Simple Question for Republicans and Conservatives

[Ibleedburgundy]

Can you name a single policy that Republicans and conservatives currently support that would help the lower class have a net increase to their incomes?

[akhhorus]

Is it required for both parties and every economic plan to include making the lower classes' net income rise? I have no problem letting them still pay no tax, but economic policy should be focusing on getting the middle class more economically mobile imo.

[RedskinsDave]

Can you name a single policy that Republicans and conservatives currently support that would help the lower class have a net increase to their incomes?

Why would there be? You guys are the ones who want to give people things they haven't earned. I prefer people have the opportunity to better themselves through education and hard work. Both are readily available.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Is it required for both parties and every economic plan to include making the lower classes' net income rise?

Given the trends of economic inequality in the country, yes, it should be.

I have no problem letting them still pay no tax, .

Not sure what you mean by "letting them still pay no tax." Anyone who works pays federal taxes. Anyone who drives a car, buys a ciggarrette, etc... But if you truly believe they should pay no tax, perhaps a payroll tax exclusion for the first $20,000 of income would make sense.

but economic policy should be focusing on getting the middle class more economically mobile imo

To your second point, the two are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, their aims are very much aligned.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Why would there be? You guys are the ones who want to give people things they haven't earned. I prefer people have the opportunity to better themselves through education and hard work. Both are readily available.

There are many policies that can help the lower class increase their incomes that don't involve handouts to people who don't work.

To name a few:

increase minimum wage to a living wage

support unions for blue collar workers in the private sector

support more protectionist policies like Germany

support student loan programs

support public education

support a consumer protection agency

I could go on. But my question is as simple as it gets, and I have yet to hear an answer.

[cal_junior]

Why would there be? You guys are the ones who want to give people things they haven't earned. I prefer people have the opportunity to better themselves through education and hard work. Both are readily available.

I'd have more sympathy for this side of the fence if Republicans didn't coddle the most notorious takers-of-what-they-haven't-earned - corporations.

[akhhorus]

Given the trends of economic inequality in the country, yes, it should be.

I have zero problem with taxing millionaires higher(even millionaires support that). But the solution is to strengthen social safety nets and expand college(and especially community college) grants/cheap loans for low income people.

Not sure what you mean by "letting them still pay no tax." Anyone who works pays federal taxes. Anyone who drives a car, buys a ciggarrette, etc... But if you truly believe they should pay no tax, perhaps a payroll tax exclusion for the first $20,000 of income would make sense.

Thats fine with me. I would even go farther and make it for the first 70k of income in exchange for a carbon tax.

[RedskinsDave]

There are many policies that can help the lower class increase their incomes that don't involve handouts to people who don't work.

To name a few:

increase minimum wage to a living wage

Because that always fixes everything. It never has and it never will. Individual states need to decide what qualifies as a living wage, not the Feds or some bleeding heart who thinks a McDonald's worker should be able to own a home.

support unions for blue collar workers in the private sector

Or dissolve unions so they can stop making outrageous demands. Right to work states do just fine, thank you.

support more protectionist policies like Germany

Germany huh? Mmmkay

support student loan programs

What a red hearing. The current student loan programs and very generous. Talk to the liberals who run the schools if you have an issue with affordability. A college degree is attainable to those willing to work for it.

support public education

support a consumer protection agency

I could go on. But my question is as simple as it gets, and I have yet to hear an answer.

You could go on but all you want to hear is some leftist b.s. Reality is not welcome.

[Keino]

I'd have more sympathy for this side of the fence if Republicans didn't coddle the most notorious takers-of-what-they-haven't-earned - corporations.

This!

[SkinsKY]

Why would there be? You guys are the ones who want to give people things they haven't earned. I prefer people have the opportunity to better themselves through education and hard work. Both are readily available.

Opportunity is the key word. I support people having opportunity to better thenselves. My grandfather and father busted their tail so I didn't have to be in the lower class as they were. I'm not sure why others can't do the same.

Why is it the government's job to control anyone's income?

[justinskins]

Opportunity is the key word. I support people having opportunity to better thenselves. My grandfather and father busted their tail so I didn't have to be in the lower class as they were. I'm not sure why others can't do the same.

I'd buy this argument, if it weren't for all the generations of people who've busted their tails and gotten next to nothing.

[SkinsKY]

I'd buy this argument, if it weren't for all the generations of people who've busted their tails and gotten next to nothing.

Unfortunately, capitalism doesn't guarantee success. That's why i said opportunity is the key word. It's not an if/then of if hard work, then you have success, but it is part of the equation. Government intervention shouldn't be.

[RedskinsDave]

I'd buy this argument, if it weren't for all the generations of people who've busted their tails and gotten next to nothing.

This doesn't exist. There is no place where generations of a family have all busted their tails and still have nothing. Unless they've chosen to live above their means or have 20 kids or whatever the reason might be, I don't buy that this happens.

I have a lot of friends who are first generation here and their parents moved to the U.S., busted their tails so their kids could have a better life and they accomplished just that. Many of them did so working blue collar jobs. If immigrants can do this, there isn't any real reason why every can't.

[RedskinsDave]

Let me add: there are plenty of people who work an honest day, support their families and don't advance much. I've worked with and employed people like this. There is nothing wrong with it but it doesn't support the idea that people bust their tails and never improve.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Unfortunately, capitalism doesn't guarantee success. That's why i said opportunity is the key word. It's not an if/then of if hard work, then you have success, but it is part of the equation. Government intervention shouldn't be.

So are you saying as long as a fraction of people per generation are able to demonstrate upward mobility is posible, there is absolutely no standard to which you would expect the poor to be treated in terms of income? No level of poverty or pay inequality would cause you to think there ought to be some level of Government intervention? You think the policy should be dictated by the exception - the select few - and not the many?

Right now we are headed towards an inevitable crisis. Opportunities for upward mobility have been reduced:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/16/the-end-of-upward-mobility.html

Pay inequality has been drastically increased, and it sure as hell isn't performance-based:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html

I think the problem with your idealogy is that it doesn't acknowledge the inexorable: Not everyone can run a business, there will always be blue collar workers, there will always be a lower class. At some point this becomes a choice as a nation on how we are going to treat these people.

[akhhorus]

So are you saying as long as a fraction of people per generation are able to demonstrate upward mobility is posible, there is absolutely no standard to which you would expect the poor to be treated in terms of income? No level of poverty or pay inequality would cause you to think there ought to be some level of Government intervention? You think the policy should be dictated by the exception - the select few - and not the many?

Right now we are headed towards an inevitable crisis. Opportunities for upward mobility have been reduced:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/16/the-end-of-upward-mobility.html

Pay inequality has been drastically increased, and it sure as hell isn't performance-based:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html

I think the problem with your idealogy is that it doesn't acknowledge the inexorable: Not everyone can run a business, there will always be blue collar workers, there will always be a lower class. At some point this becomes a choice as a nation on how we are going to treat these people.

You can't just tax the bejesus out of the rich to hand to the poor though. That being said, taxes on the rich are historically low(as are all taxes) and they should be increased gradually to pay for infrastructure projects and to pay down the deficit.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm just curious how businesses are supposed to just pay lesser skilled people just for the hell of it. If the worker isn't worth more to the company, there isn't any reason why they should make more money. That's purely a union mentality. Merely existing warrants a raise for some reason.

[akhhorus]

I'm just curious how businesses are supposed to just pay lesser skilled people just for the hell of it. If the worker isn't worth more to the company, there isn't any reason why they should make more money. That's purely a union mentality. Merely existing warrants a raise for some reason.

+1. Good, hard workers deserve all the raises that they can get since they're hard to find, but raises-outside of cost of living-have to be earned.

[justinskins]

This doesn't exist. There is no place where generations of a family have all busted their tails and still have nothing. Unless they've chosen to live above their means or have 20 kids or whatever the reason might be, I don't buy that this happens.

We'll have to agree to disagree. My sense that there are plenty of people who are working two jobs, working themselves to exhaustion at just one job on farms or in factories, settling for crap jobs in retail or service industries because there just aren't enough work opportunities to go around, trying to put their kids through school, getting frustrated when they see that a college education isn't worth that much any more, and just generally not getting anywhere close to financial security despite all that. My conclusion is that our economic system is designed to keep the people who do the really hard work as poor as possible. Just my opinion.

Of course, anyone can get rich - if they get one of those cushy jobs on Wall Street playing roulette with other people's money. I guess that's what they call "equality of opportunity." But once again, that's just my opinion.

[RedskinsDave]

With rare exception, my wealthiest friends all grew up as middle class government kids. Even my own brother who college wasn't for has made a pretty nice life for himself working a non-union blue collar job. Part of his path was paved by joining the Army. Unless someone gets 4 kids and 30 years into their life, I don't see where they live as a good excuse either.

[SkinsKY]

So are you saying as long as a fraction of people per generation are able to demonstrate upward mobility is posible, there is absolutely no standard to which you would expect the poor to be treated in terms of income? No level of poverty or pay inequality would cause you to think there ought to be some level of Government intervention? You think the policy should be dictated by the exception - the select few - and not the many?

Right now we are headed towards an inevitable crisis. Opportunities for upward mobility have been reduced:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/16/the-end-of-upward-mobility.html

Pay inequality has been drastically increased, and it sure as hell isn't performance-based:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html

I think the problem with your idealogy is that it doesn't acknowledge the inexorable: Not everyone can run a business, there will always be blue collar workers, there will always be a lower class. At some point this becomes a choice as a nation on how we are going to treat these people.

Do I want the government to do it? Nope. Not one bit. I do believe that my role as a Christian is to give to organizations and help others who might need help. I believe that's my personal responsibility. It's not the government's. Even from a practicality standpoint, the government is so inefficient, they'd throw most of my money away before they gave it to someone who's milking the system. I'd rather give money to people I know who need it and are responsible, or a group I trust to do the right thing with it.

The thing is, this widening of the income gap isn't being viewed in the right way. The gap might be widening, but poor people today are better off than poor people in the past. The top level of earners might possess a higher fraction of the pie than before, but the pie is so much larger than it used to be. People like Gates, the late Jobs, Sergey Brin, Buffet, et al should be able to make as much money as they want. Most of us are able to earn more money than we could before as a direct result of their work. Why should they make less because I am not as smart as they are?

Mathematically, you are right about their always being a lower class. Someone has to be last. There's no way around it. But, capitalism is a meritocracy. I shouldn't earn as much as Gates. If you can't run a business, that's fine, but others shouldn't earn less because you can't do the same thing they can. Back to my original illustration of my family. My grandfather never left the lower class. Stayed poor until he passed. My dad barely got out. I may never move into a higher tax bracket than where I am now, and that's fine. My son will, and that's my goal.

[Keino]

With rare exception, my wealthiest friends all grew up as middle class government kids. Even my own brother who college wasn't for has made a pretty nice life for himself working a non-union blue collar job. Part of his path was paved by joining the Army. Unless someone gets 4 kids and 30 years into their life, I don't see where they live as a good excuse either.

All of my wealthy friends grew up with all the advantages of the upper-middle class. Best schools, best infrastructure in their neighborhoods, best support systems outside of their homes and best access to information. They aren't better off because they worked harder than everyone else, they are better off because they were better positioned to start, had legacy consideration to the best schools and had the best contacts after school.

[Ibleedburgundy]

You can't just tax the bejesus out of the rich to hand to the poor though.

I agree with that. That's why I think poor people who are actually working - at least it should be worth their time.

[justinskins]

The thing is, this widening of the income gap isn't being viewed in the right way. The gap might be widening, but poor people today are better off than poor people in the past.

Depends on when you define "past." Let's take a look.

Real Median Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 49,445 (113)
1990: 48,423 (111)
1970: 43,766 (100)

Real 20th Percentile Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 20,000 (108)
1990: 20,215 (109)
1970: 18,480 (100)

Real 10th Percentile Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 11,904 (117)
1990: 11,838 (117)
1970: 10,152 (100)

Real per capita GDP (1970 at 100):
2010: 37,797 (207)
1990: 28,299 (155)
1970: 18,229 (100)

I'll admit those years are arbitrary and are slightly misleading given that they do not coincide with the business cycle. With that caveat, it is quite clear that the modest income gains of poor and average people over the past twenty years have been wiped out by the recent recession. There's no sign they will come back. The American worker is under constant pressure to become more and more productive. All the benefit of that increased productivity goes to capital.

It's particularly obscene when you consider that national income per person has increased over 100% since 1970, but average people have seen their incomes increase in the 10-20% range. Poor and average people are only marginally better off. Meanwhile, their share of the pie gets smaller and smaller.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Even from a practicality standpoint, the government is so inefficient, they'd throw most of my money away before they gave it to someone who's milking the system. I'd rather give money to people I know who need it and are responsible, or a group I trust to do the right thing with it.


Government Social Security is one of the most efficient organizations in the entire world at 0.9% overhead costs:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

You mentioned Christianity. You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian organization that is anywhere near as efficient as the social security program administered by the Federal Government. The very best/most efficient Christian Charities have quadrouple the overhead costs of the social security program. Many of them are far more than that, ranging from 10-35% - and these are only the ones who choose to disclose their finances. Many do not, such as Pat Robertson's Christian organization. You can search for yourself:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

[RedskinsDave]

All of my wealthy friends grew up with all the advantages of the upper-middle class. Best schools, best infrastructure in their neighborhoods, best support systems outside of their homes and best access to information. They aren't better off because they worked harder than everyone else, they are better off because they were better positioned to start, had legacy consideration to the best schools and had the best contacts after school.

I guess my friends are harder workers. Two of them have no college degrees at all.

[Death_Venom]

Government Social Security is one of the most efficient organizations in the entire world at 0.9% overhead costs:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

You mentioned Christianity. You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian organization that is anywhere near as efficient as the social security program administered by the Federal Government. The very best/most efficient Christian Charities have quadrouple the overhead costs of the social security program. Many of them are far more than that, ranging from 10-35% - and these are only the ones who choose to disclose their finances. Many do not, such as Pat Robertson's Christian organization. You can search for yourself:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

The Salvation Army-to name one.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The Salvation Army-to name one.

The salvation army has 17% overhead and receives approximately $351 million from the Government per year. It isn't even close:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/14/pf_phil_06charities_Salvation-Army_CH0144.html

Those are not particularly good numbers relative to other charities of a similar nature:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

[cal_junior]

I guess my friends are harder workers. Two of them have no college degrees at all.

I obviously don't know your friends, but based on my life experience the successful folks are usually "smarter" workers rather than "harder" workers. Busting your tail doesn't = success unless it's directed properly and comes in concert with talent.

My most well-off friends are that way because they have talent and were fortunate enough to find a market for that talent. Some work their butts off, a few don't.

[SkinsKY]

Depends on when you define "past." Let's take a look.

Real Median Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 49,445 (113)
1990: 48,423 (111)
1970: 43,766 (100)

Real 20th Percentile Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 20,000 (108)
1990: 20,215 (109)
1970: 18,480 (100)

Real 10th Percentile Household Income (1970 at 100):
2010: 11,904 (117)
1990: 11,838 (117)
1970: 10,152 (100)

Real per capita GDP (1970 at 100):
2010: 37,797 (207)
1990: 28,299 (155)
1970: 18,229 (100)

I'll admit those years are arbitrary and are slightly misleading given that they do not coincide with the business cycle. With that caveat, it is quite clear that the modest income gains of poor and average people over the past twenty years have been wiped out by the recent recession. There's no sign they will come back. The American worker is under constant pressure to become more and more productive. All the benefit of that increased productivity goes to capital.

It's particularly obscene when you consider that national income per person has increased over 100% since 1970, but average people have seen their incomes increase in the 10-20% range. Poor and average people are only marginally better off. Meanwhile, their share of the pie gets smaller and smaller.

I don't bank in shares of the pie. I bank in dollars. Would you rather be poor in 1970 because you had a larger share of the pie back than you would now? If you have more money than me, it doesn't affect my ability to make money. It's not a zero sum game. Bill Gates made ridiculous amounts of money, but he also made it easier for me to make money, so I am better off because of him and people like him. Do I deserve some of his money because he has too much? It seems a lot of this angst also seems to be directed at corporate greed, which seems to be defined as either trying to make money, or trying to make money at another's expense. The former, I have no issue with. I'm trying to make money myself. The amount shouldn't matter. The second has some issues for me, but it's not the making of money that's the problem. Good business can benefit both parties. Making money is an amoral pursuit. It's how you do it that seems more important.

Government Social Security is one of the most efficient organizations in the entire world at 0.9% overhead costs:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

You mentioned Christianity. You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian organization that is anywhere near as efficient as the social security program administered by the Federal Government. The very best/most efficient Christian Charities have quadrouple the overhead costs of the social security program. Many of them are far more than that, ranging from 10-35% - and these are only the ones who choose to disclose their finances. Many do not, such as Pat Robertson's Christian organization. You can search for yourself:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

And yet why is Social Security reform an area of focus every election?

To clarify, I did not mean to mention my faith as some kind of trump card. I mentioned it to help give context for why I feel it is our job as private citizens to help others vs the government. Being a Christian (organization or person) does not make you inherently better (see: Tebow, Tim). Groups like the Salvation Army, Pat Robertson and others are not more deserving of my time/money because they are Christians. I also would not withhold time/money from a group simply because they are not a Christian group if I thought they were bringing positive change into a community.

That said, I skew towards small groups, volunteer efforts and the like where things stay more personal. The scope may not be as broad, but I feel that it can be more effective. I also skew towards groups that teach life skills, and offer educational opportunities in practical areas because I think that beats throwing money at the problem.

The bigger issue to me isn't how much money people have, but how they tend to spend it. Lottery spending increases as you move down the economic ladder. We have a culture that has lost its inhibitions with amassing piles of debt to live beyond our means, buying houses we can't afford and trying to borrow our way to wealth. I think protesters would be better served protesting check cashing places than they would Wall Street. If people, on the whole, are making poor choices with their money, how is giving them more money going to fix it?

[RedskinsDave]

Excellent post, Brandon.

[justinskins]

I don't bank in shares of the pie. I bank in dollars. Would you rather be poor in 1970 because you had a larger share of the pie back than you would now?

Even in absolute terms most people are no better off today than they were 20 years ago. They are not even that much better off than they were 40 years ago.

*EDIT* I only bring this up because you claimed earlier that the poor are better of today than they are in the past. I think that is only true to a very limited extent. It is less and less true with every passing year.

The larger point is this: why should a majority of the population consent to work to increase corporate profits when none of the increase goes back to them?

[Death_Venom]

The salvation army has 17% overhead and receives approximately $351 million from the Government per year. It isn't even close:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/14/pf_phil_06charities_Salvation-Army_CH0144.html

Those are not particularly good numbers relative to other charities of a similar nature:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

You are comparing a worldwide charity organization (that is in early every country in the world & has pay its workers) to a government bank rolled program-the scope and the overhead would be very different. Not only is the Salvation Army involved in food donations, it assists with numerous social service programs (utility assistance etc). Two very different machines being compared here.