Are the politics and economics of the welfare state at odds with each other?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhtJMDEziKnrRbaAvffgyHbsy6IX?qid=20070817070946AAkVg71

Yes we have less of a welfare state than we did before - though the top two candidates from one party have long opposed the policy shifts that have led to this result.

What we've done is reversed the vicious cycle - - the government's game of musical chairs with jobs - - taking the dollar I would have spent on a widget or invested in ACME widget company, funneling it through a bureaucracy that employs some campaign staffer's brother-in-law and then doling out 25 cents six months later to some guy who used to be on the 3rd shift at ACME when ACME had a third shift, which it would still have if people like me had bought those widgets.

But in the long run, financially, to maintain a welfare state, doesn't it need to be the case that most people aren't clients or potential clients - are well off enough to support a welfare state for a small minority?

And can we understand how a graduated income tax with high rates prevented people from joining that affluent class? Can we understand why cutting those marginal rates has led to a migration to that class?

You can deny it all you want but the data doesn't lie - the rich are richer but they're also a lot more numerous. 92% of the households that have left the middle class - defined as 2X - 5X the poverty level of income - have moved UP (and if you define it differently the spread is still 90/10, 94/6, etc... - the shift is clearly there).

Isn't that, financially, what you NEED to happen to maintain a welfare state for those few who remain at the bottom?

(And it is few - or it would be if we stopped importing people at the bottom).

gandamack gets it!!!!!

Finally somebody sees the bigger picture!!!!!

nostradamus I do consider corporate welfare and it too is WRONG - it is perhaps even more insidious in that it interferes with production - - production decisions should be based on consumer demand, i.e., on profit.

"Unsure. As for tax cuts for the rich, this always results in a new generation of poverty. it happened in the 80s. Thanks to Bush, it will happen again."

ChiGuy you enjoy making up your own facts I guess..... Sorry but the Census Bureau data refute you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

Economic mobility in absolute terms has INCREASED DRAMATICALLY since the Reagan tax cuts. The record is clear - the notion of a "new generation of poor people" is the opposite of what has happened - - - we've IMPORTED a new generation of poor people but that has nothing to do with economic policy - apart from the fact that they came here to take some of the jobs that were created.

Unemployment is LESS THAN HALF of what it was before the tax cuts - how can you argue that poverty has increased????

There are more poor people but not in proportion to the population and far less than the number of poor people that have come here. The growth in number of rich people has far outpaced population growth.

Answer 1

if you consider corporate welfare, we actually have a larger welfare state than we ever have before.

we pay the taxes of the oil companies who then rape us at the pump.

we subsidize tobacco farming - so that cigarettes can then kill more people than all ohter diseases put together.

we pay more for drugs than any other nation in the world - because our politicians have been bought and paid for.

Answer 2

Did you know that one group wants to put the ENTIRE country on the dole? That's right, there is one group who actually wants every single person in America to receive a "relief" check from Uncle Sam. I'm talking about the FairTax. It would have every person with a social security number getting a monthly check from the feds. The FairTax has been wonderfully marketed as meaningful reform that appeals to those fed up with the system, but serious research will show you that it just makes taking more of your money that much simpler.

Okay, now that I've thrown out my unFairTax rant, I agree with you. As an engineer I can tell you that every level of complexity further robs you of efficiency. If I give a dollar (willingly) to a charity that gives it to the poor I might lose a dime due to administration costs. 90 cents still feeds the poor. However, if my dollar has to be forcibly taken from me (taxed), collected at a central point, handed over to accountants, distributed to a local beauracracy, and finally used to help a man who has had to apply and wait for the beauracracy to decide he needs it.....well....he'll be lucky to see a dime total of my dollar. Which means the government has to take nine of my dollars to do the same thing I could do for a buck if the government left me alone. And as the government decides more people need help the beauracracy grows, which means they need even more. Pretty soon there will only be two types of people in America: those who collect, and those who receive. And this will only last until the country has been stripped bare.

Answer 3

Unsure. As for tax cuts for the rich, this always results in a new generation of poverty. it happened in the 80s. Thanks to Bush, it will happen again.

The reality that SOME republicans refuse to acknowledge is that Clinton era fiscal policies nurtured an environment that created wealth versus making the wealthy wealthier.

Reaganomics simply tripled the revenue for the wealthy and well off, while creating a fiscal barrier for the poor and the struggling.

Answer 4

Yes...sooner or later all the taxpayers will be taxed into welfare and then who will pay?..we subsidized jimmy carter into a millionaire as a peanut farmer who was paid not to grow peanuts...go figure