Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 162163164165166 269> |
| Author | ||||
TGM: Orb 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
 Posted: September 22 2010 at 19:00 |
|||
3. Here's my source. [/QUOTE] This article goes through some verbal and logical acrobatics to place some obscure, partial responsibility for the death of Baby P (which is an event that's proved all-pervasive and highly emotive here) onto the DWP and thereby demonise that department - in light of that and its Murdochian providence, I wouldn't trust it to accurately represent the facts of welfare spending. |
||||
 |
||||
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 07:29 |
|||
They don't have to be linear and they don't have to have the same slope. The more elastic curve (the one with the flatter slope) will pay less of the tax because they are more able to adjust to the price change. So you are right, they don't have to share the tax equally, but they will share it unless one of the curves is perfectly elastic (which never happens.) |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 07:43 |
|||
Doubt the source all you want. Here's another that says welfare spending is 192 billion pounds, which is "nearly 200 billion." |
||||
|
||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5210 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 08:07 |
|||
|
According to this the U.S. is spending at minimum 40% on "Welfare."
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 08:14 |
|||
Also a shame. |
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 08:42 |
|||
"In his emergency budget, George Osborne told MPs the welfare bill had risen by 45% in a decade and that left unchecked it would soak up £192bn of the nation's income by 2015. He said the coalition government would present a bill in the autumn to reshape welfare."
Edited by Dean - September 23 2010 at 08:49 |
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 08:48 |
|||
Channel 4 says "Government handouts have soared by £60bn in the last ten years, with total welfare spending now standing at £192bn. " (Emphasis mine) and "...the explosion in costs is "one reason why there is no money left", and announced plans to make cuts worth £11bn by 2014/15." Either way, I'm not sure any of this hemming and hawing matters- my point is that government spending (both US and UK) is out of control and immoral. How long can such ridiculous spending be sustained? |
||||
|
||||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 08:53 |
|||
|
We're to add another 10 trillion to our national debt in this decade. The interest on that debt will approach 1 trillion by decade end.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 09:00 |
|||
|
^^ Unfortunately it is another example of tabloid politics.
The official statisitcs give welfare spending at £109b (16%) - how the press spin that is their own affair, which is why I asked in my flippancy "it depends on what you call welfare".
If UK welfare spending was so out of control and being paid-out immorally then lopping £11b off that over the next 5 years seems to me to be a spit in the ocean (or mere 1% reduction if you believe the £192b [either as a made-up number of today or a made-up projection of 2015]) and is barely worth thinking about and in the overall sceme of things just hyperbole and window dressing. Edited by Dean - September 23 2010 at 09:03 |
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 09:19 |
|||
So spending wasn't out of control, yet "This is an emergency budget, so let me speak plainly about the emergency that we face," Mr Osborne told MPs. and "The coalition government has inherited from its predecessor the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the single exception of Ireland." and "One pound in every four we spend is being borrowed. What we have not inherited from our predecessor is a credible plan to reduce their record deficit." Now at what point will you say government spending is out of control? (Yes, I am aware of your qualifier to spending, namely "welfare," but its presence does not change the thrust of my question- 109 billion pounds is still enormous if one pound in every four spent is borrowed). |
||||
|
||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:44 |
|||
|
Why aren't people so vocal in opposing war spending??
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:46 |
|||
23% on defense... Not a shame? Spending on healthcare and stuff is a shame, but spending on war, killing and machines of death is not a shame? Also, 4%, that's quite a lot of spending on Tarps... would they at least be vinyl or good old canvas?  |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:50 |
|||
As long as the killing machines are used on communists, I'm all for it.  |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:59 |
|||
People are. They're called liberals.  As I mentioned before, military spending is okay because a strong military is essential to maintaining our freedom and independence- and that is to the benefit of everyone. For the same reason, I don't oppose using state tax money for infrastructure. War spending...well, I guess that would depend on the war, wouldn't it? You can't paint military spending as "war" spending.
If you haven't figured out that I am opposed to most (but not all) government spending, then I'm not sure what to say. Just because the government spends money on a program, it doesn't mean people will be better off. In fact, I'd argue that when the government gets involved, things tend to get worse. Lik pubik egukashun |
||||
|
||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 13:02 |
|||
Now you're getting all muslim on me... Edited by The T - September 23 2010 at 13:07 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 13:06 |
|||
Well, the use of terms was poorly chosen. Let's agree on the need for "defense" spending. But is the 3 trillion (or more, I don't remember the actual figure) dollar-war really making us much safer??
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32553 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 13:14 |
|||
I try to take a measure of humility when it comes to talking about war. I've talked with men who are involved firsthand in the present conflict (or were, rather), and gotten some perspective about it all. That said, I do believe some of our efforts abroad are overextended and would like to see our foreign military presence overall reduced. |
||||
|
||||
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 13:16 |
|||
Well said. There are lots of military bases in Europe that are leftovers from the cold war and really have no business being there anymore. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 13:23 |
|||
Defense is certainly a sizable chunk of the pie, and serious efforts at deficit reduction will have to include cuts to it (and me saying that takes money out of my own pocket, by the way). But if you were to zero that out we would still be running a deficit - the entitlement programs are still the biggest component, and you will have to raise taxes, reduce benefits, or a combination thereof with respect to those programs to balance the budget.
|
||||
|
||||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: September 23 2010 at 15:57 |
|||
In here? I thought everyone agreed it needs to be cut, either some or drastically. I mean our good friend Mr Shields wants a giant mercenary company  Unless you mean in general. Conservatives are not libertarian....I'm pretty sure they like war! That or its anti-American to oppose it and thus you're a terrorist .  |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 162163164165166 269> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
For my Libertarian friends
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
Okay look, here (in my hastily scribbled diagram) is the supply and demand for labor. The government imposes a tax on the wages people ear equal to the distance between the supply and demand curves at Qt (the quantity of labor in the market with the tax.) Tax revenue is the shaded area T. The employer pays the wage Pe and the worker receives the wage Pw after taxes. If there were no tax, the quantity of labor in the market would be Qc and the wage would be Pc. The employer and worker share the tax burden equally. So the amount you would receive in absence of the tax is greater than y, but less than x.
\