Conquer Club

gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.htm

taxfoundation.org/blog/nonpayers-federal-taxes-and-net-beneficiaries-federal-spending

Top link is dead.

Fixed.

mrswdk wrote:Fixed.

Nope.

This is pretty cool. Broadly speaking, it makes sense if the lower half has a net gain and the upper half has a net loss, and it is pleasing to see that this is more or less how it works.

As Mets says, it seems like its working as intended. Do you, or other, have a problem with the below picture?



edit: of course it should be smooth, but practically speaking that is the shape that is targeted by the policy.

Lootifer wrote:As Mets says, it seems like its working as intended. Do you, or other, have a problem with the below picture?



edit: of course it should be smooth, but practically speaking that is the shape that is targeted by the policy.

I wonder how income mobility across those quintiles has changed given substantial larger subsidies to the bottom quintile.

In other words, does subsidizing poverty alleviate poverty or perpetuate poverty?
(The ideal study would control for the relevant variables, which seems... extraordinarily difficult).

Hmm... thanks, y'all.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:As Mets says, it seems like its working as intended. Do you, or other, have a problem with the below picture?



edit: of course it should be smooth, but practically speaking that is the shape that is targeted by the policy.

I wonder how income mobility across those quintiles has changed given substantial larger subsidies to the bottom quintile.

In other words, does subsidizing poverty alleviate poverty or perpetuate poverty?
(The ideal study would control for the relevant variables, which seems... extraordinarily difficult).

Hmm... thanks, y'all.

I don't think that question is well-posed because it depends also on what we mean by poverty. Income mobility is one measure, but it could also be measured in real or nomimal shifts in income, say from the upper half to the lower half. So even if mobility decreases, the poor might still be better off in an objective sense.

Thats a very good question. So goo in fact that I suspect no politician will ever have an interest in knowing the answer.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:As Mets says, it seems like its working as intended. Do you, or other, have a problem with the below picture?



edit: of course it should be smooth, but practically speaking that is the shape that is targeted by the policy.

I wonder how income mobility across those quintiles has changed given substantial larger subsidies to the bottom quintile.

In other words, does subsidizing poverty alleviate poverty or perpetuate poverty?
(The ideal study would control for the relevant variables, which seems... extraordinarily difficult).

Hmm... thanks, y'all.

I don't think that question is well-posed because it depends also on what we mean by poverty.

bottom quintile

The problem with quintiles is that such categorization fails to capture the individual movement across those categories.

But if we see more subsidies going to the bottom quintile and less mobility, then here is one possible explanation. Then [insert control for relevant variables, etc.], so it's worth the journey.


Regardless of this potential study, would the poor be better off? It depends on the opportunity cost of all that transferred wealth (taxation).

Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

Phatscotty wrote:It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children... people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

Fox shoots into your mouth and you just swallow down and ask for more, huh?

It's very easy to point at poor people, declare them all to be wasters and lay responsibility for their situation entirely at their feet, but that doesn't mean that that's a helpful answer.

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

mrswdk wrote:Fox shoots into your mouth and you just swallow down and ask for more, huh?

I don't watch FOX. Any other moronic knee-jerk responses that you somehow think allows you to ignore everything I said, ignore reality? If you can't make a real response, why do you even want to talk about the subject?

And what is your obsession with America anyways

Your response to my questions was not a 'real response', so I don't see why I should bother arguing with you about whether or not your crude stereotypes are fair.

Try again: if it is not possible for 100% of the population to secure their own subsistence then what should be done with them? What positive gains do you think would be made by slashing government welfare and what is your reasoning?

Phatscotty wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

mrswdk wrote:Your response to my questions was not a 'real response', so I don't see why I should bother arguing with you about whether or not your crude stereotypes are fair.

Try again: if it is not possible for 100% of the population to secure their own subsistence then what should be done with them? What positive gains do you think would be made by slashing government welfare and what is your reasoning?

It's not a crude stereotype at all, and how is it you are in a position to judge from China? It's the mainstream reality, just like it's mainstream that politicians in America think rape victims should carry a rapists baby to birth.

My post described what should not be done with them, and how what we are doing just creates more. For starters, we should stop the status quo of failed programs today. I don't think welfare programs should be slashed, but I do think we should 'introduce' accountability and cut way down on waste.

Can you agree at least we should start with cutting waste? Can we agree that someone who spends 300$ a month on cigarettes isn't really in dire need to survive? How about welfare recipients who go to the casino every weekend? Can we agree that aid we send to help is actually not helping and probably even make things worse?

Now lemme check what Mets daily bailout package says in your defense. I hope it's better than 'yeah,well you watch FOX!'

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

I don't think we should try to fix everything at once. Let's just start with some basic reforms to welfare, like Bill Clinton did. Hey, wasn't the budget balanced shortly after? and in response to your response I expect, nowhere did I just say that welfare reform automatically equals a balanced budget.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

I don't think we should try to fix everything at once. Let's just start with some basic reforms to welfare, like Bill Clinton did. Hey, wasn't the budget balanced shortly after? and in response to your response I expect, nowhere did I just say that welfare reform automatically equals a balanced budget.

I am talking about welfare reform. The EIC is broadly supported by both conservatives and liberals because it gives support to the poor but rewards them for earning more (at least, for the poorest). So perhaps it makes sense to reduce the total welfare budget and, to compensate, increase the funding available for the EIC. This would more strongly encourage individuals to work.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

I don't think we should try to fix everything at once. Let's just start with some basic reforms to welfare, like Bill Clinton did. Hey, wasn't the budget balanced shortly after? and in response to your response I expect, nowhere did I just say that welfare reform automatically equals a balanced budget.

I am talking about welfare reform. The EIC is broadly supported by both conservatives and liberals because it gives support to the poor but rewards them for earning more (at least, for the poorest). So perhaps it makes sense to reduce the total welfare budget and, to compensate, increase the funding available for the EIC. This would more strongly encourage individuals to work.

if we get anywhere near a balanced budget, and have our credit rating restored, I would absolutely entertain that idea and pretty much ANY other ideas. For right now, when we are spending almost twice as much money as we take in and have to borrow the rest, I'm not supporting any increases outside emergency, and certainly not welfare, on principle. I don't even think that question should be asked until we have the money on hand to pay for any increase.

guessing Dave dropped out and is letting Mets handle this. That's unfortunate as I have noticed you've been baiting me for weeks, and here it is..... I finally bit. Wasn't there something you wanted to do when you finally got my attention Mrs? Because I don't think it was just to accuse me of watching FOX news, as if that means anything in the first place. And right after you 'stereotype' me based on what channel you think I watch, you dismiss my reality based common sense observation, as a 'stereotype'. Interesting...

Do you get FOX news in China?

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Is it subsidising poverty or providing the means that make it possible to escape poverty?

If it is not possible for 100% of people in a society to independently subsist then what should be done with those who cannot support themselves?

Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

I don't think we should try to fix everything at once. Let's just start with some basic reforms to welfare, like Bill Clinton did. Hey, wasn't the budget balanced shortly after? and in response to your response I expect, nowhere did I just say that welfare reform automatically equals a balanced budget.

I am talking about welfare reform. The EIC is broadly supported by both conservatives and liberals because it gives support to the poor but rewards them for earning more (at least, for the poorest). So perhaps it makes sense to reduce the total welfare budget and, to compensate, increase the funding available for the EIC. This would more strongly encourage individuals to work.

if we get anywhere near a balanced budget, and have our credit rating restored, I would absolutely entertain that idea and pretty much ANY other ideas. For right now, when we are spending almost twice as much money as we take in and have to borrow the rest, I'm not supporting any increases outside emergency, and certainly not welfare, on principle. I don't even think that question should be asked until we have the money on hand to pay for any increase.

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Obviously we have been subsidizing them for decades, and the problem only gets worse. It's what encourages a person who cannot even afford to care for one child on their own to have 7 children. The only thing that can propel one in poverty to escape poverty is that individual deciding they will not allow themselves to be impoverished. At that point, I believe subsidies can work more in the way they are intended to. But the current system only seeks to make poverty more comfortable to the point where people are quite happy to not work, wake up whenever they want to, do as many drugs and smoke as many cigarettes as they want to, and still get paid from the government.

It perpetuates poverty by encouraging the wrong attitude and taking away all consequences so there are no lessons to learn other than vote Democrat.

How do you feel about the earned income tax credit? Would you support putting more money into this at the expense of other federal subsidies for the poor?

I don't think we should try to fix everything at once. Let's just start with some basic reforms to welfare, like Bill Clinton did. Hey, wasn't the budget balanced shortly after? and in response to your response I expect, nowhere did I just say that welfare reform automatically equals a balanced budget.

I am talking about welfare reform. The EIC is broadly supported by both conservatives and liberals because it gives support to the poor but rewards them for earning more (at least, for the poorest). So perhaps it makes sense to reduce the total welfare budget and, to compensate, increase the funding available for the EIC. This would more strongly encourage individuals to work.

if we get anywhere near a balanced budget, and have our credit rating restored, I would absolutely entertain that idea and pretty much ANY other ideas. For right now, when we are spending almost twice as much money as we take in and have to borrow the rest, I'm not supporting any increases outside emergency, and certainly not welfare, on principle. I don't even think that question should be asked until we have the money on hand to pay for any increase.

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

This is more along the lines of what Mrs and I were 'discussing'/FOXing about. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it FOX paid this woman to lie on camera. Oops, read her mind again. Of course this is just a stereotype and should be ignored.