything at all to do with wealth redistribution.

Exactly how might you go about taxing wealth? Can you even begin to define wealth in absolute terms?

Two persons can earn the exact same income over their entire working lifetimes with one being destitute and broke after retiring, while the other can be quite wealthy. The decisions we make, good and bad, as individuals can have dramatic effect on the long term outcome. How might you resolve that? Punish those who make good decisions and/or correct bad decisions to provide equality for those who make bad decisions repeatedly, excluding those who are incapable of making decisions, or incapacitated?

 

The agenda of the Cato Institute and what the OP "study" is really about: cutting the social safety net (for the benefit of wealth).

 

And in related news:

 

I'll ask once again, "Exactly how might you go about taxing wealth? Can you even begin to define wealth in absolute terms?"

 

nothing's too hard for the invisible hand

 

THE invisible hand? Are you attempting to imply something written by Adam Smith?

 

That was my feeble attempt at humor

 

it's too hard...

But do you still doubt the true agenda of the writers of the OP "study" is to downsize the federal government beyond welfare, which includes social security and medicare?

 

Until you can come up with an answer to my question, you might at least recognize that hoarding wealth is quite different from hoarding money, and it is not wealth but money that the poor need, and money is gained by productivity. Labor is a form of wealth, and like a rare painting or any inanimate item which another might find desirable to acquire, it is salable.

I just pulled up the link to the "study" and a search for the terms "social security" and "medicare" produced zero results. And although "downsizing the Federal government" could not be found in the "study", that in my opinion would be an excellent place to begin in reducing the excessive Federal spending that only increases our debt. It sounds like the Cato Institute may be on to something that bares a closer look.

 

Just as "labor is a form of wealth, and like a rare painting or any inanimate item which another might find desirable to acquire, it is salable," so it is with wealth; wealth can be sold; what can be sold can be taxed.

Really?

When I do a search of the term "social security," on the "downsizing the Federal government," Cato Institute website I get 708 results: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/search-results?cx=006606822365722333854%3Afgcvw6tf0fw&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&query=social+security&sa=Search

When I do a search of the term "medicare," on the "downsizing the Federal government," Cato Institute website I get 239 results: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org...of=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&query=medicare&sa=Search

Why are your searches producing "zero results" as you say?

 

Yes, that is quite true, yet you continue to avoid putting the pieces together. Steve Jobs basic income was $1 per year, and Warren Buffet continues to keep his income at $100,000 per year, which I'm certain both of them paid the taxes due on, including any taxes due on all other gains which produced their 'adjusted gross income', yet they were still able to accumulate great wealth. Do you feel that either of them were hoarding food, water, health care, or any other necessity of life from others? Should a wealthy person be forced to sell a piece of rare art in order to fill the needs of another or others? Very few people, other than perhaps drug lords and terrorists, hoard large sums of currency.

Because I am dealing with the facts produced by the 'study', not going off on a tangent to avoid dealing with the relevant facts provided by the government which the 'study' presented. One issue at a time makes much more sense if you really wish to achieve any positive results, which the more I post here seems not to be achievable or even desirable. If all you wish to accomplish is to find something you can disagree on, then you are simply wasting time, as that is always possible when dealing with individuals, and rather than achieving any compromise force becomes the only applicable solution.

 

Is your position that wealth cannot be taxed because it is too difficult or impossible?

Examining source credibility is not "going off on a tangent;" it is dealing with a relevant, on-topic fact.

Why are you choosing to limit the scope of understanding by putting the source of the study off-limits?

 

In your post #1409 where you responded to my question "I'll ask once again, "Exactly how might you go about taxing wealth?", YOUR reply was "it's too hard...". Would you like to give it another try?

So you simply refuse to believe anything unless it comes from a source which supports YOUR agenda?

 

You misunderstood. I was going along with your suggestion to show the absurdity of the statement: "taxing wealth is too hard."

My position is that it is possible (and proper) to tax wealth.

Is your position that it is too difficult or impossible to tax wealth?

No. My position is that source credibility is an on-topic fact that should not be put off-limits.

 

My suggestion?

And if, as you claim, it is possible (and proper)to tax wealth, I once again must ask how you would suggest it could and should be done?

My only position is that as money is earned it is taxed, and those who invest it wisely are taxed once again as gains are realized and again when the gains are spent.

So ignore the facts if they are presented by a source with whom you disagree, even if they are true?

 

Are you suggesting that taxing wealth is too difficult?

Just as "labor is a form of wealth, and like a rare painting or any inanimate item which another might find desirable to acquire, it is salable," so it is with wealth; wealth can be sold; what can be sold can be taxed.

My position says nothing about "ignoring facts." I prefer a more broad input of information since I include the source of the information.

My position is that the source of information should be included; the source of information is a fact to be considered.

Is your position that the source of information is a fact to be ignored?

 

I believe I explained in my previous post that wealth is taxed already.

I haven't disagreed with that.

You've stated numerous times your dislike of the source, so we are left with the facts that were gathered from another source, the government. Are you claiming the facts provided by the government and presented by a source with a different agenda than that of your own are untrue? If so, what are the true facts as biased by your agenda?

 

That "welfare is a failure" is the opinion of the Cato Institute (presented as fact).

The "and fail" part of the Cato Institute "policy analysis" was not provided by the government. It is the opinion of the Cato Institute.

As I understand it, the OP policy analysis is about tearing down one portion of the safety-net, but the goal of the Cato Institute (wealth) is to dismantle all government programs (including social security) that do not directly serve them.

However, the Cato Institute (wealth) will not tear down government that functions as the enforcer (with much coercion) of contracts and property rights.

Do you agree with government enforcement of contracts and property rights?

 

Checked out the Cato Institutes site and I certainly agree with their take on the welfare large farmers receive. Subsidies,direct payments,crop supports,ect are way out of line when you consider 70 % of subsidies go to 10 % of farmers. Interesting read and I agree--these welfare programs need to end. Paying farmers to NOT grow crops is an interesting way of manipulating prices and guaranteeing farms "make" money whether crops are grown or not. Some crop payments are to people who don't even farm. Great idea. I'm going to sign up for that program. Not only am I not going to farm,I'm not even going to buy any land TO farm. Anyone interested in wasted welfare should read about farm subsidies.

I grew up in the so-called "breadbasket of the world" as they call the San Joaquin Valley and I have seen crop subsidy payment checks for letting land remain fallow, with my own eyes.

This is a form of socialism,no?