Are you in favor of the FairTax?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Philistine

{My ellipsis}

It's my understanding this is not really the case. Do you have any support for this? Which countries would you take to have high levels of social programs compared to the US?

While the US has higher homicide rates than most European countries, it's my understanding that many European countries have higher overall crime rates than the US.

--Philistine

I'd imagine that depends on which statistics you look at, given that according to the International Crime Victimization Survey, only 52% of crimes in this country are reported, as opposed to percentages in the 60s for many European countries. That would tend to skew numbers.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I'd imagine that depends on which statistics you look at, given that according to the International Crime Victimization Survey, only 52% of crimes in this country are reported, as opposed to percentages in the 60s for many European countries. That would tend to skew numbers.

-m

Where are you getting your facts?

According to the ICVS--Here are the percentage reporting. They vary by crime--but in many cases US reporting percentages are higher than European. In any event, there is clearly not a chronic underreporting in the US compared to European.

For a great many sources of documents on international crime, look at United Nations Crime and Justice Information Networks Statistics Page.

From there, you can find data in a table by country (per 100,000 population) of total crime from 1980-1997 (not complete for every country).

For 1994, as an example (last year for US data), some comparisons of US with European countries:

US: 5375

Austria: 6285
Belgium: 5713
Denmark: 11,878
France: 6765
Germany: (1995): 8168
Italy: 3805
Sweden: 12,670
Switzerland: 5116

Table

--Philistine

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

In terms of use of social programs for crime reduction, here is an abstract from a study conducted by professors at Yale Law and Fordham Law in the Journal of Legal Studies (Vol. 27, Num. 1) titled "Allocating Resources among Prisons and Social Programs in the Battle against Crime":


That was the first google search. If I have time, I may provide further links to studies re: the societal benefit of social programs.

-m

Your citation relates the cost of expanding prisons (though no other possibilities), but not the cost of social spending. Just how much social spending is necessary for a 15% drop in crime rate? And will more spending further reduce crime, or are we looking at an asymptote here?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Your citation relates the cost of expanding prisons (though no other possibilities), but not the cost of social spending. Just how much social spending is necessary for a 15% drop in crime rate? And will more spending further reduce crime, or are we looking at an asymptote here?

the most relevant portion of the citation is repeated below.

To achieve cost-effective crime reduction from social spending, therefore, one needs to channel resources to the highest crime individuals. Although such targeting can be politically controversial, it is possible to achieve more crime reduction through very enriched pre-school spending programs if one can target narrowly and if the broadly adopted pre-school programs could achieve about one-half the crime-reducing benefits of the small pilot projects that have been conducted to date.

-m

[Bayou Bum]

For 1994, as an example (last year for US data), some comparisons of US with European countries:

US: 5375

Austria: 6285
Belgium: 5713
Denmark: 11,878
France: 6765
Germany: (1995): 8168
Italy: 3805
Sweden: 12,670
Switzerland: 5116

Way to go Sweden

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Philistine

US: 5375

Austria: 6285
Belgium: 5713
Denmark: 11,878
France: 6765
Germany: (1995): 8168
Italy: 3805
Sweden: 12,670
Switzerland: 5116

Table

--Philistine

Meh. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I should warn both sides in this thread of the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument they are making here. Example: countries in Europe may just catch a higher percentage of their criminals, or consider more things a crime.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Meh. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I should warn both sides in this thread of the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument they are making here. Example: countries in Europe may just catch a higher percentage of their criminals, or consider more things a crime.

In fact, according to the details for those surveys:

SOURCES OF DATA

It should be stressed that the data in these data sets
represent the official statistics of member countries of the
United Nations. They are the statistics which countries
have chosen to make available to international exposure.

This makes it a nearly useless survey without a better understanding of the reporting structures within the countries.

-m

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

the most relevant portion of the citation is repeated below.



-m

You say so...doesn't make any sense to me. From what I could get from it, though, I didn't see anything saying how much would have to be spent (even relative to jails - which again are but one idea), or how much difference it would make. Basically, all I could see was "Look, this just works better." No explanations of how or why or how much better.

[keith]

the statement that greater social spending reduces crime is a rather worthless generalization. There is evidence that providing quality education/socialization to children from lower socioeconomic groups (very PC eh?) can help reduce the chances of them growing up to be muggers and drug dealers.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

In fact, according to the details for those surveys:
This makes it a nearly useless survey without a better understanding of the reporting structures within the countries.

Certainly.

You would grant however, that it is at least slightly more useful than your bare assertion that nations with more social programs have less crime?

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Meh. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I should warn both sides in this thread of the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument they are making here. Example: countries in Europe may just catch a higher percentage of their criminals, or consider more things a crime.

I'm not actually making an argument beyond the statistics. I'm just challenging the oft-repeated chestnut that crime in the US is generally higher than that of Western Europe.

As I pointed out, what I've seen which attempts to quantify the issue does not support that (though generally US murder rates and gun crimes rates are higher).

I'd be interested in actual statistics from reputable organizations--even if flawed--which tended to show otherwise.

--Philstine

[jeff]

In my opinion much of this conversation is mis-directed. Characterizing social policies as handouts to the (implied) undeserving poor already colors the discussion.

We already direct a great deal of resources to benefit one economic sector or another, and somebody on the Left (none of whom are prominent on this board) would argue that US is already far tilted to ensuring the financial benefits of large corporations first, and wealthy citizens second, except the national debate tends to not focus on the handouts that go in those directions. Corporate contracts from the government (with revolving doors between government staff and corporate lobbyists and directors), subsidies, lease or sale of US assets at way-below-market rates, tax exemptions, regressive taxation, bailouts, non-enforcement of environmental, securities and tax laws (in the last, selective enforcement targetted anywhere except corporations and the wealthy), tariffs that help one industry or another at the expense of the consumer, credit laws, and other forms of corporate welfare. Despite the ridiculous amount of money spent on election campaigns, far more is spent on lobbying (especially telcos, pharma, and energy), and it's money well spent. I would also say that we've had unfettered capitalism (eg: the Gilded Age, the pre-Depression period), and that corporations do even better now than they did then.

I'd like to add that we might think, occasionally, about the unfortunate among us. One can argue that policies connected to them are inefficient or ineffective, but to simply write them off is at the very least uncompassionate.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Some critics would charge that these policies will lead to a less competitive role in the world economy, but this is flat out untrue. The EU is the leading exporter in the world. of the largest 140 companies in the world, 50 are US, 61 are European.

Are they the largest exporter because their own citizens don't have enough discretionary capital to buy the products they make? As a producer, don't you ship to where the money is?

[keith]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Are they the largest exporter because their own citizens don't have enough discretionary capital to buy the products they make? As a producer, don't you ship to where the money is?

actually this is just flat out the wrong way round - plenty of money, just saved. Same is true for Japan. The US has been happy to float its economy on low interest rates (and what were briefly negative savings rates, but have now climbed to 0.2% or so) other nations have simply taken advantage of this.

Long term it is of course a problem, demographics (remember a year or two ago all the commentry on old old europe) is catching up with the US as well. Savings rates will have to climb and consumption decrease in the US. Now assuming Europe and Japan can coax out more consumer spending then that should balance out - but for the american economy that is only any good if american business is selling anything these countries want to buy - especially on the export front.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

We already direct a great deal of resources to benefit one economic sector or another, and somebody on the Left (none of whom are prominent on this board) would argue that US is already far tilted to ensuring the financial benefits of large corporations first, and wealthy citizens second, except the national debate tends to not focus on the handouts that go in those directions. Corporate contracts from the government (with revolving doors between government staff and corporate lobbyists and directors), subsidies, lease or sale of US assets at way-below-market rates, tax exemptions, regressive taxation, bailouts, non-enforcement of environmental, securities and tax laws (in the last, selective enforcement targetted anywhere except corporations and the wealthy), tariffs that help one industry or another at the expense of the consumer, credit laws, and other forms of corporate welfare. Despite the ridiculous amount of money spent on election campaigns, far more is spent on lobbying (especially telcos, pharma, and energy), and it's money well spent. I would also say that we've had unfettered capitalism (eg: the Gilded Age, the pre-Depression period), and that corporations do even better now than they did then.

I'd like to add that we might think, occasionally, about the unfortunate among us. One can argue that policies connected to them are inefficient or ineffective, but to simply write them off is at the very least uncompassionate.

I am against welfare of MOST sorts, but most especially corporate welfare. I wish the politicos from either side, who come out against corporate welfare could get some national play. I also wish they had more than just passion to run on. Quite a few of them while fervent, are too often, nincompoops who are easily branded as socialist wackos (ironic isn't it). In my opinion, corporate welfare must end with initiatives from the Right. The Left is too easily ignored on this issue... there they go again, same old tired arguments (even if they aren't), or, if they actually do get a fair shot, distracted by transient hot topics.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

In my opinion much of this conversation is mis-directed. Characterizing social policies as handouts to the (implied) undeserving poor already colors the discussion.

We already direct a great deal of resources to benefit one economic sector or another, and somebody on the Left (none of whom are prominent on this board) would argue that US is already far tilted to ensuring the financial benefits of large corporations first, and wealthy citizens second, except the national debate tends to not focus on the handouts that go in those directions. Corporate contracts from the government (with revolving doors between government staff and corporate lobbyists and directors), subsidies, lease or sale of US assets at way-below-market rates, tax exemptions, regressive taxation, bailouts, non-enforcement of environmental, securities and tax laws (in the last, selective enforcement targetted anywhere except corporations and the wealthy), tariffs that help one industry or another at the expense of the consumer, credit laws, and other forms of corporate welfare. Despite the ridiculous amount of money spent on election campaigns, far more is spent on lobbying (especially telcos, pharma, and energy), and it's money well spent. I would also say that we've had unfettered capitalism (eg: the Gilded Age, the pre-Depression period), and that corporations do even better now than they did then.

I'd like to add that we might think, occasionally, about the unfortunate among us. One can argue that policies connected to them are inefficient or ineffective, but to simply write them off is at the very least uncompassionate.

I can't really speak to what's given to the corporate side of things, but I'm by no means trying to write off the unfortunate entirely. I simply think that an objective look needs to be taken at any welfare program to decide whether or not it's actually going to be cost-effective. Also, if a program starts out well but then ceases to be effective, we need to be able to cut it - and not have politicians all worried about looking the badguy for being the ones to call time of death.

[scrapinpeg]

I am opposed to imposing a tax on fair people.

This creates an incentive to either (1) start being a jerk, or (2) go tanning at the risk of skin cancer.

Bad idea.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I can't really speak to what's given to the corporate side of things, but I'm by no means trying to write off the unfortunate entirely. I simply think that an objective look needs to be taken at any welfare program to decide whether or not it's actually going to be cost-effective. Also, if a program starts out well but then ceases to be effective, we need to be able to cut it - and not have politicians all worried about looking the badguy for being the ones to call time of death.

I can speak to the corporate side of things, and I respectfully suggest that you undertake some study of how government policy and tax dollars benefit the corporation, frequently at the expense of, and to the detriment of the private citizen, and subsidizing other protected parts of the economy. Everything from corporate welfare (why do we need to subsidize ADM?) to providing basic infrastructure: billions go to the interstate highway system to subsidize a style of economics (and the industries depending on them) that may have made sense when gas was 0.25/gallon, yet even then represented building the suburbs at the direct expense of the cities. That's a big handout, too.

Regarding welfare: That kind of investigation has been done many times, and of course consensus wasn't reached but we had Clinton's "end of welfare as we know it". People were pushed off welfare rolls in large numbers.

But - talking about welfare really distorts the discussion. Immediately, people think in terms of "welfare cheats" and "lazy bums". Social programs that we've been discussing include the massive programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicate, plus many other programs of smaller size for everything from school lunches (and educational aid) to kids to programs to the elderly. Why do you assume that the appropriate analysis hasn't been done? Oh, it's just so easy to go "those darn welfare bums are the reason taxes are so high". Yeah. Sure. And, let's remember that Mr. Bush is quoted from school days as having expressed the opinion that the poor are poor because they're lazy.

Don't think that's the entire picture. Since we're now talking about programs that "start out well but then cease to be effective" lets consider the military.

If there were a meaningful left or liberal side to modern politics (despite what Fox says, there is none) there would be political expression (as there used to be, and is frequently seen overseas) of the idea that our military is extremely bloated and expensive. A pacifist would say that our enormous military (several times the size of the next several countries added together) is a tax burden on everyone making our lives much more expensive than any and all welfare programs, and that our power makes us belligerant and uninterested in multilateral diplomacy, hence creating animosity and reducing, not increasing our safety. Somebody of a less sweeping point of view would say that it's incredibly wasteful, and ask why it's so hard to cancel obscenely expensive weapons programs (when sometimes even the Pentagon wants to kill them), from the new planes that don't work (IIRC, the Osprey?) to the M1A Abrams. Well, those capital-intensive systems are corporate welfare for the defense industry. There would be questions about why there are so many military bases that can't be shut down because local congressmen fight for them. That's welfare for entire regions living on handouts from the rest of the country. There could even be questions about why we have the government-paid military academies. How many fighter pilots are needed for the war on terror? Why weren't they downsized when the Cold War ended?

But no, let's just talk about how social programs for the poor and middle class must be the reason taxes are so high. And, let's pass more tax cuts on the wealthiest; after all, they need it so badly